The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-16-1998 City Council packetPublic hearings will start promptly at 8:00, when the Council will move from whatever item it is considering at that time to public hearings. Note: Devices to assist the hearing impaired are now available in the lobby. AGENDA TIME: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 6 :30 p.m. Closed session in Administration Conference Room pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for conference with Labor Negotiator Agency negotiator: Larry L Perlin Employee organization: Saratoga Management Organization and Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 for conference with legal counsel existing litigation Name of case: San Francisco Baykeepers et al. v. Saratoga Mayor's Report on Closed Session 7:30.- Pledge of Allegiance 73 1. ROLL CALL SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 4 'L2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS Introduction of New Employees 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 11. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS City Council Agenda 2 September 16, 1998 B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMNIISSIONS None C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1) Letter from Hakone Foundation regarding fee increases Recommended Action: Approve fees as recommended. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR These items will be acted upon in one motion for each section unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilmembers or any interested party. However, items in Section A have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where the public was invited to comment, after which the hearing was closed. Those items are not subject to public discussion at this meeting because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. A. Previously Discussed Items None New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 9/9 Note and file. 2) Resolution amending Conflict of Interest Code 3) Approval of Check Register 4) Amendment to Cal ID Agreement 5) Memo authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings No hearings scheduled October 7 0 City Council Agenda 3 September 16, 1998 6) Resolution on Criminal History C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 p.m. A. Appeal of Denial of Design Review approval to construct a new 5,991 sq. ft., two story residence on a vacant 4.89 acre parcel located at 22111 Villa Oaks Lane (Lot 11) in a Hillside Residential zoning district (DR98- 003)(APN 503 -78 -029) Applicant/appellant, Douglass) Recommended Action: Deny appeal, upholding Planning Commission denial. B. Appeal of Denial of Design Review Approval to construct a new 5,048 sq. ft. residence at a height of 20 feet from natural grade. The site is 1.8 acres located at 14190 Palomino Way in a Hillside Residential zoning district (DR98- 002)(APN 503 -68 -002) (Applicant/appellant, Addison) Recommended Action: Deny appeal, upholding Planning Commission denial. City Council Agenda 4 September 16, 1998 7. OLD BUSINESS r A Zoning Ordinance Amendments (second reading and adoption) Proposed amendments q include revisions to the Building Floor Area and Average Site Slope definitions, the Building Floor Area Reduction requirements, the Administrative Design Review and Accessory Structure Review process, and the Sign Ordinance. New regulations would include a restriction on the number of wood burning fireplaces allowed and the creation of a creek protection setback for new construction. In addition, amendments are being proposed to the Lot Impervious Coverage requirements to match the language of the Measure G initiative. The proposed amendments have been determined to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Recommended Action: Adopt ordinances by title only, waiving further reading. A. Annexation 98- 001 Lands of Kim Foster, APN 503 -13 -122, Mt. Eden Road .0 Recommended Action: Adopt resolution. 8. NEW BUSINESS B. Lease Agreement for Nextel Communications Site Recommended Action: Approve agreement. City Council Agenda 5 September 16, 1998 9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Approval of Minutes September 2; September 8 (to be delivered next week) 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The purpose of listing the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but simply to decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the meeting of September 22.) 2 B. Other 1) Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission 2) Septic Systems Abandonment Update from City Attorney 3) City Manager Evaluation 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 1 nr� City Council Agenda 6 September 16, 1998 ID 12. ADJOURNMENT to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday September 22, 1998, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title 11]. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Letter from Hakone Foundation concerning rental fee increases RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Move to approve the proposed fee changes as submitted. REPORT SUMMARY: AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: DEPT. HEAD: Periodically, the Hakone Foundation submits proposed changes to the fee schedule for rental of the facilities at the gardens to the City Council for approval. This is required under the terms of the Management and Operations Agreement between the City and the Foundation, see attached. The latest proposed changes approved by the Foundation Board are contained in the attached letter dated August 17. As the Foundation has now solidly assumed control over the management and operations of the property and the rationale for the changes appears justified, it is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed changes as submitted. FISCAL IMPACTS: None directly. Revenues derived from rental activities at the gardens are retained by the Foundation to cover operating and maintenance expenses in connection with the property. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. `-IL CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The proposed fee changes would not be approved. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The Foundation Board will be notified of the City's approval of the proposed fee changes. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Hakone Foundation with fee schedule attached. 3 d) The FOUNDATION shall establish and enforce rules, regulations and policies concerning the use of the PROPERTY by members of the general public and private parties, and shall establish the schedule of charges for every use on the PROPERTY. The FOUNDATION shall continuously and uninterruptedly keep the PROPERTY open for the use and enjoyment of the general public during regular hours of operation as established by the FOUNDATION. The FOUNDATION acknowledges that it is the intention and desire of the CITY for the PROPERTY to be open and available to the general public pursuant to policies developed by the FOUNDATION and i••••1 approved by the CITY. The FOUNDATION shall submit to the CITY the schedule of rules, regulations, policies, and fees for approval by the CITY. e) The FOUNDATION is authorized to collect and retain all moneys generated through Gift Shop sales, parking fees, rental charges, membership dues, and fund raising activities. These funds shall be used exclusively to pay the FOUNDATION'S obligations in the management, operation, and maintenance of the PROPERTY and cultural and educational programs conducted on the PROPERTY. In addition, the FOUNDATION may use any other funds received for the development, construction, or reconstruction of buildings or other improvements on the PROPERTY subject to paragraph 3(g) of this Agreement and may describe to prospective donors that funds donated may be used to improve the PROPERTY for the benefit of the general public, and for charitable or educational purposes in accordance with the Trust Agreement. The FOUNDATION shall retain a CPA to prepare a compilation report annually to the City, within 120 days of the close of the fiscal year, -on the operations and financial position of the FOUNDATION. f) The FOUNDATION shall at its sole expense accept the responsibility of hiring and supervising staff to manage, operate and maintain the PROPERTY. The raising of fees City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitavle Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Att-n: Larry Perlin, City•Manager:. Re: Rental Fee Increases. August 17, 1998 Af`er reviewing the rental fees of facilities in the area, it was determined that Hakone's 'fee were too low. A small increase in fees that will go into effect January 1, 1999 was recently made. However, on the recommendation of a committee studying rental fees, the Hakone Board of Trustees approved a more substantial increase in fees to go into effect July 1, 1999. (See attached.) As indicated, when combined venues are rented, there is a reduced fee. All commitments already made and quotes given will be honored. These fee raises apply only to wedding and event rentals not to business meetings which are on a different schedule. is expected to increase revenue for Hakone. Cathy Foscato, Secretary Post Office Box 2324, Saratoga, California 95070 -0324 408/741 -4994 Wedding Reception Package Prices 1999 7/1/99 CURRENT PROPOSED Garden ceremony only 750 $1200 Garden Mound $1050 $1200 CEC Deck 800 $1 500 $1850 2700 a 3.50 Garden Mound Lower House $1500 51050 $1200 450 800 Garden Mound 51050 $1200 CEC 800 $1500 Lower House 450 800 S2300 )3500 0? l'5° DATE: Wednesday, September 9, 1998 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Patrick, and Chair Pierce Absent: Commissioner Page Staff: Director Walgren, Planning staff Crowley Pledge of Allegiance Minutes August 12, 1998 APPROVED 5 -0 (PATRICK ABSTAINED). Oral Communications CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES Commissioner Bernald brought up a safety issue of concern to parents and reported that two children who were bike riding without wearing helmets had been injured in a recent accident. She stressed the importance of children wearing helmets and of enrolling in bicycle training classes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 4, 1998. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR -98 -026 (APN 397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20018 Spaich Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,998 sq. ft. home on Lot #2 of the Spaich/Hayfield subdivision. The height of the residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 40,000 sq. ft., located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/12/98). APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 5 -1 (PATRICK OPPOSED). Planning Commission Action Minutes Page 2 September 9, 1998 2. DR -98 -023 (APN 397 -09 -007) COUNTRY CLUB HOMES /OAKLEY, 19222 Monte Vista Drive; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,136 sq. ft., single story residence on a 1.06 acre parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/12/98). APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4 -2 (MARTLAGE AND PATRICK OPPOSED). 3. UP -98 -007 (APN 397 -13 -030) CELLULARONE, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to install cellular antennas, a microwave dish and an associated equipment structure at the Theater Arts Building of West Valley College. The site is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. APPROVED 6 -0. 4. SD -98 -003.1 (APN 393 -40 -020) BOISSERANC, 13650 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road; Request for Modification of an approved Tentative Subdivision Map that would extend the proposed cul -de -sac of Franklin Avenue approximately 72 feet to the west. Two of the four approved lots would change in both size and shape while the other two would change only in shape. The site is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. APPROVED 5 -1 (KAPLAN OPPOSED). 5. DR -98 -030 (APN 397 -09 -016) WHARTON, 19265 Monte Vista Drive; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,643 sq. ft., two story residence on a 37,897 sq. ft. lot in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. CONTINUED 6 -0 TO 9/23/98 STUDY SESSION AT 6:30 P.M. DIRECTOR ITEMS None. COMMISSION ITEMS Bernald asked if there will be traffic calming on Chester Road; Walgren responded that none had been proposed. Bernald mentioned that there is excavation at Allendale and Chester and asked that staff investigate. Martlage said that reports have been received of people living at Oak and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Martlage stated that there is a large neon sign inside the window at the former location of Chef Chau's restaurant; a discussion of the City's sign ordinance followed. Kaplan asked about the status of Argonaut Center; Walgren responded that the last obstacle to moving forward was the parking layout and that parking revisions have not yet been submitted. Planning Commission Action Minutes Page 3 September 9, 1998 Bernald said she has received several calls from residents reporting that Blue Rock Shoot has been roasting coffee during business hours. There was a discussion of the potential health issue and of the Use Permit. Kaplan stated that brochures are being thrown on lawns and affixed to mailboxes, and wondered if anything could be done to keep this from happening. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes dated August 5 and August 11, 1998 Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1998 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:15 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, September 23, 1998, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 16, 1998 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk SUBJECT: Amendments to City of Saratoga Conflict of Interest Code Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: As directed by the Council on September 2, staff has prepared a revised Conflict of Interest Code. The attached resolution includes an Appendix A revised to reflect the current organization of the City and an Appendix B revised to reflect changes in the Statement of Economic Interests form. Appendix A: Designees Consultants previously designated were the City Geotechnical Consultants, the City Surveyor, the City Arborist, and the Solid Waste Program Manager. The Solid Waste Program Manager has been deleted from the attached Appendix A. Certain staff positions have been deleted from Appendix A because they no longer exist. These are: Assistant to the City Manager, City Codes Administrator, Streets Superintendent, and Parks and Buildings Superintendent. Other designated positions remain the same. Appendix B: Disclosure Categories Statement of Economic Interests Form 700 provides Schedules A -F, which form the basis for the disclosure categories in Appendix B. Revised disclosure categories are listed on the attached Appendix B. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on 'the Recommended Motions: Saratoga would not be in compliance with State law. Attachments: 1. Resolution adopting new Appendices A and B. RESOLUTION NO. 779.8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 779, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has undergone recent organizational changes which necessitate changes in designees in Appendix A, and WHEREAS, changes in the format of the Statement of Economic Interest Form 700 necessitate changes in the disclosure categories in Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the attached Appendices A and B shall be substituted for the previous Appendices A and B. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 16 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor DESIGNATED POSITIONS Public Works Department Public Works Director Community Development Department Community Development Director Recreation Department Recreation Director Finance Department Finance Director Consultants City Arborist City Geotechnical Consultant APPENDIX A DISCLOSURE CATEGORY A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F (only those investments, business positions and sources of income which are subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the City of Saratoga) A through F (only those investments, business positions, and sources of income of the type which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property; interests in real property in the jurisdiction, including within a two -mile radius of any property owned or used by the City of Saratoga) City Surveyor Other Consultants* A through_ F (only those investments, business positions, and sources of income of the type which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property; interests in real property in the jurisdiction, including within a two -mile radius of any property owned or used by the City of Saratoga) *Consultants shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation: The City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. Officials Who Manage Public Investments: It has been determined that the position listed below manages public investments. In accordance with Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18720, adopted March 3, 1994, that person files Form 700 with the City Clerk rather than with the Fair Political Practices Commission. Finance Director Category A -1: Category A -2: Category B: Category C: Category D: Category E: Category F: APPENDIX B DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES Investments less than 10% ownership Investments greater than 10% ownership Real Property Income and Business Positions Income Loans Income Gifts Travel Payments Subtotal TOTAL 1 GENERAL $246,010.70 $1,588.00 (1588.00) 100 COPS -SLESF 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets Roads 17,756.67 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 250 Dev Services 18,242.79 260 Environmental 2,821.38 270 Housing &Comm 290 Recreation 11,414.25 137.60 (659.60) 292 Facility Ops 1,452.83 293 Theater Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Devlpmnt 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Rd 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA PAYROLL CHECKS: PAYROLL CHECKS: B23862- B23884 Prepared by: /7 Date: g// 6/91 Approved by: Date: ONANICE\CERTIFY 10- Sep -98 A/P CHECKS: A76013- A76116 A75742, A75798, A75941 -void cks $246,010.70 $0.00 $0.00 $17,756.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,242.79 $2,821.38 $0.00 $10,892.25 $1,452.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $297,698.62 $1,725.60 ($2,247.60) $0.00 $297,176.62 76,365.77 $373,542.39 Fund Date Manual Void Fund Name 9/11/98 Checks Checks Total Subtotal TOTAL 1 GENERAL $246,010.70 $1,588.00 (1588.00) 100 COPS -SLESF 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets Roads 17,756.67 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 250 Dev Services 18,242.79 260 Environmental 2,821.38 270 Housing &Comm 290 Recreation 11,414.25 137.60 (659.60) 292 Facility Ops 1,452.83 293 Theater Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Devlpmnt 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Rd 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA PAYROLL CHECKS: PAYROLL CHECKS: B23862- B23884 Prepared by: /7 Date: g// 6/91 Approved by: Date: ONANICE\CERTIFY 10- Sep -98 A/P CHECKS: A76013- A76116 A75742, A75798, A75941 -void cks $246,010.70 $0.00 $0.00 $17,756.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,242.79 $2,821.38 $0.00 $10,892.25 $1,452.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $297,698.62 $1,725.60 ($2,247.60) $0.00 $297,176.62 76,365.77 $373,542.39 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 09/11/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000006 A TO Z NURSERY THU10007787 000469 18104 09/01/1998 WED1000730 000470 18104 09/01/1998 WED1000747 000471 18104 09/01/1998 0000021 ALPINE TRAVEL 980814187 000604 09/09/1998 001- 1065 513.40 -01 HTE -HUG CONF. 9/22 -9/25 0000034 AUTOMATIC RAIN 7027560 -00 000485 18102 09/01/1998 001 3030 532.30 -01 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 344.08 0001078 BAY TELECOM B009193 000578 18567 09/09/1998 001 1050 513.40 -20 REPAIRS TO PHONE SYSTEM 160.00 0000054 BOISE CASCADE 309481 000506 18568 09/01/1998 953244 000507 18568 09/01/1998 0000483 26701 26702 0000739 CAL FIRE 000583 000504 09/09/1998 09/01/1998 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 000529 09/01/1998 000530 09/01/1998 000531 09/01/1998 000532 09/01/1998 001 3030 532.30 -01 REPLACEMENT PLANTS 001 3030 532.30 -01 PLANTER MIX 001 3030 532.30 -01 FERTILIZER, ETC. VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 001 1050 513.30 -01 OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE 001 1050 513.30 -01 CSO STAMP VENDOR TOTAL 344.08 VENDOR TOTAL 160.00 VENDOR TOTAL 001 1035- 512.40 -15 MAINT. FOR FIRE EXTING. 001 1060 513.40 -15 BLDGS FIRE EXTINGUISHERS VENDOR TOTAL 150- 3005 532.40 -10 WILDWOOD PARK 150- 3005 532.40 -10 RAVENWOOD DRIVE 150- 3005 532.40 -10 QUARRY CREEK 150- 3005 532.40 -10 WEST VALLEY COLLEGE VENDOR TOTAL CHECK CHECK CHECK CHECK 64.79 38.97 41.14 144.90 203.00 203.00 147.29 57.63 204.92 0000704 BURNS, LORI 9/98 000562 09/09/1998 001- 1045 513.40 -02 REIMBURSE /RECRUIT EXPENSE 107.27 VENDOR TOTAL 107.27 78.00 295.47 373.47 76014 76015 76016 76017 .00 0001479 CAREER TRACK, INC (MS2) 15840 000581 09/09/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 TRAINING SEMINAR B.TUCKER 79.00 VENDOR TOTAL 79.00 132.00 662.00 662.00 132.00 1,588.00 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0001479 CAREER TRACK, INC (MS2) 0000071 CELLULAR ONE 000611 000612 0000085 9/8 7/22 8/20 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA /PETTY CASH 000602 09/09/1998 000601 09/09/1998 000603 09/09/1998 0000005 COMMANDEUR, PETER 0000005 D'COSTA, CARL EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2 AS OF 09/11/1998 001 2010 522.40 -20 8/5/98 001 2010 522.40 -20 9/5/98 VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 CHRISTENSEN, LUCIE 000520 09/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 35.00 001 1005 511.40 -04 COUNCIL MTG MEALS 001 1050 513.40 -21 POSTAGE 001 3030 532.40 -14 WALL BOARD FOR C.S. PARK VENDOR TOTAL 114.63 154.77 269.40 VENDOR TOTAL 35.00 52.45 5.00 29.04 86.49 2051 000606 09/09/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION 9/98 000574 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 9/10/98 PAYROLL 3,437.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3,437.00 0000005 CONRAD, ANN 000526 09/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 64.00 VENDOR TOTAL 64.00 0000525 CORP NET INFO. SYSTEMS 982923 000509 09/01/1998 001- 1065- 613.60 -06 COMPUTER PARTS 308.51 VENDOR TOTAL 308.51 0000434 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES INC 8/98 000544 09/03/1998 250- 4020 542.40 -10 JUN /JUL PROF. SERVICES 9,175.25 0000751 CPRS DIST. IV -ATTN: BAY AREA INST. 000582 09/09/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 REG. FOR CPRS- 10/2 VENDOR TOTAL 9,175.25 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 50.00 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/11/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000005 D'COSTA, CARL 000587 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 38.00 0000707 DE LES DERNIER, BRUCE 000595 09/09/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3,792.50 0000146 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE I980507 000538 09/03/1998 I980806 000539 09/03/1998 I980812 000597 09/09/1998 I980812 000598 09/09/1998 0000005 FITT, KAREN 000588 001 3035 532.40 -13 NOTICING FOR UNDERGROUND 001 3035 532.40 -13 NOTICING FOR UNDERGROUND 250- 4010 542.40 -40 8/12 MEETING 250- 4010 542.40 -40 9/9 MEETING 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 38.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3,792.50 0000121 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14640 000537 18449 09/03/1998 150- 3015 532.40 -15 ELECT. MTC /TRAFFIC CON. 3,088.69 VENDOR TOTAL 3,088.69 0000005 DROZDIAK, JIM 000525 09/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 29.00 VENDOR TOTAL 29.00 163.05 86.80 684.97 462.07 VENDOR TOTAL 1,396.89 0000005' FAMILIES FIRST, INC 1091 000556 09/03/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 19.00 19.00 0000158 FRONTIER TOURS 081298 000534 18682 09/02/1998 290 6005 564.40 -51 BUS TO YOSEMITE 1,399.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,399.00 0000162 G. N. RENN, INC. 414897 000488 18099 09/01/1998 001 1035 512.30 -20 PRODUCTS FOR FUEL TANKS 706.53 VENDOR TOTAL 706.53 0000179 GTE WIRELESS CUSTOMER CARE 482 -8631 000478 18743 09/01/1998 260 5015 552.40 -20 CELL PHONE 62.88 PREPARED 09/10/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000179 GTE WIRELESS CUSTOMER CARE 0000005 HEATH, CINDEE 000519 000610 0000197 HUMANE SOCIETY OF 1098SARA -A 000561 1098SARA 000560 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4 AS OF: 09/11/1998 0000188 HAWKINS TRAFFIC SAFETY 54790 000577 09/09/1998 150- 3015 532.30 -01 POSTS 09/01/1998 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 62.88 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 0001507 HOGAN MFG., INC. 00057408 000536 09/03/1998 150- 3020 532.30 -01 SANDBAGGER 1,288.35 VENDOR TOTAL 1,288.35 0000005 HOLLIS, SUSAN 000609 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 74.00 VENDOR TOTAL 74.00 0000005 HSIEH, SHIRLEY 000589 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 19.00 VENDOR TOTAL 19.00 0000005 HSU, MING -WHEI 4423 000558 09/03/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 89.00 VENDOR TOTAL 89.00 0000005 HUFF, RHONDA 000527 09/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 58.00 001 2025 523.40 -10 SHELTER SERVICES 260 5005 552.40 -10 FIELD SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 58.00 VENDOR TOTAL 709.80 709.80 38.00 24.00 62.00 1,251.50 2,758.50 4,010.00 0000005 HWANG, ERIC 000592 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 54.00 VENDOR TOTAL 54.00 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/11/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000005 HWANG, ERIC 0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS 15778 000466 18744 09/01/1998 001 3030 532.40 -14 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 15779 000467 18744 09/01/1998 001 3030 532.40 -14 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 15780 000468 18744 09/01/1998 001 3030 532.40 -14 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 9/98 000573 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 9/10/98 PAYROLL 3,784.05 0001264 8/98 JEFFERS, JAMES A. 000552 18760 09/03/1998 000596 09/09/1998 8/98 000551 18760 09/03/1998 0001509 2005 2005 0000005 43119 0000005 1068 KHATKAR, TIBATH 000521 000600 KNAPP, CHRIS 000607 0001391 KOVACH, SONIA M. 8/22 -9/4 000580 LA MAR, TYRA 000605 0001508 LUSKEY, BRIAN 150- 3005 532.40 -16 PW INSPECTIONS 8/98 250- 4010 542.40 -10 TREE INSPECTIONS 250- 4020 542.40 -16 PW INSPECTIONS 8/98 130.53 58.19 70.98 VENDOR TOTAL 259.70 VENDOR TOTAL 3,784.05 2,910.00 200.00 60.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3,170.00 09/01/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 09/09/1998 292- 6020 462.03 -01 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 95.00- VENDOR TOTAL 205.00 09/09/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 09/09/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 PROFESSIONAL SVCS. 8/98 1,740.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,740.00 09/09/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 0000245 LEWIS, HOWARD 8/98 000549 18759 09/03/1998 001 3035 532.40 -16 PW INSPECTIONS 8/98 15.00 8/98 000550 18759 09/03/1998 150- 3005 532.40 -16 PW INSPECTIONS 8/98 1,867.50 8/98 000548 18759 09/03/1998 250- 4020 542.40 -16 PW INSPECTIONS 8/98 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,912.50 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0001508 LUSKEY, BRIAN 9/98 000563 09/09/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 STAGEROOM CLEANING 0001506 MA VELLE ENTERPRISE 300801 000535 18707 09/03/1998 001 3030 532.40 -15 SPRAY FOR YELLOW JACKETS 105.00 0000005 MARSHALL, ROBERTA 000593 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 54.00 0000005 MC BRIDE, CLARE 3061 000557 09/03/1998 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000287 MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/1/98 000545 09/03/1998 7/98 000546 09/03/1998 0000283 MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONS. 4 -15 -98 000508 09/01/1998 0001503 MUSSMAN AUTOMOTIVE MUFFLER 11065 000479 09/01/1998 11071 000480 09/01/1998 11073 000481 09/01/1998 11074 000482 09/01/1998 11159 000483 09/01/1998 11160 000484 09/01/1998 0000293 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY 017002725556 000490 18695 09/01/1998 017002733090 000491 18695 09/01/1998 017001061796 000492 18695 09/01/1998 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6 AS OF: 09/11/1998 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 250- 4020 542.40 -10 REVEIW TRACT 9101 250- 4020 542.40 -10 REVEIW VARIOUS TRACTS VENDOR TOTAL 001 1040 513.40 -10 FOR RECAPTURE SALES TAX VENDOR TOTAL 001 1035 512.40 -15 SMOG INSPECT CERTIFICAT 001 1035 512.40 -15 SMOG INSPECT CERTIFICAT 001 1035 512.40 -15 SMOG INSPECT CERTIFICAT 001 1035 512.40 -15 SMOG INSPECT CERTIFICAT 001 1035 512.40 -15 SMOG INSPECT CERTIFICAT 001 1035 512.40 -15 SMOG INSPECT CERTIFICAT VENDOR TOTAL 0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR 9/98 000572 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 9/10/98 PAYROLL VENDOR TOTAL 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 10.50 10.50 VENDOR TOTAL 105.00 VENDOR TOTAL 54.00 85.00 85.00 1,320.00 2,447.50 3,767.50 993.65 993.65 42.25 42.25 42.25 28.25 28.25 48.25 231.50 2,262.22 2,262.22 69.29 159.13 147.01- PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/11/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000293 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY 017002747878 000496 18695 09/01/1998 017002711563 000497 18695 09/01/1998 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 NELSON, MARIE 000522 09/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 CLASS REFUND 180.00 0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER 981773 000579 18570 09/09/1998 001- 1050 513.40 -41 REBECCA SPOULOS BUS. CARD 88.93 0000297 0. C. MCDONALD 7471 000495 18696 09/01/1998 001 1060 513.40 -15 FACILITY SCHEDULED SERVC 527.05 0000005 PACE, MARINA 000584 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 148.00 0000306 PACIFIC BELL 868 -9099 000498 868 -9497 000499 09/01/1998 09/01/1998 001 1050 513.40 -20 DID LINES 001 1050 513.40 -20 SR CENTER ALARMS VENDOR TOTAL 0000607 PCI CLEAN FUELS INC 1090 000465 09/01/1998 001- 1035 512.30 -20 CNG VEHICLE FUEL VENDOR TOTAL 0001466 PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY 000517 18664 09/01/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -51 1 BUS 17 MILE DR- 10/1 VENDOR TOTAL 54.01 1,809.16 1, 944.58 VENDOR TOTAL 180.00 VENDOR TOTAL 88.93 VENDOR TOTAL 527.05 VENDOR TOTAL 148.00 1,191.49 37.85 1,229.34 801.91 801.91 90.00 90.00 )001487 PONY EXPRESS PRINTING 28402 000463 08/31/1998 292- 6020 564.30 -01 4 -PART RESERVATION FORMS 119.08 VENDOR TOTAL 119.08 )000005 POPEK, MIKE 000523 09/01/1998 290- 6010 564.40 -51 MISC ITEMS FOR TEEN WEEK 99.60 VENDOR TOTAL 99.60 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000005 POPEK, MIKE 0000326 PRINCIPAL LIFE 0000327 62542 62545 PROFESSIONAL FLEET SERV. 000486 09/01/1998 000487 09/01/1998 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8 AS OF: 09/11/1998 9/98 000569 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 LIFE INS. ACCT #N75964 -1 721.52 001 1035 512.40 -14 MAINTAIN FLEET TIRES 001 1035 512.40 -14 MAINTAIN FLEET TIRES VENDOR TOTAL 0000593 PUB EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM 550266 000510 09/01/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 LONG TERM CARE- 2 EMPLY 22.16 0000330 PUBLIC EMPL RETIRE FUND 9/98 000575 09/09/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 PERS P/R ENDING 9/10/98 5,952.71 0000005 QUACKENBUSH, MELISA 41503 000608 0000333 R.V. CLOUD COMPANY 8235 000489 18749 09/01/1998 8328 000540 09/03/1998 0001490 RFI 414423 0001491 ROTH CHIROPRACTIC 000474 0000338 ROYAL COACH TOURS 09/09/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 001 3030 532.30 -01 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES -PARKS 001 3030 532.40 -14 IRRIGATION REPAIRS VENDOR TOTAL 721.52 VENDOR TOTAL 0001465 ROCKY POINT RESTAURANT 000516 18665 09/01/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -51 LUNCH ON SR TRIP 10/1 VENDOR TOTAL 09/01/1998 001 1040 413.05 -00 PRACTICAL EXAM -NADIA PVAT VENDOR TOTAL 389.06 573.88 962.94 VENDOR TOTAL 22.16 VENDOR TOTAL 5,952.71 300.00 300.00 119.70 1,843.63 1,963.33 000493 09/01/1998 001 1060 513.40 -14 REPAIRS TO P.A. SYSTEM 280.00 VENDOR TOTAL 280.00 782.00 782.00 75.00 75.00 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:5619 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/11/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000338 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5630-009 000514 18663 09/01/1998 290-6005-564.40-51 BUS TO SF FOR SR TRIP 502.20 5630-008 000515 18662 09/01/1998 290-6005-564.40-51 BUS TO CARMEL FOR SR TRIP 527.20 0000344 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 6552214 000505 6547609 6553613 6554916 6444710 000501 000502 000503 000512 0000005 SAYRE, SUE 000586 )000005 SHEPARD, MARY ANN 000524 )001510 1072 1072 SIEGEL, DIANE 000555 000599 09/01/1998 09/01/1998 09/01/1998 09/01/1998 09/01/1998 001-1060-513.30-02 BID -HVAC THEATER SYSTEM 001-3035-532.40-13 BLUEPRINT CHRGS-98 PAVEMT 001-3035-532.40-13 2 ENG. TRI SCALES 001-3035-532.40-13 BLUPRT CHRGS-PAVEMNT MGMT 150-3005-532.30-01 REISSUE CK VOIDED INERROR VENDOR TOTAL 1,029.40 50.69 168.33 15.91 149.49 10.83 VENDOR TOTAL 395.25 0000701 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 9827 000559 09/09/1998 001-2015-523.40-10 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 204,833.33 VENDOR TOTAL 204,833.33 0000359 SAXTON HEINRICHS, KIM 8/28/98 000513 09/01/1998 290-6005-564.30-01 PARKING FEE-SEMINAR BOOK VENDOR TOTAL 49.25 09/09/1998 290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 3000809 SEQUOIA PACIFIC SYSTEM 000576 09/09/1998 001-1050-513.30-01 5 SETS HOLIDAY CLOSING 99 81.19 VENDOR TOTAL 81.19 09/01/1998 001-1040-413.05-00 REFUND PRACT. EXAM FEE 75.00 VENDOR TOTPL, 75.00 09/03/1998 292-0000-260.00-00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 09/09/1998 292-6020-462.03-01 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 71.25- VENDOR TOTAL 228.75 )000587 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 000475 09/01/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 2,538.00 VENDOR TOTAL 2,538.00 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 10 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/11/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000587 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 0000005 SMEAD, CHENDA 000585 09/09/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 78.00 0000374 SOURCE SERVICES CORP. 63032,5815,8270 000541 09/03/1998 63032,5815,8270 000542 09/03/1998 63032,5815,8270 000543 09/03/1998 0000382 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0000384 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. )000398 TLC 9/98 )000005 TSAI, HELEN 001 1020 511.10 -01 TEMP. CLERICAL SUPPORT 001 1030 511.10 -01 TEMP. CLERICAL SUPPORT 001 1045 513.10 -01 TEMP. CLERICAL SUPPORT VENDOR TOTAL 78.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,225.00 350.00 175.00 1,750.00 9/98 000571 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 TAX DEPOSIT 9/10 PAYROLL 3,063.09 VENDOR TOTAL 3,063.09 0000005 STEPHENSON, JACK 000594 09/09/1998 001 1045 513.30 -01 COMPUTER MANUAL 32.46 VENDOR TOTAL 32.46 73527 000547 09/03/1998 150- 3005 532.40 -10 FEMA DISASTER #1203 WORK 7,801.75 VENDOR TOTAL 7,801.75 0000005 STIMACH, MARY 000590 09/09/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 54.00 VENDOR TOTAL 54.00 )000125 THE DINI GROUP 8/98 000553 18761 09/03/1998 250- 4020 542.40 -16 PW INSPECTIONS 8/98 2,445.00 VENDOR TOTAL 2,445.00 )000798 THE LIPMAN COMPANY (TLC) 9/98 000568 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 SEC. 125 ADMIN FEES 9/98 175.00 VENDOR TOTAL 175.00 000570 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 SEC. 125 REIMBURSE -BURNS 54.95 VENDOR TOTAL 54.95 PREPARED 09/10/1998, 7:56:19 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/11/1998 2ITY OF SARATOGA /END NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT )000005 TSAI, HELEN 2060 000518 09/01/1998 292- 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 )000005 UBALDI, NANCY 2057 000554 09/03/1998 292 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 )000604 UNIVERSAL SPECIALTIES INC 103601 000533 18703 09/02/1998 001 1060 513.30 -02 MISC. PLUMBING PARTS 207.83 VENDOR TOTAL 207.83 )001504 UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT 10738 000472 09/01/1998 001 1035 512.40 -14 REPAIR LIFTGATE ON #81 606.49 10785 000473 09/01/1998 001 1035 512.40 -14 REPAIR REMODEL CONTROL 176.29 VENDOR TOTAL 782.78 )000414 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA 9/98 000567 09/09/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 LTD INSURANCE 9/98 1,059.83 VENDOR TOTAL 1,059.83 )000422 WADA, ISAO 000528 09/01/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE CHECK 76013 VENDOR TOTAL .00 )000005 WALSH, ANNE 000591 09/09/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 64.00 VENDOR TOTAL 64.00 )000432 WHITLINGER, TENNIS 000500 09/01/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 270.00 VENDOR TOTAL 270.00 )001483 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 003047 000464 09/01/1998 250- 4020 542.40 -10 REVIEW /DEV.- IMPROVE PLANS 1,418.00 )000440 XEROX CORPORATION 600146339 000564 18571 164456166 000565 164928133 000566 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 09/09/1998 001 1055 513.40 -30 MONTHLY LEASE FOR 4 DC220 001 1055 513.40 -30 2 CARTRIDGES FOR DC220 001 1055 513.40 -30 SUPPLY OF STAPLES VENDOR TOTAL 1,418.00 773.60 424.34 296.61 137.60 137.60 PREPARED 09/10/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 0000443 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 66248703 000477 18765 09/01/1998 66248703 000476 18765 09/01/1998 75619 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12 AS OF: 09/11/1998 VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 001-3030-532.30-01 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 50% 150-3005-532.30-01 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 50% VENDOR TOTAL 1,494.55 VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES GRAND TOTAL 79.76 79.75 159.51 297,698.62 1,725.60 299,424.22 PREPARED 09/02/1998, 8:38:40 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA Void Checks VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000739 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT A 000422 08/28/1998 150- 3005 532.40 -10 WILDWOOD PARK CHECK 75941 132.00 A-1 000425 08/28/1998 150- 3005 532.40 -10 WEST VALLEY COLLEGE CHECK 75941 132.00- 8 000423 08/28/1998 150- 3005 532.40 -10 RAVENWOOD DRIVE CHECK 75941 662.00 B-1 000424 08/28/1998 150- 3005 532.40 -10 QUARRY CREEK CHECK 75941 662.00 VENDOR TOTAL .00 1,588.00- 0001445 GREAT AMERICA 000159 18672 07/31/1998 290 6010 564.40 -10 TKTS FOR AMUSEMENT PARK CHECK 75742 522.00 VENDOR TOTAL .00 522.00- 0000422 WADA, ISAO 000111 07/31/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE CHECK 75798 137.60 VENDOR TOTAL .00 137.60- TOTAL EXPENDITURES .00 2,247.60 GRAND TOTAL 2,247.60- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Tenth Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification (CAL -ID) System RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Approve the attached Tenth Amendment to the Agreement to provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System as administered by the City of San Jose, and authorize the Mayor to execute the documents. REPORT SUMMARY: Senate Bill 190 (added by Statutes 1985, Senator John Foran) provided for the management structure, and a Master Plan specifying approved equipment and a funding source for jurisdictions to access the CAL -ID System, a State Automated Fingerprint System. Matching funds were made available on a countywide basis. The State -wide program is entering its thirteenth year of operation. Throughout the State of California, the CAL -ID program has provided law enforcement with a method for rapidly identifying criminals. Pursuant to Senate Bill 190, the County of Santa Clara and the Incorporated Cities entered into the original Joint Powers Agreement to provide local law enforcement agencies access to the CAL -ID System on April 26, 1988. The Agreement is amended annually with the consent of each participating jurisdiction. Saratoga and the other signatories are to enter into the Tenth Amendment to the Agreement extending the term through June 30, 1999, including the proposed operating budget and a listing of the financial contributions of each party (Attachment 1). The CAL -ID Program is routinely used by law enforcement agencies in the County to identify latent prints found at crime scenes, may potentially determine the identity and prior arrest record of a suspect being booked into jail, and assist in the eventual prosecution of a criminal. It is the only available resource in Santa Clara County for law enforcement officials to obtain this type of information. The State's pre condition to funding the project required that each county establish a Local Policy Board. Therefore, Section 4 of the original Agreement authorizes the local Remote Access Board (RAN Board) to act as the governing body of the local CAL -ID System. A listing of the RAN Board, which includes City Manager Larry Perlin as a member, is attached for reference (Attachment 2). I recently spoke with CAL -ID Program Manager Donna Jewett, from the San Jose Police Department's Central Identification Unit, and became convinced that participation in the program is a necessity for law enforcement agencies to operate effectively in Santa Clara County. Based upon the RAN Boards decision, all equipment originally purchased for the CAL -ID system was placed at the San Jose Police Department to complement an existing automated fingerprint system where staffing and expertise had already been established. Ms. Jewett will attend the September 16th meeting to explain the history of the CAL -ID program and to answer any questions that Council may have. FISCAL IMPACTS: The program is run on a cost recovery basis. The CAL -ID Program costs of $526,927 are allocated based on percentage share of population for each participating jurisdiction. Saratoga's contribution of 3.9% of the total, or $20,676, is included in the Police Services budget for FY 1998/99: ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Sheriff's Department which provides contract law enforcement services to the City of Saratoga, will forfeit the benefit derived from identifying latent prints found at crime scenes, and the ability to potentially determine the identities and prior arrest records of suspects being booked into the County jail. Any agency discontinuing participation in the local program is restricted from sending crime scene fingerprint evidence to the State for an automated search. No other alternative service provision exists at this time. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Forward a copy of the signed Agreement to the City of San Jose. ATTACHMENT: 1. Tenth Amendment to the Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System (CAL -ID). 2. Santa Clara County CAL -ID RAN Board h JRG:CBM:ED 3/16/98 TENTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCESS TO THE CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM THIS TENTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day of 1998, by and between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a county of the State of California (hereinafter "County the CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF GILROY, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation, the TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation, the TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation, the CITY.OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, and the CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Incorporated Cities RECITALS WHEREAS, on April 26, 1988, the County and the Incorporated Cities entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System" "AGREEMENT and WHEREAS, since the date of the AGREEMENT, the County and the Incorporated Cities have entered into nine amendments to the AGREEMENT to modify various terms and extend the term of the amended AGREEMENT through June 30, 1999; and `Attachment "I° JRG:CBM:ED 3/16/98 WHEREAS, the County and the Incorporated Cities desire to extend the term of the amended AGREEMENT for another year; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and benefits, the County and Incorporated Cities agree that the amended AGREEMENT be further anfended as follows: SECTION 1. Section 3 of the AGREEMENT, entitled "TERM" is amended in full to read as follows: "The term of this AGREEMENT shall commence upon the date of execution of this AGREEMENT by all parties and shall terminate on June 30, 1999, unless terminated earlier as provided herein. It is anticipated that the parties will renew this AGREEMENT beyond June 30, 1999, by an express written amendment." SECTION 2. As required under Section 6.c.3. of the AGREEMENT, a list setting out the operating budget for fiscal year 1998 -99 and reflecting the financial contributions of each party to the AGREEMENT for fiscal year 1998 -99 operating costs of the Local ID System is attached and incorporated into this Tenth Amendment as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. This Tenth Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. SECTION 4. All other terms and conditions of the amended AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect. JRG:CBM:ED 3/16/98 WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CAMPBELL By Dated: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CUPERTINO City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF GILROY City Attorney By Dated: By Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF LOS ALTOS City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Town Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOWN OF LOS GATOS Town Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF MILPITAS City Attorney B y Dated: By Dated: B y Dated: B y Dated: JRG:CBM:ED 3/16/98 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF MONTE SERENO City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF MORGAN HILL City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW City Attorney By Dated: By Dated: By Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SAN JOSE City Attorney City Attorney By Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SANTA CLARA By Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SARATOGA City Attorney B y Dated: B y Dated: 5 JRG:CBM:ED 3/16/98, APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SUNNYVALE City Attorney By Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA County Counsel 63347_1.DOC 5 By Dated: 4 PERSONNEL Seven Latent Print Examiners Holiday Pay /Overtime NON PERSONAL EOUIPMENT Printer TOTAL FY 1998 -1999 BUDGET SANTA CLARA COUNTY CAL-ID PROPOSED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 Live Scan Maintenance 0 ($20,000 paid thru `98 -'99) LIT Maintenance 15,078 Fax Maintenance 2,460 (3 $820) Crimcon Maintenance 1,-197 Polaroid Film 4,000 Supplies 3,000 Training 7,000 EXHIBIT A $465,754 26,438 5492,192 32,735 2,000 2,000 $526,927 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CAL-ID ALLOCATION OF OPERATING COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 1 -1 -97 '98 -'99 POPULATION SHARE SHARE CAMPBELL 39,300 5.0398 $26,555 CUPERTINO 44,800 5.7451 $30,271 GILROY 35,250 4.5204 $23,818 LOS ALTOS 28,000 3.5907 $18,919 LOS ALTOS HILLS 7,975 1.0227 5,388 LOS GATOS 29,700 3.8087 $20,068 MILPITAS 61,200 7.8482 $41,352 MONTE SERENO 3,360 .4309 2,270 MORGAN HILL 29,250 3.7510 $19.764 MOUNTAIN VIEW 73,000 9.3614 $49,326 PALO ALTO 59,900 7.6815 $40,474 SANTA CLARA 100,000 12.8238 $67,569 SARATOGA 30,600 3.9241 $20,676 SUNNYVALE 129,300 16.5812 $87,367 CO. UNINCORP. 108.200 13.8754 $73.110 TOTAL 779,835 100 S526,927 EXHIBIT A 09/10/98 THU 13:48 FAX 408 437 0656 CJIC Supervisor Pete McHugh Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 70 West Hedding Street 10 Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 408/299 -2443 408/298 -6637 Fax Sheriff Charles Gillingham Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office 55 West Younger Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 -1721 408/299 -2104 408/283 -0562 Fax Mr. George Kennedy Santa Clara County District Attorney 70 West Hedding Street 6th Floor, West Wing San Jose, CA 95110 408/299 -7506 408/286 -5437 Fax Chief Louis Cobarruviaz San Jose Police Department 201 West Mission Street San Jose, CA 95110 408/277 -4212 408/277 -5771 Fax SANTA CLARA COUNTY CAL ID RAN Board Per Penal Code Section 11112.4) Chief Steve Schwab Morgan Hill Police Department 17605 Monterey Road Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408/776 -7316 408/776 -7329 Fax Mayor Henry Manayan City of Milpitas 1941 Grand Teton Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 408/942 -3247 408/263 -6541 Fax Mr. Larry Perlin City of Saratoga City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408/868 -1213 408/868 -1280 Fax Revised 3/17198 Attachment 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. RECOMMENDED MOTION: REPORT SUMMARY: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM, G) MEETING DATE: September 16,1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: Code Enforcement TP4 DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Resolution Adoption of Criminal History Information Move to approve Resolution so that the City of Saratoga may directly process fingerprint cards and directly obtain criminal history information related to city permits or for the purpose of employment. The Massage and Solicitor Ordinances require that all applicants be fingerprinted and a criminal history background check completed prior to the issuance of a permit. The Department of Justice will not process these fingerprint cards unless a Resolution has been adopted by the City Council prior to the receipt of any print cards. Although the Sheriff's Department could process these items, the City is charged additional fees for these procedures, and the time factor for receiving the information back is somewhat lengthy due to the amount of fingerprint cards the Sheriff's Records Office send out and receive on a daily basis. Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) and 13300(b)(10) authorize cities, counties, and districts to access state and local summary criminal history information for the purpose of employment, licensing, or certification purposes under certain conditions. To meet the condition, the governing board of the city, county, or district must implement an ordinance or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct and contains requirements or exclusion or both, expressly based upon such criminals conduct. If the city, county, or district wishes to obtain criminal history information for purposes of employment, licensing or certification, the governing board must adopt the attached Resolution. Upon receipt and approval of the Resolution, the Department of Justice will accept fingerprints for processing as authorized. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The City of Saratoga will not be able to directly process fingerprint cards or check criminal history backgrounds for permits or for the purpose of employment. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution 4 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONCERNING AUTHORIZATION FOR ACCESS TO CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) and 13300(b)(10) authorize cities, counties and districts to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment licensing, or certification purposes; and WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) and 13300(b)(10) require that there be a requirement for exclusion from employment, licensing, or certification based on specific criminal conduct on the part of the subject of the record; and WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) and 13300(b)(10) require the City Council, Board of Supervisors or governing body of a city, county, or district to specifically authorize access to summary criminal history information for employment, licensing or certification purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to access summary criminal history information for employment. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 16t day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM OA MEETING DATE: September 16,1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development DEPT HEAD: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REPORT SUMMARY: Background: SUBJECT: DR -98 -003; Douglass, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Design Review application to construct a new 5,991 square foot house, 22 feet 6 inches in height from natural grade, on a vacant 4.89 acre lot located in the Hillside Residential Zoning District. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. During its July 8 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of Rhonda and Jack Douglass for Design Review approval to build a new 6,566 square foot, two -story residence, 23 feet 6 inches in height. In this original proposal, a large portion of the structure and terraces was located off of the building pad, as was the pool. An attached terrace overhung the eastern edge of the building pad, and a large detached terrace was proposed over the northeast edge of the site. At that time staff could not recommend approval of the project. The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding privacy, the location of the building in relation to the building pad, and the large amounts of grading and impervious coverage. The matter was continued to the August 12 hearing so that the applicant could re- design the proposal. During the August 12 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant presented a greatly altered project Almost all of the site improvements were brought onto the existing building pad. The square footage was reduced by 575 square feet, to the current 5,991 square foot proposal. The height was reduced by a foot to the current 22 feet 6 inches. The lower level of the structure was cut more deeply into the site in order to reduce the appearance of bulk. A significant area of terrace on the eastern portion was brought onto the pad, and the lower level terrace was altered to be below existing grade. Impervious coverage was also reduced by 2,100 square feet. An aspect worth noting is that although the lot is large, it has an unusual configuration, and the existing building pad is the only place to build on the lot. Staff recommended approval of the application in that it found the proposed design to be compatible with the neighborhood and that the proposed structure's impacts on views and privacy had been mitigated to reasonable levels through the reduction or relocation of the structure and terraces. ti The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicants and their architect. As the attached action minutes from the hearing indicate, the Commission's lingering concern was that of privacy impacts on neighbors. Commissioners Bernald, Martlage, and Page were particularly concerned with privacy impacts on the neighbor directly to the east and downhill from the property (the Mariuccis). Commissioners Murakami and Pierce felt that the applicant had made sufficient improvements to address the privacy issue. The motion to deny the application on the grounds of the project's privacy impacts on the downslope neighbor was approved 4 -2 with Murakami and Pierce opposed. The Douglasses appealed the denial on August 25 The applicants appellants request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Design Review request. In their appeal application the applicants appellants request an appeal of the decision based on their position that the design is compatible with its surroundings, does not significantly impact the privacy of the neighbors, and that the downslope neighbor now approves of the current proposal. Several letters from neighbors in support of the revised proposal have been received since the Planning Commission denial of the application, including a letter from Mr. Mariucci, the downslope neighbor. In addition, the applicants appellants' architect has submitted additional information and line -of -site sketches to clarify the location of the residence and support the position that the proposal does not negatively impact the privacy of neighbors. FISCAL IMPACTS: Negligible 2 a 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 September 2, 1998. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the appeal, the Design Review 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 July 8, 1998 and August 12, 1998 2. Staff Report dated July 8, 1998 and August 12, 1998 3. Planning Commission Resolution DR -98 -003 4. Appeal Correspondence 5. Exhibit "A Plans 3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 8, 1998 3 DR -98 -003 (APN 503 -78 -029) DOUGLASS, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane (Lot 11);. Request for Design R eview approval to construct a new 6,566 sq. ft., two -story residence on a vacant 4.89 acre parcel located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Walgren presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Bernald reported that two letters had been received concerning equestrian pathways and questioned whether the Planning Commission could deal with the issues raised in the letters. Walgren stated the City is working on these matters with the Parks Recreation Department. The applicants were present and said that their architect and civil engineer were available to answer questions. Kathy Williams, architect, said she had worked with the applicants to create a contemporary and low profile home. They had lowered the ceiling height, removed the terrace from the lower level, and reduced the overall length of the house, for a 200 square foot reduction. She gave a presentation showing the effect of the revisions. Patrick liked the look of the copper gutters and asked what treatment would be used to preserve them. Murakami commented that there was a large amount of cut and fill. Martlage inquired about the geological stability of the swimming pool. Teri Lynn Baron, Via Escuela Drive, requested that a trail be created to connect with the dedicated easement. Pierce responded that the Commission cannot create a new trail on the applicants' property. The public hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. Patrick felt that the house is not located where it should be and did not like the amount of impervious coverage. Bernald liked the design but could not approve of the size and placement, lack of privacy, and potential landslide situation on the lot. Murakami liked the design of the house but felt there should be modification to the pad and the house moved back. Kaplan felt there would be privacy issues due to the house being on a prominent site. Martlage concurred and said she would like to see additional changes. Pierce felt the house is too big for the pad and requested further redesign. The public hearing was reopened and the item continued to the 8/12/98 regular meeting, for revised plans. CHAIR PIERCE REQUESTED A BREAK FROM 9:40 TO 9:50. 4. DR -98 -021 (APN 397 -18 -093) MORAN, 14725 Live Oak Lane; Request for Design Review approval to construct a first and second story addition of 1,397 sq. ft. to an existing 4,188 sq. ft., single story structure 000007 Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 2. DR -98 -026 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20018 Spaich Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,998 sq. ft. home on Lot 142 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 40,000 sq. ft., located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO 9/9/98 TO REVISE GRADING PLAN). CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS l''' 3. DR -98 -003 (APN 503 -78 -029) DOUGLASS, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane (Lot 11); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,566 sq. ft., two -story residence on a vacant 4.89 acre parcel located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/8/98). 1 Walgren presented the staff memorandum. I Kaplan confirmed with Walgren that the swimming pool is fully on the pad and that terraces go off the slope. The public hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m. Page 2 Kathleen Williams, applicant's architect, stated efforts had been made to redesign the house in accordance with direction of the Planning Commission and still maintain its contemporary appearance: the size and bulk of the home have been reduced so that it fits with the natural contour of the land. Bernald requested clarification of which views would be obstructed. Kaplan confirmed that there is one wood burning fireplace located in the family room. The public hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m. Kaplan felt the house should be more compact so as to be less prominent on the site. Murakami felt that sufficient improvements had been made to mitigate the privacy issues and that reducing the size of the house created a lower profile. Bernald noted that the home is beautiful and nicely designed, but that there are privacy issues for the individual on the property below. Martlage concurred with Commissioner Bernald and was concerned with the privacy to the east. Page concurred with Commissioners Bernald and Martlage regarding the privacy issue. Pierce felt that much had been done to limit intrusion on the lower neighbors, that the changes are reasonable, and that the work performed is adequate. Discussion ensued regarding a landscaping plan and related issues. Walgren reported that two letters had been received in support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 BERNALD PAGE MOVED TO DENY DR -98 -003 DUE TO PRIVACY IMPACTS ON DOWNSLOPE NEIGHBOR; MOTION PASSED 4 -2 (MURAKAMI AND PIERCE OPPOSED). 4. SD 7 002 (APN 397 28 047, 048 397 29 004) BLACKWELL/HASSLER, 14000 Alta V': a Avenue; Requ „t for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide a 2.6 -acre parcel into fi individual Tots ranging size from 13,400 to 31,600 sq. ft. each. The project site abuts the Saratoga Cre to the south and is heavily w. •ded. There is an existing home, a cottage and several accessory structures the site. The property is located w in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmen 1 Initial Study has been prepared for this project and is av fable for review at the City of Saratoga in the P1. ning Division offices at the above address. Walgren presented the staf emorandum. Kaplan requested clarification •f item #19 of the resolution. Dire' or Walgren discussed access easements and stated that the average size of th- lots is one -half acre. The public hearing was opened at :05 p.m. Bill Heiss, applicant's civil engineer, scussed revision made to the project, new lot sizes, removal and addition of trees, and the amended traffic study. Martlage noted that trees #101, #102 and #1 4 a all oaks. Theo Hart, Williams Avenue, thanked the ission for their assistance in helping the neighbors to understand the prodess: They had worked with the ap lican on traffic safety issues and stated they would like speed humps as well as signs. Jerry Freeman, Alta Vista Avenu stated the neig bors had come to an agreement with Blackwell regarding privacy issues. Anthony Kerin, Williams A -nue, disagreed with the a ended traffic study and requested that the Commission support the recommended affic mitigations. Bill Heiss spoke in sup The public hearin: was closed at 8:25 p.m. Murakami aske ort of the traffic humps and clear zone signage. for clarification of the traffic issues. Page 3 Walgren di ussed various options regarding traffic safety and noted t at the Fire Department is not supportive of speed hu ps. He reported that the Public Safety Commission, an advi ory agency to the City Council, will hear this iss Pag lad no major issues regarding the project. artlage felt that all parties had made an effort to work together, and could supp the project. Bernald concurred with Martlage. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: DR -98 -003, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane Applicant/Owner: DOUGLASS Staff Planner: John Cook, Assistant Planner Date: July 8, 1998 APN: 503 -78 -029 Department Head: CITY LIMITS t North 1 741Aia 4. limilb vg File No. DR -98 -003, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/29/98 Application complete: 6/12/98 Notice published: 6/24/98 Mailing completed: 6/25/98 Posting completed: 6/18/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,566 square foot house (includes 188 square feet of attic space), 23 feet, 6 inches in height, on a vacant 4.89 acre lot in the Hillside Residential zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the proposal as submitted OR continue the project to a subsequent hearing, directing the applicant to keep all development on the existing building pad and reduce the amount of first and second story terrace overlooking neighbors to the southeast. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis R nliiti „f pre a e_ _l, DR 98-90 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY File No. DR -98 -003, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: Hillside Residential General Plan Designation: Hillside Conservation Single Family Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 4.89 acres (213,053 sq. ft.) Average Site Slope: 30 5% at building site Grading Required: For landslide remediation: cut: 1,140 cu. yds. fill: 1,140 cu. yds. For construction: cut: 548 cu. yds. fill: 130 cu. yds. Materials and Colors Proposed: Roofing in dark gray slate with light gray body, white trim, and gray stone veneer accents per submitted materials board. r Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements: Lot Coverage: 6.5% (13,979 sq. ft.) 25% (not to exceed 15,000 sq. ft.) Height: 23 ft., 6 in. 26 ft. Size of Structure: Setbacks: Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance 1st floor: 1,344 sq. ft.. 2nd floor: 5,222 sq. ft. total: 6,566 sq. ft. 6,860 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. 30 ft. West Sides: 20 ft. 20 ft. East Side: 130 ft. 20 ft. Rear: >300 ft. 50 ft. Although the lot is vacant, standard setbacks apply because the proposal is located on an approved padded building site. Page 2 File No. DR -98 -003, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane SITE CHARACTERISTICS The applicant is proposing to build a new two story residence on a vacant lot. The lot is located near the peak of Villa Oaks Lane and extends several hundred feet to the north. The average slope of the entire site exceeds 30 but the graded building site slope is approximately 5 DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS Staff cannot make the all necessary Design Review findings on this application. Areas especially problematic are discussed in further detail below. Privacy impacts Staff informed the applicants' architect that there seemed to be an excessive amount of terrace area that would overlook the properties to the east. Staff encouraged the relocation of some of this terrace space to a more northerly portion of the site. Instead, applicants retained all of the terrace area of the initial proposal and added additional terrace space in the northeast corner of the building site. Staff disagrees with applicants' architect's assertion that the distance between the proposed structures and the structures downslope is in itself adequate to mitigate privacy impacts. If the Planning Commission wishes to continue this project, staff recommends that the amount of terrace area on the first and second floors of the structure be reduced and preferably located entirely on the existing building pad. Location of structure on building site Although the project has been granted geotechnical clearance, staff finds that the structure's overlapping of the graded building site seems excessive. In addition to exacerbating the privacy impacts on the structures to the east, this location will increase the perception of the structure's bulk, height, and overall prominence. As to the possibility that the site will be screened by trees, staff believes it is unlikely that applicants will plant screening trees to the east of the structure, as they might compromise the valley views. Staff apprised the applicants of this fording, but the applicants have chosen not to alter their application. View Impacts At 23 feet, 6 inches, the structure's height will undoubtedly have an impact on the views enjoyed from the property to the immediate west. Staff fords that these view impacts would be significant but not quite so "unreasonable" such that this Design Review finding could not be made. However, since staff is recommending either a denial or continuance of the project, staff finds that the application would be strengthened if the overall height is reduced or more of the structure is cut into the site. Page 3 File No. DR -98 -003, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane Other design issues Although the total lot size is over 213,000 square feet, the graded building site is much smaller approximately 12,500 square feet. The footprint of the house is itself over 40% of the building site, which will make the house appear overly large from all visible directions. Straddling the house over the edge of the building site worsens this prominence problem. Staff finds that the proposed contemporary architectural style is compatible with other developments in the vicinity, but regrets that it cannot support the proposal on the grounds previously discussed. GRADING The applicants initially proposed 678 cubic yards of cut and fill, but this amount was dramatically increased by geotechnical requirements. In addition to the above volume, applicants also request another 2,280 cubic yards of cut and fill for landslide remediation. Section 15- 13.050(f) of the City Code limits grading in the Hillside Residential zoning district to 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill unless it can make a series of findings. Staff does not believe these findings can be made in their entirety. Specifically, staff is unable to make finding 5, in that the grading requested will not adequately reduce the prominence of the construction. Extending the building pad beyond what is already graded will dramatically increase the prominence of the project, so staff recommends denial of this request until the plans are revised. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW The subject property has undergone geotechnical field testing by the applicants' geologist. These tests have been reviewed and analyzed by the city's geotechnical consultant, who has concluded that the property can be safely developed. Appropriate recommendations from the geotechnical consultant have been incorporated into the attached Design Review resolution. TREES There are no trees on the building site that would be affected by the proposed construction. Staff therefore did not consult the City Arborist. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicants' submitted plan is on page 5 of their plan set. Of note here is the proposed swimming pool, which would be built over the north edge of the graded building site. If the proposal is continued for redesign, staff would recommend that the pool be relocated such that it lays entirely on the graded site. Page 4 File No. DR -98 -003, 22111 Villa Oaks Lane CORRESPONDENCE None received. CONCLUSION Staff does not believe that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be made to support the project. Staff further finds that all of the additional findings necessary to approve an exceedance of the 1,000 cubic yard limit on grading cannot be made. RECOMMENDATION Deny the application by adopting Resolution DR -98 -003 OR continue the project for redesign to a subsequent regular public hearing. Page 5 Printed on recycled paper. OTOW cd UC 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Cook, Assistant Planner DATE: August 12, 1998 SUBJECT: DR -98 -003; 22111 Villa Oaks Drive Request for approval of revised plans COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan B000sian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe DESCRIPTION: The subject application was heard by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1998. A majority of Planning Commissioners felt they could not support the proposal and the applicant was given the option to request a continuance to revise the plans. DISCUSSION: The applicant has made the following changes to the plans: Almost all of the development has been brought onto the existing building pad. Previously, an attached terrace overhung the eastern edge of the building pad, a large detached terrace was proposed over the northeast edge of the site, and the pool was proposed to overhang the northern edge of the building pad. In the new proposal, only a modest area of terrace and a shallow fountain are proposed to be built over the edge of the building pad. Because this terrace area is oriented towards a treed hillside, staff does not find that it will have unreasonable impacts on views or privacy. Notably, the significant area of terrace on the eastern portion has been brought onto the pad and the lower level portion will be below existing grade. The floor area has been reduced from 6,566 square feet to 5,991 square feet, a reduction of 575 square feet. The footprint of the, structure —the floor area of the main or second floor —has been reduced from 5,222 square feet to 4,695 square feet, a reduction of 527 square feet. The overall impervious coverage has been reduced by more than 2,000 square feet. In addition to the reduction in structural coverage, the architect reduced the coverage of the proposed terraces and of the driveway. The lower level of the structure will be cut more deeply into the site. Excluding pool excavation and remedial earthwork, the revised plan calls for 511 cubic yards of cut and no fill. The amount of remedial earthwork remains unchanged from the earlier proposal; 1,140 cubic yards of cut which is to be recompacted in place. City Code Section 15- 13.060(f) limits grading in Hillside Residential zoning districts to 1,000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill, unless the Planning Commission can make a series of findings to approve a larger quantity. Memo to the Planning Commission August 12, 1998 These findings are: Attachments: 1. The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. 2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. 3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. 4. The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. 5. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. 6. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Because the new proposal includes a significant cut to place the lower level building pad below existing grade, staff now feels that all findings can be made (whereas findings 4 and 5 could not be made for the original proposal). The height of the structure has been reduced by a foot to 22 feet, 6 inches. OTHER ISSUES: Prior to the last public hearing, staff received correspondence from Teri Lynn Baron, 19830 Via Escuela, and Cindy Smith, 1933 Colusa Way, San Jose. Both stated concerns with this development in terms of its impact on a temporary equestrian trail. Due to storm- related impassability of portions of a designated trail (that, notably, is not maintained by the city), some equestrian users have accessed the designated trail via the applicant's proposed building site. While sensitive to the concerns of Baron and Smith, staff does not find that a new dedicated trail easement across the applicant's property is reasonable. Staff has directed the comments of both Baron and Smith to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff hopes that Baron and Smith will be able to work with Parks and Recreation to repair currently impassable portions of the existing designated trail. RECOMMENDATION: The revised plans meet all relevant City Code requirements and staff has determined that the findings can be made to support the application. Staff therefore recommends approval of the application by adoption of Resolution DR -98 -003. 1. Revised Resolution DR -98 -003 2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of July 8, 1998 3. Staff Report dated July 8, 1998 4. Exhibit B Revised plans' 1 A copy of the original plan set will be available for review at the public hearing. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Douglass for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby denied. 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 12th day of August 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage and Page NOES: Commissioner MUrakami and Chair Pierce ABSENT: Commissioner Patrick WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,991 square foot two -story residence with a maximum height of 22 feet, 6 inches on a vacant 4.89 acre parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district; 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 Planning Commission has made the finding that the proposed development would have unreasonable impacts on the privacy of the adjacent property directly downslope from the applicant's property. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO DR -98 -003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION by DOUGLASS 22111 Villa Oaks Lane M URNVV Chairperson, Planning o ttss ssion Received: 5/2 .wring Date: g /97 'ee: $250 Receipt No.: Z Name of Appellant: dA' 4 Nc1.1i7A J�- Address: (,2 S MS N c jen5 4 e'T I 26 Telephone: 4&' 2 721.1 Name of Applicant (if I�gIV I ILL different from Appellant) ��,.�fl Project File Number and Address: b `0 0 0 3 2 1 v I�� 6 A L Decision Being Appealed: PN IAA oF APPS IcAriolsi wi 1-\/ i4 A"' -OVA kb•J Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): 5j A A 4i LEI1E W I. AL-L- f I;s 44AV (1.41716Ab 5 ""r4/ 6e1•4 1V Is5 I=5 Ill i•I 2 PL 41.1 tt4 FP f -As r AF' VA L-2 417 TEAT 70 i5 uN#s 50 1. IM 1oI�1 PNVA r; t 114t= inwi 15 47A v 61 *Ap ellant's S APPEAL APPLICATION *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If ycu 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 FRUITVA7.E AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DA'S OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. ICT: August 24, 1998 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Douglass Residence Dear Council, I am the project architect for the new residence for Jack and Rhonda Douglass on Villa Oaks Lane. City Planning staff has recommended approval of the project, and all neighbors potentially impacted have written letters in support. Notwithstanding, on August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission denied approval. The Douglasses appeal the denial because: 1. The denial was premised upon privacy of neighbors, who now have expressed their approval of the substantial modifications made to accommodate privacy; 2.- The proposed development complies with all City requirements, and the denial, in essence, declares the property to be condemned as open space, and lot unbuildable; 3. We have worked diligently with City Planning staff to comply and respond to all requirements, and staff gave a clear recommendation for approval; 4. The Planning Commission's decision may have been premised upon a misimpression of the staked building site because of an inspection which did not include the project architect or owners. Privacy Considerations and Neighbors' The Planning Commission apparently premised its decision exclusively upon Article 15- 45.080 with regard to unreasonable interference with privacy. First, modifications were made to address all City Planning staff concerns over privacy. City Planning staff recommended approval. kathleen williams architect p.o. box ge Jos gatos, ca 95031 408 354 5097 fax 408 354 5148 Second, Mr. Mariucci, who previously had sent correspondence expressing concerns about the project, has withdrawn his concerns in light of the substantial modifications and compliance with City Planning staff requirements. Finally, no neighbors, either in person or in writing, have objected to the present proposed development. history and Recommendations of City Planning Staff Lot 11, the Douglass lot, is a unique property. The lot area is almost five acres, with the only feasible building pad is located on the top of a hill. The pad is approximately 12,000 squarefeet in area. The project was initially presented to the Planning Commission on July 8, 1998. The Commission voted to continue the project, asking that the house and pool be moved up entirely on the existing flat building pad. The Commission also requested that the area -of the exterior decks be reduced in an effort to protect the privacy of the neighbors downhill. A single letter was received from a downhill neighbor, Mr. Mariucci. As a result, the residence was significantly redesigned to meet all of the requests of the Planning Commission and the neighbor. The house and swimming pool were moved and located entirely on the existing flat building pad. The area of the decks was reduced (2100 square feet less impervious coverage). The floor area was reduced by 575 square feet. The height was reduced to 22 feet, 6 inches. John Cook, the assistant planner for the project, asked that the project be restaked on the based on the new design. He also requested that the original stakes be left in place so the Commissioners could compare the layouts. Unbeknownst to the project architect, the Commissioners visited the site on Tuesday, August 11. The Commissioners did not have the benefit of the project architect providing an explanation and distinction between the original staking, and the new staking which was designed to comply with the Planning staffs requirement. The revised project was presented to the Planning Commissioners on August 12. The City Planning staff report recommended ,approval and indicated that all the requested revisions had been made. The report notes: "staff does not find that it will have unreasonable impacts on views or privacy." At the hearing on August 12th, there were no in attendance, and no letters objecting to the development. Prior to the meeting, two letters had been received by the City from neighbors who reside in the court below the proposed residence. The letters were from Ken Riding and David Lietzke. They expressed the approval of the surrounding neighbors for the project. Mr. Marriucci, who previously had forwarded correspondence expressing privacy concerns, did not attend or initiate any new correspondence. We are now advised that Mr. Mariucci has n o objection, whatsoever, to the project moving forward as proposed. The Proposed Residence The project has been specifically designed to satisfy all of the City Planning staffs criteria. The proposed residence is a contemporary, low profile design, which fits very well into the site. The formal and private areas of the home (living room, dining room and master bedroom) are located on the east side. The family oriented areas (kitchen, nook and great room) are located to the north to maintain the privacy of both the Douglass family and their neighbors to the east. The closest home to the east and downhill is more than 240 feet away and 70 feet below the Douglass home. This is a greater distance than between most the homes in the area. Also, the reasonable expectation of the homes in the area would be that Lot 11 would be developed as part of the subdivision. The development, privacy concerns and proposed project are exceedingly reasonable within the scope of the approved subdivision and expectations of neighbors in the area. The Douglasses and their design professionals have donee everything possible to satisfy the City Planning staff's_ criteria, and Planning staff has recommended approval to the Plan ning Commission. The failure to approve the project in its present configuration, on the only existing building pad, is :in effect condemning the property to the public purpose of open space. Since the Planning Coiniiiission hearing, all the relevant neighbors have made clear there is no:objection, and the Douglasses would request that the City Council approve,the project. Very truly yours, Kathleen Williams, Architect cc: Bradley A. Bening, Esq. Jack and Rhonda Douglass Paul Mehus Steven Arnold, Civil Engineer September 8, 1998 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Douglass Residence Dear Gentle persons, Thank you for your time in considering this appeal for the Douglass application to construct a new home in Saratoga. Although the Planning staff recommended approval of this project, the Planning Commission voted to deny approval. I would like to clarify a few points which I do not feel were adequately presented to the Planning Commissioners. The Commissioners expressed their concern for the privacy of the downhill neighbors. There is no location inside the proposed Douglass home where the homes or properties downhill will be visible. (see attached line of site sections) The exterior terraces and landscape areas will completely block the view to below. The design approach for this project was the result of existing site conditions and the owner's desire for a home which would meet their living requirements as well as fit into the hillside property. There is only one feasible building site and the proposed home has been designed to best utilize the limited building pad as well as provide reasonable outdoor space, patios and driveway. (see attached site plan) The home has been located as far to the west side of the lot as possible without exceeding the required 5 foot maximum retaining wall height. Since the Planning Commission hearing, all of the surrounding neighbors have expressed their approval of the project and I would request that the City Council approve the project. Sincerely, thleen Williams, Architect kathlc n williams architect p.o. box ge los gatos, ca 95031 408 354 5097 fax 408 354 5148 20 foot side setback maximum 5 foo high retainin wall limit 20 foot side setback psopoged resi4 A site plan Douglass Residence allowable Lot 11, Villa Oaks Lane building area 1 20" top of bank 30 foot front setback Atik B -B A -A 11 i iirii1 line of site views r N ji 11 section A -A 1 m 10 section 8 -8 1• 10• limit of view to below limit of view to below August 28, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, We are writing this letter to introduce the home project that will be considered by Council September 16, 1998. We have worked with the Planning Department, our architect and civil engineer for many months to design a home that would compliment the existing neighborhood and comply with all standards established by the City of Saratoga. We purchased Lot 11 in Mt. Eden Estates, also known as 22631 Villa Oaks Lane, in August 1997. Plans were submitted to the City of Saratoga Planning Department in January 1998. At the suggestion of the Planning Department we hired Pacific Geotechnical to do a full geologic and geotechnical plan review. This was submitted and subsequently approved by the city. After extended delays we were granted space on the docket for the July 8, 1998 Planning Commission Hearing. The Planning Commission and the Planning Department felt they could not support the original proposal. We asked for a continuance to revise the plans. We considered the option of a study session but were advised by James Walgren that all we needed to do was to place the house and pool entirely on the flat building pad. This required considerable effort because eventhough the lot is 5 acres the building pad is only 12,000 sq. ft. The house size was reduced by 575 sq. ft., the impervious deck area reduced by 2100sq. ft. and the overall height of the roof decreased 1 foot. At this point it is necessary to state that we have asked for no special consideration or variance, the revised plans met all city code requirements, and we were assured that Lot 11 had been approved by the City of Saratoga as a building lot with no unusual restrictions. Our neighbors held a gathering for us to share our plans with them. We received overwhelming support from all those in attendance. Several letters of support were submitted with the promise of more to follow. They have expressed their confidence in our choice of builder, Mr. Paul Mehus, and the classic, low profile design of the home. On the day of our second appearance before the Planning Commission, August 12 we were reassured verbally and in writing that the revised plan was totally supported by the Planning Department. At the hearing we were again denied the right to build. This took everyone by surprise....us, the architect, the civil engineer and the Planning Department staff. We were given the option of a continuance with a new design plan or appeal before the City Council. We chose the later because we are pleased with the design of our home and we have conformed to all requests by the Planning Department. We were told by the RECEIVED AUG 3 11998 Pwwwuvu DEPT. members of the Planning Commission who voted against the project that the only issue was one of privacy from our neighbor to the East, Mr. and Mrs. Mariucci. Since August 12 we have had the opportunity to meet with the Mariucci family. We shared our revised plans with them and they assured us that they have no objections or concerns and that privacy is not an issue.They were under the impression that our plan had already been approved and therefore did not think they needed to write a letter of support. Steve and Gayle have promised their support and would like to attend the September 16 Council meeting with us if their schedule permits. We are looking forward to building our new home. We chose Saratoga to live because of the strong sense of community and the natural beauty of the area. We chose Villa Oaks Lane because it is a neighborhood with children for our little girl and people who are concerned about each other. We chose Lot 11 for the spectacular views. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and answer any questions you may have. If possible, we could meet personally or perhaps talk over the phone. Our home phone is 408 280 -7279. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerel -.aj Rhonda and Jack Douglass SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS xvI, xIx, xxIII, xxIV, XXIx Steve Mariucci Head Coach Administrative Office Marie P. DeBartolo Sports Centre 4949 Centennial Boulevard Santa Clara, California 95054 -1229 Telephone 408/ 562 -4949 Fax 408/ 727 -4937 www.sf49ers.com SAN FRANCISCO 49ER August 28, 1998 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Regarding: Douglas property on 22111 Villa Oaks Dear Commission; I have previously written and expressed my concerns regarding the building of the Douglas home just above and adjacent to our home at 13625 Deer Trail Court. RECEIVED SEP 11998 PEANivirvj DEPT: As I understand, all of our concerns from geotechnical reports to building codes to the privacy issue have been addressed and we are comfortable and satisfied with all the revisions. I've been informed that the project has been delayed again only to find the privacy issue for the "downslope neighbor" remains the roadblock. Please know that we, the "downslope neighbor are completely satisfied with the Douglas's new plan and urge the commission to allow them to proceed immediately. The new home will be a beautiful addition for our subdivision and speaking for the rest of the neighbors, if I may, we are all in support of the new construction. Thank you for your prompt consideration. Sincerel Steve Mariucci Head Football Coach August 28, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Saratoga 19655 Allendale Av Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, We live at 22183 Villa Oaks Lane (lot 10). Recently, we found out to our dismay that Douglass family's proposed project for lot 11 in Mt. Eden Estates was denied by the City Planning Commission. We have reviewed their house plans. The design of the house is very beautiful. We have no concern of loss of privacy or loss of view. On contrary we are looking forward to having them build this house and become our neighbors in the near future. We were confused and now concerned as to why their project was denied the second time at the Planning Commission meeting. They have full support of the Planning Department and made all required changes requested by the City's Planning Department and the Planning Commission. We hope the support of many of us will help them to get City Council's approval to build this house as designed. Please call me at (408) 942 -3233 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paramjit Uppal 22183 Villa Oaks Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 cc: City Manager Jack and Rhonda Douglass City of Saratoga 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attn: City Council Members Re: 22631 Villa Oaks Lane Saratoga, California Mr. and Mrs. Gregory L. Quesnel 22068 Villa Oaks Lane Saratoga, CA. 95070 408/ 867 -4064 September 2, 1998 The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to approve the house plans being proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Jack Douglass, 22631 Villa Oaks Lane, Saratoga. We are residents of Mt. Eden Estates and have met the Douglass' and reviewed their plans, along with several of our neighbors. The Douglass' strongly desire to become members of the Saratoga community and we feel they and their new home would be a welcome addition to our area. We too sit "above" many of our neighbors and have never had any privacy issues and feel the Douglass house along with its proposed vineyard, will sit well on their lot. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this proposed project. Sincerely, /1,y /-i6d7 RECEIVED SEP 0 41998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 To whom it may concern: August 20, 1998 I am writing in regards to the Douglass project on Villa Oaks Lane. This has been up for review a number of times for reasons of land stability and privacy for neighbors in the subdivision. The geologist for this project has shown that building the proposed house will actually stabilize the land; and as to the privacy, we have reviewed the plans and have no argument with how the Douglass' have planned this house to afford the most privacy possible for ALL the neighbors. We live down the hill from this house and support the proposed plans wholeheartedly. Sincerely, (408) 867 -0525 Viki and Pete Pappanastos 13475 Deer Trail Court Saratoga, CA 95070 s" 1 r'r AUG 2 61998 1 4iviit Ut.Pa August 28, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Saratoga 19655 Allendale Av Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, A UG 31 1998 utN]' We live at 22183 Villa Oaks Lane (lot 10). Recently, we found out to our dismay that Douglass family's proposed project for lot 11 in Mt. Eden Estates was denied by the City Planning Commission. We have reviewed their house plans. The design of the house is very beautiful. We have no concern of loss of privacy or loss of view. On contrary we are looking forward to having them build this house and become our neighbors in the near future. We were confused and now concerned as to why their project was denied the second time at the Planning Commission meeting. They have full support of the Planning Department and made all required changes requested by the City's Planning Department and the Planning Commission. We hope the support of many of us will help them to get City Council's approval to build this house as designed. Please call me at (408) 942 -3233 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4 Paramjit Uppal 22183 Villa Oaks Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 cc: City Manager Jack and Rhonda Douglass SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 6 6 MEETING DATE: September 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development DEPT. HEAD: 6k SUBJECT: DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way Addison Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Design Review application to construct a new 5,048 square foot house, 20 feet in height from natural grade (26 from cut grade), on a vacant 79,000 square foot lot located in the Hillside Residential Zoning District. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the request for appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial REPORT SUMMARY: Background During its August 12 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of David Addison for Design Review approval to build a new 5,048 square foot, two story residence at 20 feet in height from natural grade. The applicant requested an exception to the grading quantities limit of 1,000 cubic yards for hillside lots by asking that the Commission approve grading quantities totaling 2,105 cubic yards. All other standards requirements were met. The Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed the planning staff's analysis and recommendation and heard testimony from interested parties present at the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Commission could make all of the required Design Review findings required in City Code Section 15 -45. However, the Commission voted 6 -0 (Patrick absent) to deny the Design Review request. The Commission based their denial on two findings; first, that the design of the project and placement on the site was not compatible with the Residential Design Handbook's policies for hillside development in that the proposed structure required a level graded pad which did not step with the natural topography of the site and required excessive grading quantities; and second, that the architectural style, mass and proportion were not compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. The applicant filed an appeal application on August 25 requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Design Review application. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 5 The applicant was given the opportunity to have the Commission vote on the project as presented, or to continue to a study session or future public hearing, for major redesign. The applicant elected to take a vote at this hearing. MARTLAGE KAPLAN MOVED TO DENY DR -98 -002 DUE TO EXCESSIVE PROPOSED GRADING; MOTION PASSED 6 -0. At the request of Chair Pierce, there was a break from 9:00 9:10 p.m. 6. DR -98 -027 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20010 Spaich Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,998 sq. ft. home on Lot #1 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 41,417 sq. ft.. located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Walgren presented the staff report, which covered public hearing items #6 #9 inclusive (4 lots). The public hearing was opened at 9:23 p.m. Chuck Bommarito, applicant's representative, explained that the designs were compatible with the neighborhood and also with the Foothill Club. They had worked in conjunction with the neighbors on issues such as fencing, roof lights and story poles. Martlage wondered how the grading will affect drainage on Lots #1 and #13. Kaplan confirmed there would be one wood burning fireplace in each house. Shelley Emerson, La Paloma Avenue, was pleased at the cooperative efforts in working with the developers and discussed tree protection. She felt there seems to be a significant amount of grading on Lot #1 and was concerned about dust control as well as height control. Dan Tellep, La Paloma Avenue, felt the neighbors enjoyed a good relationship with Pinn Brothers and concurred with Emerson regarding tree protection. Meg Caldwell, La Paloma Avenue, had no issues with the design of the homes but felt that subdivision level issues should be continued to the meeting of September 9. Bommarito reviewed the construction plans and mitigation measures. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. The Commissioners agreed to discuss general issues of the project, then to handle each design individually. Martlage was concerned about the amount of grading and discussed trees and the arborist's report. Bernald expressed concern about equipment stored under the trees and wondered about the consequences if the tree protection fence were to come down. Page asked if the arborist to be on site would be provided by the developer or by the City.:: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way Applicant /Owner: Addison Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner 7 Date: August 12, 1998 APN: 503 -68 -002 Department Hea 14190 Palomino Way ITEM 5 000001 File No. DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/22/98 Application complete: 7/15/98 Notice published: 7/29/98 Mailing completed: 7/30/98 Posting completed: 7/23/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,048 residence at a height of 20 feet from natural grade. The site is 79,000 net square feet, located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR 98 002. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -98 -002 3. Letter from the applicant's engineer dated February 24, 1998 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" 000002 File No. DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way ZONING: HR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Hillside Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 79,000 (net) sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 27% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 22% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 2,100 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: Fill: 6 Cu. Yds. Max Depth: MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior beige trim, metal terrace railings and a gray /green slate tile roof. PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: SETBACKS: Background Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: STAFF ANALYSIS 9% (7,240 sq. ft.) 20 ft. First floor: 2,154 sq. ft. Second floor: 1,957 sq. ft. Garage: 937 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5,048 sq. ft. 95 ft. 91 ft. 78 ft. 141 ft. 13.7 Ft. .25 Ft. painted brown "Nutmeg" with CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 25% (up to 15,000 sq. ft.) 26 ft. Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: 5,922 sq. ft. 48 ft. 60 ft. 31 ft. 31 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicants are requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 5,048 residence at a height of 20 feet from natural grade. The site is 79,000 net square feet, located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. This property was part of a subdivision approved in January 1988. Two previous Design Review applications were submitted. The first in 1988 was denied due to concerns that the structure was 000003 File No. DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way not adequately designed to fit the natural topography and that grading quantities were excessive. The second design was approved in May 1989, but that approval expired in May 1991. The design of this house is similar to the previous proposal but the details are very different as the previous design was of a Tudor style. DESIGN REVIEW The residence is designed in a contemporary architectural style with a stucco exterior, wood framed windows, columns at the front entry, a large bay window on the front elevation with decorative corbels and metal railings along the terraces of the first floor. The residence is longer than it is deep which allows it a level floor plan which is cut rather than stepped into the hillside. The rear elevation could benefit from further articulation as there is no delineation between the first and second stories, however this elevation will be significantly screened by the existing topography and staff has determined that the residence is other residences in the neighborhood. Grading The applicants are asking for an exception to the total grading quantities limit of 1,000 cubic yards. It is worth noting that the grading quantities for the first structure design for this property in 1988 totaled 3,050 cubic yards while the second design proposed in 1989 cut the total down to 1,740 cubic yards. The current design proposes total grading of 2,106 cubic yards. While this is more that twice the limit for hillside properties, all but six cubic yards of total grading would be cut soil and staff feels that technically the findings can be made to support the exception request. However, since the residence has not been designed to follow the natural topography by stepping the floor plan the Commission may find that design is not consistent with the policies of the Residential Design Handbook. Staff did raise concerns over the amount of grading proposed on the site with the applicants. In response their engineer submitted a letter explaining their reasoning for supporting the proposed plan. That letter is attached for review. Trees/ Landscaping No trees exist on this site. At staff's request the applicants have submitted a landscape plan which incorporates 50 15- gallon Escallonia shrubs along the driveway and 160 Cottoneaster shrubs in the rear as groundcover. Staff has not found that this plan is adequate since it does not incorporate any trees. A complete and final landscape plan has therefore been required as a condition of project approval. Geotechnical Review Based on the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project, the Public Works Director has granted the proposal a Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance. The Consultant's recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval within the attached Resolution. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to each of the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. 000004 File No. DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way RECOMMENDATION Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -98 -002. 000005 I z -CIVIL ENGIN�E�ING February 24, 1998 Job No. 97 -290 Ms. Heather Bradley City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Design Review Application: DR -98 -002 14190 Palomino Way, Saratoga Dear Ms. Bradley: RECEIVED FEB 2 61998 PLANNING DEPT. Enclosed for your review is a comparison of the rear yard grading alternatives for the subject residence. Note that the rear yard pad elevations are the same, as additional vertical change in floor levels will cause the roof line to exceed the maximum allowable height of 26' -0 Section A -A represents the submitted "all slope" condition with a 2:1 slope rising 22' to a top of slope elevation of 730. This results in 2100 cubic yards of excavation a maximum cut of 13.7'. This design is consistent with the design review guidelines for residential hillside lots since the graded slope will be planted with native drought tolerant plants to recreate the look of an "unaltered" hillside. Section B -B represents the introduction of two 5' high retaining walls with slopes above each wall. The top of slope elevation in this section is 724 resulting in a rise of 16' compared to 22' in section A -A. The volume of excavation is 1740 cubic yards (a reduction of only 17% from A -A) with a maximum cut of 13.7'. This design is not consistent with the following policies within the design review handbook. 1. In order to stay within the maximum retaining wall height requirement of 5' separated by a minimum horizontal separation distance of 5', the ground between walls will be sloped at 2:1. 2. Where two or more walls are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of 30 feet or less, the combined height of such fences or walls shall not exceed 10 feet. The combination of retaining walls and 2:1 slopes between walls results in a combined height of 12' for Section B -B. Thus, in keeping with the special regulations for hillside lots, cross section B -B conflicts with the requirements outlined above due to its nonconforming combined height of TS Civil Engineering, Inc. 90 NorthFirst'Street, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408.993.1800 Toll Free: 888.327.7070 Fax: 408.993.0662 www.tscivileng.com 0000 Ms. Heather Bradley City of Saratoga Planning Department Job No. 97 -290 February 24, 1998 Page 2 of 2 retaining walls. Additionally, the retaining walls create a "modified" hillside behind the house, which will never revert to native status. We recognize the importance of preserving the views of adjacent properties and equally support the right of the homeowner to enhance the view from his lot. The aesthetics of the rear yard are important to both the neighbors and property owner. The 360 -yard reduction is consistent with the design review ordinance goal to minimize grading quantities. Conversely, once the soil is removed and the hill is replanted, 360 yards will not be apparent whereas two retaining walls will be visible for the life of the residence. We can redesign the project to lower the yardage, but our request is to provide this analysis to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Should you have any questions, please contact Keith Palmer, the project engineer or me. Sincerely, Principal Engineer TJS /tk Enclosure cc: David Addison Investments, Inc., Shawn Addison Scott Design, Scott Cunningham (1998 97 -290 Addison DRA Ltr) 000011 740 720 710 700 690 SECTION A -A SCALES H P -20' V 1.20' FT 71000 PAD 707. FF 700.00 PROPOSrO GRADE PAD 70573 740 730 720 710 700 690 Ito I30 Ito c1.1 TM I r 2 T 710.00 PAD 70 .73 FT 700,00 r, PROPOSED titAnr P 703. L SECTION B-B SCALE H r�20 v 1• =20• 740 730 720 710 700 690 Addison: 14190 Palomino Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval for a new 5,048 sq. ft. residence; 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: The design of the project and placement on the site is not compatible with the Residential Design Handbook's policies for hillside development in that the structure proposes a flat level pad which does not adequately step with the natural topography of the lot and an exception request for grading quantities in excess of 1,000 cubic yards can not be granted; and The project is not compatible in terms of architectural style, mass and proportion with the other homes in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Addison for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. 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 12th day of August 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page and Chair Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Patrick t ASV L PArGt Chairperson, Planning Co sion ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION September 8, 1998 Ms. Grace E. Cory City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: 14190 Palomino Way, Saratoga Dear Ms. Cory, DAVID ADDISON INTERESTS, INC. P.O. BOX 39, MENLO PARK, CA 94026 PH. (415) 327 -8615 FAX (415) 327 -8735 We would like to appeal the recent decision of the Planning Commission for the residence at the address referenced above. There are five reasons outlined below which are why we feel the Planning Commission's decision was inappropriate. We would like the opportunity to discuss these reasons in greater detail with the city council at its earliest convenience. The most prominent complaint by the planning commission was that the house was not stepped up the slope. A quick review of the plans will show that the house is located in the flattest area on the lot which has an elevation change of about 6'. The house steps 3.5' throughout its total area. Furthermore, the house was designed to follow the contours which form the flattest area on the site thereby limiting elevation changes and required grading. The steep nature of the lot prevents us from having a sprawling house without lots of grading even with substantial stepping of the foundations. A second issue, raised in the Denial of Design Review Application, was that the house was not compatible in mass and proportion with the other homes in the neighborhood. The vast majority of the homes in the immediate neighborhood are ranch style homes built on either naturally occurring flat areas or on flat areas which have been created by extensive grading. We are making a concerted effort to avoid this type of grading by designing a home which does not have a large footprint like a ranch home. The result, if the footprint is small, is that the home is typically more vertical. Another complaint raised in the Denial of Design Review Application, was concern over the grading quantities. The house pad only requires 350 cubic yards of grading, the contouring of the slope behind the house is where the vast majority of the grading occurs. We discussed with our civil engineer the trade -off between grading and using the .type of retaining walls which are so prevalent in this area. They assured us that the contouring of the slope was a superior installation as it could be landscaped to appear as the natural grade. Please note that the revised contour lines are extremely close to the spacing of the existing contour lines. If grading quantities are more of a concern than a natural appearance, we can and will be pleased to install retaining walls. Perhaps of more concern to us, was the manner in which our project was presented and discussed at the planning commission meeting. Several inaccurate statements were made in the preliminary discussion of our project by a member of the planning staff. These inaccurate statements constituted prevalent themes of the ensuing commission discussion and contributed substantially to the grounds on which the denial was based. For example, the project was presented as not being stepped, which it obviously is. The wrong height as well as the wrong grading quantities were stated and the grading was inaccurately attributed to the house construction when it is intended to minimize the impact of the project on the natural appearance of the site. The planning commission was also told that we had been sent an agenda of the site meeting which was not true. At no point were we ever informed of a site meeting nor that we should set story pulls and paint out the footprint of the structure. In sharp contrast to the recommended approval by the planning staff, the negative and untrue nature of the presentation by the planning staff member set the tone for the project denial prior to any open and unbiased discussion of the project by the planning commission. Finally, several commission members stated they could not visualize the project and they needed the story pulls and building outline described above. We had provided site plans, elevations, and grading plans, the sole purpose of which are to enable one to visualize a project. Three commission members stated that they could not visualize the project for the reasons stated above, yet they voted down the project because it was inappropriate for the site. We have to assume that the inappropriateness referred to is the aesthetic appearance of the house since our project met with all of the design requirements of the town and had the recommendation of the planning staff. We feel it is a peculiar decision on the part of the planning commission to reject a project for aesthetic reasons when they have just stated that they, are unable to visualize it. A quick review of the plans will show that the proposed house is stepped and was intentionally designed as a long narrow home in order to spread it along the natural contours of the lot, minimizing grading for the house pad. The majority of the grading was proposed to limit the impact of the project on the natural appearance of the site. With respect to the approval process, we would have been more than happy to provide story pulls and attend the site meeting, all we needed was to be informed of the meeting and the desire to have story pulls in place. We have designed a home with the specific intent of minimizing the impact of the home on the site. This would be apparent to any one who takes the time to seriously consider the project documents. Perhaps this is why the planning staff recommended approval and no neighbor showed up to the planning commission meeting. We appreciate the council's time spent reviewing this issue. Sincerely, Shawn Addison Prrnted on recs./Mee onner February 6, 1998 Mr. David Addison Interests P.O. Box 39 Menlo Park, CA 94026 Dear Mr. Addison: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (40S) 865 -1200 RE: DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way COI'NCIL MEMBERS: Stan B000sia Fair E. Jacoos ,firr Snat•. Dona :o L bti'a�rF The Planning Staff has visited your property and completed a preliminary review of your application. The design of the proposed residence appears to be appropriate for the site and neighborhood however the application has been deemed incomplete until a geologic clearance has been given by the City Engineer and the following items have been provided. 1. I recommend that you reduce the amount of total grading proposed on this lot, by eliminating a portion of the cut required for the landscape area off the rear of the residence. The original application on this lot, which proposed 3,050 cubic yards of cut and fill, was denied by the Planning Commission specifically because of the large grading quantities. A subsequent application was approved with a grading quantity of 1,740 cubic yards of cut and fill. This figure is more in line with what I expect the Planning Commission would be willing to approve. 2. Please provide site cross sections which depict the natural versus finished grades. 3. Please provide net and gross lot size, with reductions for ingress and egress easements. 4. Please indicate on the site plan whether or not the existing dog pen and wall which fall onto the property will remain or be removed. 5. Please provide a full landscape plan which includes the exact number, size and location of species you intend to plant. Please understand that you will have the option of revising the plan after it has been approved so long as the proposed plantings remains equivalent. 6. Since you have not provided a cross section of the entry/foyer, please verify on the plans that the interior height will not exceed 14.5 feet, or that the area has been counted on both floors. From your floor area diagram it d oes appear that the area has been double counted, but I would still like verification. 7. Please provide shadows on your elevations or an image of the floor plan. directly below each elevation so that the building projection can be clearly understood by our Planning Commissioners. 8. Please verify that the roof plan accurately reflects the areas of the first floor which do not appear on the plan (i.e. the dining room). 9. Please provide a revised color and material board which indicates a slightly darker shade for the body color. 10. Please note that a pool and tennis court is prohibited on this lot per SD -88 -007. I have not received comments from the City Geologist or Fire District, but I will forward them to you as soon as I receive them. Once you are scheduled for a public hearing we will ask that thirteen sets of plans reduced to 11" x 17" (folded and three -hole punched) be submitted two weeks prior to the meeting date, and that the building footprint be staked and height poles erected. If you have any questions please call me at (408) 868 -1230. Heather G. Bradley, Associate Planner c: Scott Design, 14375 Saratoga Avenue #J, Saratoga, CA 95070 TS Nowack, Attn: Terry Szewczyk, 2755 Park Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12,1998 1. UP -98 -006 PAGENET, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue 2. DR -98 -018 PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 14200 Taos Court (Lot 7) 3. DR -98 -023 COUNTRY CLUB HOMES /OAKLEY, 19222 Monte Vista Drive 4. DR -98 -027 PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20010 Spaich Court (Lot 1) DR -98 -026 PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20018 Spaich Court (Lot 2) DR -98 -029 PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20051 Spaich Court (Lot 13) DR -98 -028 PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20063 Spaich Court (Lot 14) DR -98 -025 PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 20075 Spaich Court (Lot 15) 5. DR -98 -002 ADDISON, 14190 Palomino Way 6. UP -98 -008 NEXTEL, Congress Springs Park, Glen Brae Drive LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The Committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. DR -98 -002; 14190 Palomino Way Addison Issues The applicant has submitted a letter outlining the grounds for appeal. In summary the applicant feels that the home is adequately stepped to the natural topography and states that the required grading for the house is just 350 cubic yards (the remaining quantities required for contouring the uphill he feels are not related to siting of the home); that the home is incompatible with the neighborhood only in that it is a two -story design which minimizes impacts to the site; that the Commission was biased by comments made by staff; and lastly that the applicant was not asked to construct story poles or stake the footprint of the house or attend the site visit and therefore the applicant is not at fault for the difficulties the Commission may have had in visualizing the structure on the site. In response to the latter points staff would like to point out that there is evidence in the file that the applicant was notified that the foot print needed to be staked and story poles needed to be constructed two weeks prior to the meeting date (see attached letter). Additionally, he was sent an agenda of the Planning Commission site visit (see attached Land Use agenda). 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 published in the Saratoga News. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and grants the appeal, the project will be approved as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney shall prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 12, 1998 2. Staff Report dated August 12, 1998 (with attachments including Resolution DR -98 -002) 3. Appeal Correspondence 4. Letter from Planning staff dated February 6, 1998 5. Land Use agenda of August 11, 1998 6. Exhibit "A plans Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 12, 1998 Murakami felt all major concerns have been mitigated and could approve the project. Kaplan felt that the new plans are preferable to the first ones submitted. Pierce was pleased that everyone had worked together and stated that the Commission would convey to the Safety Commission that neighbors are concerned about traffic safety conditions. KAPLAN MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SD -97 -002; MOTION PASSED 6 -0. 5. DR -98 -002 (503 -68 -002) ADDISON, 14190 Palomino Way; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,048 square foot residence at a height of 20 feet from natural grade. The site is 1.8 acres, located within an HR zoning district. Walgren presented the staff report. Kaplan commented that there were no height poles on the property during the Commission's site visit. The public hearing was opened at 8:37 p.m. Scott Cunningham, applicant's designer, said he felt the staff report was not accurate. He reported they had not been asked to erect height poles, also that grading issues would be dealt with by the civil engineer. The design of the building had been kept as short and narrow as possible in order to conform to the contours of the land. Kaplan confirmed that there would be one wood burning fireplace and that the rest would be gas only. Martlage asked why the garage doors are facing the front. Kaplan felt the house must be designed to fit the land and asked that the project be continued for erection of height poles and other markings on the site. Sharon Maley, representing David Addison Interests, stated they would rather not put up height poles. Pierce recommended the applicant use height poles in addition to paint showing the outline of the house. The public hearing was closed at 8:51 p.m. Walgren explained that the request for height poles is standard. Murakami felt the house has been designed for a flat lot and could not approve. Kaplan felt the house is not appropriate. Martlage would support a continuance for redesign. Page agreed there should be height poles and markings showing the outline of the house; he would support a continuance for redesign. Pierce was willing to continue the application and stated that height poles, as well as a model, would be helpful. Martlage felt redesign is necessary. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 16, 1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development SUBJECT: A -98 -001 Petition of Annexation; Mount Eden Road, Foster Assessor Parcel Number 503 -13 -122 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the petition of annexation by adopting Resolution A -98 -001 REPORT SUMMARY: DEPT HEAD: Oin By agreement with the County of Santa Clara and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) an annexation to the city is generally required when development is proposed on parcels that are contiguous to the City boundary and that are located within the City's Urban Service Area (USA). Owners of these contiguous parcels may request a waiver from annexation if they desire to develop under County regulations. The City has usually denied these waiver requests except in cases when urban services are not readily available or where severe geologic conditions may exist. The requested petition relates to a vacant lot which falls crosses the City /County boundary and is divided into two Assessor Parcel Numbers, though it is a single lot of record. The separate Assessor Parcel Numbers are a result of the City /County boundary splitting of the lot into two governmental jurisdictions. The portion of the property to be annexed is 1.015 acres, and is located within the City's USA. The portion of the property within the City boundary is 1.227 acres. Since approximately half of the property is in the City staff did let the applicant submit an application for Design Review concurrently with the Annexation request and the proposal is currently in the process of obtaining a geologic clearance. An Arborist report has also been prepared. The property has direct access to the County maintained portion of Mount Eden Road and all required services are available to the property as indicated in the attached Municipal Plan for Services. The property has been prezoned Hillside Residential (HR), and once annexed will be subject to the development regulations of the HR zoning district. A -98 -001- Foster: Mount Eden Road Staff has identified the following issues in support of the annexation: The lot is a single lot that is artificially bisected by a jurisdictional boundary, most likely by a past mapping error. The annexation would simply "clean-up" this error. The proposed home would be constructed in Saratoga either way because the logical building site is on the portion of the property already in the City. If the lower portion of the property is not annexed there would be confusion as to which jurisdiction would have authority over development and grading standards, as the County may impose different regulations to the lower portion of lot than the City may apply to the upper portion. The City does not need to annex this portion of Mt. Eden Road since it s not contiguous to the City maintained portion of the road, therefore the County will continue to responsible for its maintenance. FISCAL IMPACTS: Negligible. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the request is not granted, the property would still be developed under the zoning regulations of the City, but the lower portion of the property, including the access driveway, would remain under County of Santa Clara jurisdiction. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Work with the Local Agency Formation Commission to finalize the boundary adjustment process. Amend City Base, General Plan and Zoning Maps accordingly. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution A -98 -001 2. Petition for Annexation 3. Municipal Plan for Services 4. Exhibit "A" Legal Description and Annexation Map Certified by the County Surveyor 5. Exhibit `B" Statement of Review by the Santa Clara County Assessor 6. Exhibit "C" Pending Site Development Plan RESOLUTION NO. A -98 -001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AND ORDERING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY COMMONLY KNOWN AS: Mount Eden Road, Foster, APN 503 -13 -122 WHEREAS, Foster "Petitioner has submitted a petition for annexation to the City of Saratoga of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, as described in Exhibit "A attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as Mount Eden Road, Foster, APN 503 -13 -122; and WHEREAS, the City Council is the duly designated conduction authority for proceedings to annex said property, pursuant to Section 56826 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56826 of the Government Code the City council has found and determined as follows: (a) That the petition has been executed by all of the owners of the territory to be annexed; (b) That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to the existing limits of the City of Saratoga and .located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission "the Commission (c) That the territory to be annexed is uninhabited, as defined in Section 56046 of the Government code; (d) That the surveyor for the County of Santa Clara has determined the boundaries of said property to be definite and certain and in compliance with any applicable road annexation policies of the Commission; (e) That the proposed annexation will not split lines of assessment of ownership. (f) That the proposed annexation will not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services; (g) That the proposed annexation is consistent with the General Plan as adopted by the City; (h) That no conditions have been imposed by the Commission, or remain to be satisfied by the City, for inclusion of said property in the City's urban service area; (i) That the land use designation of the territory to be annexed as contained in the City's General Plan, has not been changed from the time the City's urban service area was adopted by the Commission; and A -98 -001- Foster: Mount Eden Road WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves and orders that the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly known as Mount Eden, Foster APN 503 -13 -122, be and the same hereby is reorganized and annexed to the City of Saratoga, such annexation to be effective on the date this resolution is adopted. The City Council, as conduction authority, reorganized such property as indicated above without notice or hearing, it being found that the territory annexed hereby is uninhabited and all of the owners of such territory have been filed a written petition for the City Council to initiate such reorganization. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 16 day of September, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor A -98 -001- Foster: Mount Eden Road TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA The undersigned, constituting all of the owners of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as Mount Eden Road, Foster, APN 503 -13 -122 do hereby represent, request and petition as follows: (a) The petition is submitted pursuant to the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985m commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code. (b) The nature of the proposed change of organization is the annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the City of Saratoga. (c) The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. (d) The territory to be annexed is uninhabited, as defined in Section 56046 of the Government Code. (e) This petition is required by reason of the policy of the County of Santa Clara that owners of property within the urban service area of a city who wish to develop such property, must first request annexation to the city and such request must be rejected before the County will process a development proposal. (f) The undersigned collectively hold one hundred percent (100 of the ownership interest in the territory to be annexed. (g) It is hereby requested that proceeding be taken for annexation of said property pursuant to Section 56826 and Title 5, Division 3 part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) of the Government Code. Dated: CA 111 I ic Signed: VA;�� A -98 -001- Foster: Mount Eden Road Municipal Plan for Services Foster, Mount Eden Road Sewer: Cupertino Sanitary District Water: San Jose Water Company Fire Protection: Saratoga Fire District Storm Drainage: Santa Clara Valley Water District Street Maintenance: County of Santa Clara Sheriff: Santa Clara County County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Building Inspection/Land Development Engineering and Surveying County Govemment Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor San Jose. California 95110 Bldg. Inspec. (408) 299 -2351 Land Devel. 299 -2871 FAX 279 -8537 August 19, 1998 Harry Peacock, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 The attached map and description dated August 18, 1998 of territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Saratoga entitled LANDS OF KIM FOSTER is in accordance with Government Code Section 56826. The boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Local Agency Formation Commission's road annexation policies. Very truly yours, i 2 2,ekl a e �ma1 C MARTIN D. MARCOTT County Surveyor Enclosures Exhibit A cc: LAFCO Executive Officer (w /attachment) Heather Bradley Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall Jr.. S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Richard Wittenberg Westfall Engineers, Inc. "EXHIBIT A" Annexation to: CITY OF SARATOGA Name of Annexation: LANDS OF KIM FOSTER, APN 503 -13 -122 Date: July 17, 1998 REVISION DATE: August 18, 1998 Description All that certain real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being described as follows: Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of the gross 2.190 acres parcel shown on the Record of Survey map for Mrs. Donald Warfield, filed in Book 128 of Maps, at page 25, Santa Clara County Records; thence South 72 Degrees 46 Minutes 30 Seconds East a distance of 20.00 feet and South 88 Degrees 40 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 27.22 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description, being a beginning of a 330.00 foot non tangent curve, concave to the West, a radial to said beginning bears South 74 Degrees 26 Minutes 24 Seconds East; thence Northerly, along said curve, through a central angle of 13 Degrees 55 Minutes 21 Seconds an arc distance of 80.19 feet; thence tangent to said curve, North 01 Degrees 38 Minutes 15 Seconds East a distance of 73.71 feet; thence North 41 Degrees 04 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 118.72 feet; thence North 52 Degrees 21 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 152.13 feet to existing City Boundary as established by Original Incorporation; thence along existing City Boundary South 02 Degrees 32 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 254.66 feet; thence leaving existing City Boundary South 53 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 137.78 feet; thence North 88 Degrees 40 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 91.24 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description. VICINITY MAP S A ,4 I 1 V MEM C OON C/ Tr L /M /TS L /NE w O O [V Z W Expires 12 -31 -01 N/7'/3.00`E /25.00 �F c ALIE os. S SO.4 WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel: 408 867-0244 Fax: 408-867-6261 ro APN So3 -/3 1. 227 AC k 0 G "AP//E r. o. B. O.B 6/ ZO. 00 30'W/ ..E f O aZ 4 C /T Y L /M L /NE .A5 E574BL /S11,EV RY OR /G. AYCORPORA /ON LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE CITY LIMITS LINE SANTA CLARA CO. RIGHT OF WAY (.DE.) /CATER BY 2233 0. A'. /09) EXHIBIT B LANDS OF KIM FOSTER Date: July 17, 1998 Job 98015 REV /S /ON SATE ,'t/G. /B, /9919 Exhibit B Proposed Designation: LL,N nr f Fnsrn AnnexiDetach ./Reorganization City or District G ,412.A706.- REVIEW OF PROPOSAL SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR Acreage and Location: 1 0 c--- N E NE S, DE Assessor's Parcel Number. 503 t `3- I a a 6 Go-v-4-9) CONFORMITY TO LINES OF ASSESSMENT: Boundaries of proposed change conform to lines of assessment or ownership. Boundaries of proposed change fail to conform to lines of assessment or ownership as noted on the attached map. Boundaries of the following district(s) are split as noted on the attached map. SPECIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN PROPOSED ANNEXATION OR DETACHMENT, OR WITHIN TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE REORGANIZED: rRA: 060 049 [111] SARATOGA UNION ELEM. SCHOOL [137] LOS GATOS UNION JT(43,44) HIGH SCHOOL [203] WEST VALLEY JT(43,44) COMM. COLLEGE [206] SARATOGA CEMETERY [208] GAUDALUPE -CYOTE RESOURCE CONSV. [215] BAY AREA JT( AIR QUALITY MGMT [222] SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION [252] MID PENINSULA REGIONAL JT(41,43,44) OPEN SPACE [322] SANTA CLARA VALLEY COUNTY WATER [323] SANTA CLARA VALLEY ZONE NC -1 COUNTY WATER [335] SANTA CLARA COUNTY IMPORTATION WATER -MISC. [377] AREA NO. 01, LIBRARY BENEFIT ASSESSMENT COUNTY [378] AREA NO. 01 (LIBRARY SERVICES) COUNTY SERVICE COMMENTS: Fees for this report are attached. by: Title: Lawrence E. Stone, Assessor 6 13 A___, cwt �1I 4 l Date: '7 9 g 118•AWOMO toVAL IfelbuN5 Awlitt SSW ...II WWI MANN. k CO It4N0 I WM Ok SOIMT #011111,141 1.17 9.tv"!'14 e•aw/ ,04 4. N 1 V V .7 ‘1 N .14■Priari -.a A1,41503-10-122 7 1 -7 T i 7 i il. Boundary between City &County mtt twailt.• a Warn. um.. wk. we w. at... tat or w a. am... tufa Mtn w ...etwata. owl .1 ow L.alurs4=3 lis .4 rut w Ogggl L'.7.441=1.==;;;•71'.X.::::1::".74:1::::=1:1;;;;!..% 4 P14/5.0;6 PEOFIV JIM 02 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 16,1998 CITY MANAGER: L at"- ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: AZO -98 -001; CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments. REPORT SUMMARY: Consideration of proposed amendments to Article 14 and 15 of the Municipal Code Saratoga's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, respectively. Amendments would include revisions to the Building Floor Area and Average Site Slope definitions, the Building Floor Area Reduction requirements, the Administrative Design Review and Accessory Structure Review processes and the Sign Ordinance. New regulations are also proposed that would include a restriction on the number of wood burning fireplaces allowed in residential dwellings and the creation of creek protection setback criteria for new construction. Lastly, staff is proposing amendments to the Lot Impervious Coverage requirements to match the language of the Measure G initiative. The Planning Commission reviewed the following proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments at their June 24, 1998 regular public hearing meeting. With some minor changes, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to the City Council. Councilmembers were presented with the amendments at their July 21 adjourned meeting. Having no additional changes, the Council scheduled the amendments for the August 5 hearing. At the August 5 meeting the Council heard from the Peninsula West Valley Association of REALTORS (PenWest) group expressing their concerns regarding the floor area reduction Ordinance. They did not object to the elimination of the floor area reduction for the larger lot zoning districts, but they were opposed to the proposal that the reduction rule would still apply to the smaller lot districts. Specifically, they were concerned that the exception process would be eliminated for these districts. The allowable floor area for all single family residential lots in Saratoga is first determined according to Article 15-45 of the Zoning Ordinance, and then further reduced based on the height of the proposed structure 1.5 percent for each one foot of building height in excess of 18 ft. This reduction does not apply to the HR zoning district. This requirement was adopted in 1992 as part of a comprehensive package of Zoning Ordinance amendments. The intent at the time was to discourage homeowners within predominantly single story neighborhoods to build taller two -story homes. An exception to this regulation was provided for those applicants who could demonstrate that their particular neighborhood was already predominantly developed with two -story homes. Since this Ordinance was adopted, the City has processed many exception applications. The pattern has been that these requests are almost always denied in the smaller lot zoning districts, and almost always approved in the R1- 40,000 zoning districts. In every case, the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission have had to struggle with defining the geographical "neighborhood" and what constitutes a "predominance An unfortunate side -effect of this process has also been residents' consistent interpretation of these exception requests as being Variance requests that every exception approval is granting yet another Variance to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. To simplify this process and still provide an incentive to keep new buildings low in the districts where the vast majority of single story structures are found (R1- 10,000, R1- 12,500, R1- 15,000 and R1- 20,000), staff is recommending that the floor area reduction provision no longer apply to single family residential structures in the R1- 40,000 zoning district. The reduction would still apply to the smaller lot -size zoning districts, but the exception process to the reduction rule would be eliminated. It is the latter suggestion that PenWest is objecting to. Their group would prefer to retain the exception process for the smaller lot districts. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A notice of the hearing was published in the Saratoga News. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments would not be adopted. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: None. Final hard -copy Ordinances will be available at the meeting for the Mayor's signature. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinances 2. PenWest Correspondence 2 SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:26 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 17/23 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARA.TOGA ADDING SECTION 15- 06.280 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RRYATING TO DEFINITION OF "FLOOR AREA" The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION L Section 15- 06.280 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Section 15 06.280 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Saratoga, to read as follows: 15 06.280 Floor area; gross floor area. (a) Floor area means horizontal area measured in square feet. (b) Gross floor area means the total habitable and /or accessible floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, interior courts, underfloor areas with an interior height of five feet or greater, porches, verandas and similar building elements with a solid roof and enclosed on three or more sides, garages and enclosed accessory structures. In the case of a sloped ceiling or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured to the point at which the interior height is less than five feet. The term "interior courts" as used herein means an area within the structure enclosed on all sides. Gross floor area does not include basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unendoscd balconies, inaccessible attic areas, unenclosed accessory structures and unendosed areas underneath exterior decks or balconies. The term "enclosed" as used herein means a structure with three or more walls, or an equivalent percentage of enclosure for an area SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:27 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK&SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 18/23 with more than four walls, and a solid roof. SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effcct 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 thcreafier passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. y AXES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: September 11, 1998 MSR dsp 1 \WPD\MNRS W 273 \oRD.981FL00FARE.98 2 Mayor 3EP -11 -98 FRI 1023 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 04/23 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 06.030 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "SLOPE" The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 06.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 15- 06.030. Slope. "Slope" means the average slope of the gees net site area determined by the following formula, and rounded to the nearest wholc percent: Average .00229 IL slope A Where: I Contour interval in feet (at intervals of not more than five feet) L Combined length of contour lines in scale feet A Free Net site area expressed in acres" SECTION 2_ EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and he 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 day of 1998, by the following vote. 1 SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:24 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.05/23 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Scptcmber 11, 1998 MSR:dsp 1: \WPD\MNRSW\273 \ORD.9R1,si.WPR 98 2 Mayor SEP -11 -98 FRI 10 27 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I LV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 19/23 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0? THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 45.030, 15- 45.040 AND 15- 45.050 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO EXCEPTION TO FLOOR AREA REDUCTION FOR BUILDING HEIGHT The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 Section 15 45.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended, to read as follows; "15- 45.030 Allowable floor area. (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "allowable floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof), plus any accessory structures. For purposes of calculating allowable floor arca, any space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be doubled. The allowable floor area is based upon the size and slope of the lot and the height of the main structure to be constructed or existing thereon as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (b) Maximum standards. The standards set forth in this Section are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (c) Slope adjustment. If the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent, the net site area of the lot shall be reduced by a percentage amount based upon the average slope and calculated as follows: 1 SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:27 MEYERS,NAVE,R1BACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.20/23 Average Slope of the Lot 10.01 -20% 20.01 -30% Over 30% Size of Lot (net site area) Percentage of Net Site Area to be Deducted 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent. of the slope over 10 30% plus 3% for each 1 percent of the slope over 20 60% *Where the average slope is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (d) Floor area standards. After reducing the net site area by the amount required for the slope adjustment under subsection (c) of this Section, if any, the floor area standard for the lot shall be determined in accordance with the table set forth below: Floor Area Standard Less than 5,000 sq.ft. To be determined byPlannng Commission 5,000 10,000 sq.ft. 2,400 sq.ft. plus 160 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq.ft.* 10,001 15,000 sq.ft. 3,200 sq.ft. plus 170 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq.ft.* 1 40,000 sq.ft. 4,050 sq.ft. Plus 78 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft of net site area over 15,000 sq.ft.* 40,001- 80,000 sq.ft. 6.000 sq.ft. Plus 20 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq.ft.* SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:27 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.21/23 80,001- 200,000 sq.ft. 200,000 6,800 sq.ft. plus 10 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 80,000 sq.ft.* 8,000 sq.ft. is the maximum allowable square footage.* *Where division of the net site area by 1000 results in a fractional number the product shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (e) Maximum floor area allowed for R -1, HR and A Zone districts. The maximum allowable floor area shall be as prescribed in the following table: Zone District Maximum Floor Arca R- 1- 10,000 4,400 R -1- 12,500 4,830 R- 1- 15,000 5,220 R -1- 20,000 6,000 R -1- 40,000 7,200 HR and A 8,000 (f) Floor area reduction for certain zone districts. After the allowable floor area is calculated in subsections (d) and (e) of this Section, the maximum allowable floor area for all structures shall be reduced by 1.5 percent for each one foot of maximum building height in excess of eighteen feet in height. This deduction shall apply only to new construction built after May 15, 1992, including new main structures, additions thereto, and new additions to existing main structures, for all lots located in any R- lan,R1- 10,000, R1- 12;000:5,.81- 15,000 or R1- 20,000 zone district. The maximum building hci&ht of any structure shall be determined in the manner prescribed in Section 15- 06.340." 1) There is a pre a 3 SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:24 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 (a) ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY' OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 45.060 AND ADDING SECTION 15- 45.065 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 45.060 of Article 15 -45 is hereby amended by amending subsection (a)(1) to rcad as follows: "Section 15- 45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing. In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single family main structure or accessory structure in any A, R- I HR, or R -OS district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any multi -story main or accessory structure.tu be SECTION 2. Section 15- 45.065 is hereby added to Article 15 -45; to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.065 Administrative Design Review. (a) in each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single- family structure or structure in any A, R -1, HR, or R -OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: .1) New single -story residences; 1 P. 08/23 h SEP -11 98 FRI 10:24 IlEYERS,NRVE,RIBRCK &SILV. FRX NO. 510 351 4481 P.09/23 2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of 50% or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a 100 sq. ft. or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. (b) The application for administrative design review approval shall comply with Section 15- 45.070. In addition to the standard application materials, applicant will be required to submit one (1) two (2) sets of stamped, addressed envelopes for mailing notice to at least the ten (10) closest neighboring properties, and other deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. The Director will direct the applicant in determining the ten closest properties. The Director shall not grant design review approval unless the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 may be made. (c) If application can he approved, a "Notice of Intent to Approve" will be mailed to the neighboring property owners, and others as deemed appropriate. All concerned parties will have ten (10) days in which to review or appeal the application. Any appeal will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Notwithstanding, Section 15- 45.110, the decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal shall be final and not subject to appeal to the City Council. (d) If the application is not approved by staff, then the applicant may file a standard design review application and go through the Planning Commission public hearing process. At any point during the design review application process, the Community Development Director may, at his/her discretion, refer an application to the Planning Commission for review and decision. All referred applications shall be heard at a standard public hearing. (e) Administrative design review approvals shall be subject to all time limitations set forth in Section 15 -45 -090." 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. 2 SEP 11 -98 FRI 10:25 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 10/23 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 day of by the following vote. y AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk September 11. 1 998 MSRapn 1:\W KAMN RS W 12 73 \011D.98UD R.98 3 Mayor SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:23 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK &S1LV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 02/23 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 80.030 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES- NOTICING The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 80.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended by repealing subsection (e) and subsection (i), *IQ amending subsections (d) (2) ad, (j) and, (k) thereof, and.relettering subs (f)„ (g), (h),. _(j 1:and v (10 to (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i),, respectively, to read as follows: "(d) Enclosed accessory structures. No enclosed accessory structures shall be located in any required yard of any lot, except as follows: (1) (2) Subject to approval by the Commuirii t..DEvnloipment Director garden sheds, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and other enclosed structures of a similar nature, not exceeding two hundred fifty square feet in gross floor area, may he located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed six feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard. This subsection shall not apply to any structure intended or used for the keeping of animals. (j-} (h) Referral to Planning Commission. With respect to any accessory structure requiring approval by theomniunty:Developrient Director, as described in subsections (d)(2), fe and f€} (e) of this Section, the Director may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for action thereon whenever the Director deems such referral to be necessary or appropriate. If 1 SEP 11 -98 FRI 10 :23 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK&SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: (i) +14 Modification of standards. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the regulations set forth in subsection (d), (e), or (f) or-(g) of this Section pertaining to the size, height or required setback of an accessory structure in a side or rear yard, through the granting of a use permit for such accessory structure pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.86, 1990; Ord. 71.98 13(a), 1991; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992) 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 regul meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. City Clerk September 11. 1998 MSR:dsp 3 :\W PD\MNRSW \273 \ORD.98W OTICING.98 2 Mayor P. 03/23 SEP 11 -98 FR1 10:25 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 13/23 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 30.060 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF CERTAIN SIGN PERMIT APPLICATIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hcrcby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 30.060 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended, to read as follows: "15 Application for permit. (a) Application for a sign permit hereunder shall be made to the Pining Commwuty`Development Director on such form as he may prescribe. If the site on which the sign will be displayed is already subject to a sign program approved by the City, of if the sign is a temporary real estate, construction, subdivision, special event or grand opening sign or a directional sign, or' (except in the case of 'illuminated signs) if the si i i for`an.ind vidual business or activity; the application may be acted upon by the wing Director; otherwise, the application shall be acted upon by the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Pleftttittg,Director may refer any application for a sign permit to the Planning Commission for a decision thereon. (b) The application shall contain the following information: (1) The location and size of any existing or proposed buildings and structures on the site. (2) The location of off street parking and loading spaces, including major points of entry and exit for motor vehicles, where directional signs are proposed. The location of the proposed sign and its relationship to existing (3) SEP -11 -98 FRI 10 26 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK&SILV. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: or proposed adjacent buildings and structures on the site. (4) A scale drawing showing the size, height, dimcnsions and content of the proposed sign or sign structure and also indicating the colors and materials thereof. City Clerk September 11, 1995 MSR:dsp ):\WPD\MNRSWV 73 \ORD.984SIGNREV.9S FAX NO. 510 351 4481 The location and size of all other existing signs on the site. If the sign is to be illuminated, the method, source and intensity of illumination. Such other information as the PlanctirtgCt mMunity:Deveiopment Director or the Planning Commission may require in order to determine whether the proposed sign will comply with the regulations and standards contained in this Article." 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 day of 1998, by the following vole. Mayor P. 14/23 SEP-11 -98 FRI 10:25 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 11/23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 15 -48 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO WOOD- BURNING FIREPLACES The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Article 15 -48 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Saratoga to read as follows: 15- 48.010 Purpose of Article The purpose of this Article is to improve and maintain air quality conditions in the City of Saratoga in order to protect and enhance the health and quality of life of its citizens, as well as contribute to improvements in regional air quality, by reducing air pollutant emissions from wood burning fireplaces. 15- 48.020 Definitions Fireplace: An installed masonry or factory-built device designed to be used with an air -to -fuel ratio greater than or equal to 35 Excluded from this definition are devices intended to be solely used for preparation of food (e.g., wood burning ovens, outdoor barbeques BBQ s). 15- 48.030 Limitations ORDINANCE NO. 71- "ARTICLE 15 -48 LIMITATIONS ON WOOD- BURNING FIREPLACES 1. Only one wood- burning fireplace per structure (e.g., main residence, guest house) or per dwelling unit (in multiple -family projects) may be installed in any new construction. All fireplaces in excess of one installed in new construction shall he gas fired fireplaces (natural or propane) with dedicated gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers. heat exchanger, 1 SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:25 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 12/23 SECTION 2, EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and he 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 day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: variable heat output and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. Excluded are existing fireplaces, regardless of how many exist. 2. It shall be unlawful to burn garbage, plastics, rubber, paints, solvents, oil, treated wood products, particle board, glossy or treated paper, coal, or any other material that produces noxious or toxic emissions when burned in a wood buming fireplace. 15.48.040 Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on and shall apply to all permits issued on or after City Clerk September 11, L99 Msh:osp 7: \W PD\MNRSW\273 \ORD.98\WOODFIRE.9A 2 Mayor 1 SEP -11 -98 FRI 11:12 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK&SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.02/05 ORDINANCE NO. 71 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTIONS 14- 25.065, 15- 06.525, 15- 45.045, 15- 46.035 AND REPEALING SECTION 15- 06.575 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING CREEK PROTECTION EASEMENT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 14- 25.065 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: "Section 14 25.065 Creek Protection Easement. (a) Purpose, application. In order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, a Creek Protection Easement shall be required for any subdivision, lot, or parcel thereof which contains or abuts a Protected Creek as defined below. (b) Protected Creek defined. A Protected Creek is a creek identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 196 Flooding, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, as may be amended from time to time. (c) Location. The location of the easement shall be based on a Biotic Assessment identifying the Protected Creek, its hanks, and riparian habitat. The Biotic Assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be recorded with the Final or Parcel Map. (d) Restrictions. Structures, improvements, ornamental landscaping, or fencing shall be prohibited within the easement, unless the Community Development Director determines that such will enhance the creek's condition by improving flood and/or erosion control or improving or protecting riparian habitat." SECTION 2. Section 15- 06.525 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is herehy added to read as follows: 1 SEP -11 -98 FRI 11 12 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK&SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 "Section 15- 06.525 Protected Creek. "Protected Creek" means any creek identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 1% Flooding prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and as may be amended from time to time." SECTION 3. Section 15- 06.575 of the Code of the City of Saratoga, Definition of Riparian Corridor, is hereby repealed. SECTION 4. Section 15- 45.045 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.045 Creek Protection Setbacks. (a) Purpose, application. Where a Protected Creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek hanks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. (b) Existing structures. Any existing structures which encroach into the Creek Protection Setbacks shall be considered Nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15 -65, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Any new additions to existing structures shall comply with the Creek Protection Setbacks. (c) Accessory structures. Accessory structures may he permitted within the Creek Protection Setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter. (d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the location of the top of the Protected Creek bank. It shall be the applicant/property owner's responsibility to accurately determine the location of the top of the bank. Any questions regarding such location shall be resolved at the applicant/property owner's expense by a licensed land surveyor or other qualified professional." SECTION 5. Section 15- 46.035 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: 2 P. 03/05 SEP -11 -98 FR 1 11:12 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I l.V. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 04/05 (a) Purpose, application. Where a Protected Creek passes through or along a building sitc or is otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. (b) Existing structures. Any existing structures which encroach into the Creek Protection Setbacks shall be considcrcd Nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15 -65, Nonconforming Uses and Stnictures. Any new additions to existing structures shall comply with the Creek Protection Setbacks. (c) Accessory structures. Accessory structures for residential projects may be permitted within the Creek Protection Setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter. Accessory structures for non- residential projects shall comply with the Creek Protection Setbacks. (d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the location of the top of the Protected Creek bank. h shall be the applicant/property owner's responsibility to accurately determine the location of the top of the bank. Any questions regarding such location shall be resolved at the applicant/property owner's expense by a licensed land surveyor or other qualified professional." SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and he 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 day of 199S, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: "Section 15 46.035 Creek Protection Setbacks. 3 SEP-11 -98 FRI 11 13 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK&S I LV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.05/05 ATTEST: City Clerk J: \WPD\MNRSW\273\OR0.98\CW: 1(M 4 Mayor aEP -11 -98 FRI 10:24 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBRCK &SILV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 R-1-10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R-1- 20,000 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 12.080 AND 15- 13.080 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO SITE COVERAGE The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I. Sections 15 12.080 and 15 13.080 of the Code of the City of Saratoga are hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 15- 12.080 Site Coverage. {-a-} The maximum coverage in each R -1 district shall be as set forth in the following table: District 1 Coverage 60% 55% 50% 45% District Coverage R -1- 10,000 35% Section 15- 13.080 Site Coverage. The maximum site coverage on arty lot in the HR district shall be as follows: P. 06/23 SEP -11 -98 FRI 10:24 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK&SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk ScpLember 11, 1998 MSR :dsp J \WPD\MNRS W \273 \ORD.98\SITECOVE.98 thousand square feet, whichever is less. enclosed pa twenty five percent, or fifteen 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 day of 1998, by the following vote. 2 Mayor P. 07/3 Sep -08 -98 02:15pm From-PenWest AOR Mr. James Walgren, Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear James: Sincere 321 Second Street Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 949.9115 FAX: (650) 948•6716 www.penwest.com y Ste Blanton Public Affairs Director 650 948 -6716 T -294 P.02/02 F -475 September 8, 1998 PENWEST PENINSULA WEST VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORST As we discussed earlier the Peninsula West Valley Association of REALTORS is concerned about the potential elimination of the exception process for two story additions in Saratoga. While we understand and empathize with the City's legitimate need to reduce the burden-of an overworked staff, we also place great importance on the right of citizens to petition government for redress of grievances. We believe that both of these goals can be accomplished. If a formal exemption application process does not already exist, we would be supportive of creating one,aiong -the following lines: Ae application-should be created which specifically explains to applicants that the burden of proof is squarely on them. Further, the application should also explain that an exception is extremely rare (it is my understanding that less than ten percent of exemption applications are granted), and that a truly compelling- rase must be made by -the applicant in order -to receive serious consideration for an exemption. PenWest would be happy to develop specific language that the City of Saratoga finds acceptable. Secondly, PenWest would be supportive of a modest application fee over and above whatever may be•charged now, $50-I00 for-example. Though relatively- small, fees of this type can have the effect discouraging applications that do not have a serious chance of success. Please advise me as to whether or not you feel these concepts meet staff's needs. If not, I would like the opportunity-explain PenWest's position4eCouneil prior to the consideration of these changes. PenWest feels that this is an issue that is important not just to our membership, 346 of whom live or work in Saratoga, but to Saratoga homeowners in general. The exception process provides an avenue for Saratoga residents to make their homes-mere closely fit -their needs. Provided a Saratogan -is able to show how their efforts conform to and enhance their community, why should they not have that opportunity? 11 Src,nal ;rr r law .Aho., r :A \')40 i (MC) v4 1 AX: (MO) V484(716 Z2 39vd August 4, 1998 On behalf of the Peninsula -West Valley Association ofReahors I would like to respectfully request a continuance of item 6c on the August 5,1998 Saratoga City Council's agenda. Some of the issues contained in this item may be of direct interest to our members, and being August, many of our members are out of the area on vacation. We would like the opponunity to Rather study this item, consult with our members, and work with city staff to find solutions that meet everyone's needs. May 1 suggest resuming this issue after Labor Day? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nina Yam President -Elect Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtorse I C PENINSULA W F I Lf:Y A.titit k OF IU AtT( /RS- r.1 /1 Cd PENWEST SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 16,1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: Ef3 1. Site Lease Agreement for Wireless Communication Antenna Building and Equipment at Congress Springs Park Applicant: Nextel Communications RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into lease agreement with Nextel Communications. REPORT SUMMARY: On August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission approved (4 -0) a Use Permit to construct two panel antennas and an equipment building to be located at the Southeast corner of Congress Springs Park. Nextel Communications will be leasing the site from the City at the negotiated price of $13,000 per year, with provision for a 4% increase per annum for the term of the lease. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into lease agreement. The proposed site lease agreement attached, with Nextel Communications, has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and is substantially similar to those entered into with Pac Bell and Sprint Spectrum, which were previously approved by the City Council. None for a lease agreement. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration were adopted by the Planning Commission as part of the Use Permit approval. FISCAL IMPACTS: The City will receive $13,000 for the first year, to be increased by 4% in each successive year of the lease agreement. The revenue is unrestricted and is recommended to be placed in the General Fund. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: No special advertising is required for this authorization. A public hearing was advertised and held by the Planning Commission on the Use Permits. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Staff will be unable to complete negotiations and the signing of the lease agreement which will result in the loss of $13,000 for the first year, increased by 4% for each year of the lease agreement. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Staff will sign the lease agreement and the antennae site will be constructed over the next two months. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Lease Agreement 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. UP -98 -008 Pit iNG' SPITDI•:v \SITL'SU.P_ASINry Src ovivnirnm us.,.r COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (BUILDING) COPY This Communications Site Lease Agreement "Agreement is entered into this day of 1998, between NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Nextel Communications, "Lessee and CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "Lessor For good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Premises. Lessor is the owner of a parcel of land (the "Land and building (the "Building located in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, commonly known as Congress Springs Park (APN:389 -02 -002) (the Building and the Land are collectively, the "Property The Land is more particularly described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee leases fiom Lessor approximately twelve hundred (1200) square feet of ground space and space either adjacent to or on the roof of the 1uilding for the placement oI' antennas and all access and utility easements (collectively, the "Premises as described in Exhibit 13 annexed hereto. 2. Use. The Premises may be used by Lessee for the installation, removal, replacement, maintenance and operation of the wireless communications service system facilities generally depicted and described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Lessee Facilities are being installed for provision of mobile/wireless communications services including, but not limited to, the transmission and reception of radio communication signals on various frequencies. Recognizing future changes in technology, Lessee may replace its equipment without Lessor's approval and shall be entitled to maintain, repair and replace the Lessee Facilities without Lessor's approval. Any changes or improvements other than replacement of equipment of substantially the same size and height (or smaller) as previously approved by Lessor shall be subject to approval of Lessor prior to installation which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed; provided, however, that such approval shall not be deemed approval by the City of Saratoga of any modification to any conditional use pennit issued to Lessee, which may be required by such changes or improvements. Lessor agrees at no expense to Lessor, to cooperate with Lessee, in making application for and obtaining all licenses, permits and any and all other necessary approvals that may be required for Lessee's intended use of the Premises. 3. Conditions Precedent. This Agreement is conditioned upon Lessee, or Lessee's assigns, obtaining all governmental permits and approvals enabling Lessee, or its assigns to construct and operate the Lessee Facilities on the Premises. Once the tests and pre construction work is completed, Lessee will restore the Property back to the condition existing prior to the commencement of such work by Lessee. Lessee will notify Lessor of any proposed tests or pre construction work and will coordinate the scheduling of same with Lessor so•as to perfonn the work in a manner to minimize disruption to Lessor's operations on the Property and the peace and enjoyment of the public. If Lessee determines that the Premises are unsuitable for Lessee's contemplated use, then Lessee will notify Lessor and this Agreement will terminate. 4. Tests and Construction. Lessee shall have the right (but not the obligation) at any time following the full execution of this Agreement and prior to the Conunencement Date, to enter the Premises for the purpose of making necessary inspections and engineering surveys (and soil tests where applicable) and other reasonably necessary tests (collectively "Tests to determine the suitability of the Premises for the Lessee. Facilities. During any Tests or pre construction work, Lessee will have insurance as set forth in Paragraph 13 Insurance. Once the Tests and pre construction work is completed, Lessee shall place the Property back to the condition it was in prior to the Tests being conducted Lessee will notify Lessor of any proposed Tests or pre construction work and will coordinate the scheduling of same with Lessor so as to perform the work in a manner to minimize disruption to the Property of Lessor and to the peace and enjoyment of the public. If Lessee determines that the Premises are unsuitable for Lessee's contemplated use, then lessee will notify Lessor and this Agreement will terminate. 5. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be ten (10) years commencing on the date Lessee begins construction of the Lessee Facilities or twelve (12) months following full execution of this Agreement, whichever first occurs ("Commencement Date and terminating on the tenth anniversary of the Commencement Date (the "Term") unless otherwise terminated as provided in Paragraph 10. Lessee shall have the right to extend the Tent for one (I) successive five (5) year period (the "Renewal Term on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for the Renewal Term unless Lessee notifies Lessor of its intention not to renew prior to commencement of the Renewal Term). 6. Rent. (a) Within fifteen (15) days following the Commencement Date, Lessee shall pay to Lessor as rent THIRTEEN Ti IOUSAND and 00/1011 1)01.I.ARS ($13,000.00) per year "Rent Rent shall be payable on each anniversary of the Commencement Date with the first annual payment due and payable within fifteen (15) days following the Commencement Date. Rent shall be payable to Lessor's address specified in Paragraph 20 Miscellaneous. (b) Rent shall be adjusted on each anniversary of the Commencement Date to an amount equal to the amount of annual Rent payable during the preceding year, increased by four percent (4 7. Facilities; Utilities; Access. (a) Lessee has the right to erect, maintain and operate on the Premises radio communications facilities, including without limitation an air conditioned equipment room, utility lines, transmission lines, electronic equipment, radio transmitting and receiving antennas and supporting equipment and structures thereto "Lessee Facilities In connection therewith, Lessee has the right to do all work necessary to prepare, maintain and alter the Premises for Lessee's business operations and to install transmission lines connecting the antennas to the transmitters and receivers. All of Lessee's construction and installation work shall be performed at Lessee's sole cost and expense and in a good and workmanlike manner. Title to the Lessee Facilities shall be held by Lessee. All of Lessee Facilities shall remain Lessee's personal property and are not fixtures. Lessee shall return the Premises to the condition which existed upon the Commencement Date hereof, reasonable wear and tear, loss by casualty excepted. (h) Lessee shall pay for the electricity it consumes in its operations at the rate charged by the servicing utility company. Lcssec shall have the right to draw electricity and other utilities from the existing utilities on the Property or obtain separate utility service from any utility company that will provide service to the Property (including a standby power generator for Lessee's exclusive use). Lessor agrees to sign such documents or easements as may be required by said utility companies to provide such service to the Premises, including the grant to Lessee or to the servicing utility company at no cost to the Lessee, of an easement in, over across or through the Land as required by such servicing utility company to provide utility services as provided herein. Any easement necessary for such power or other utilities will be at a location and of a design acceptable to Lessor and the servicing utility company. (c) Lessee, Lessee's employees, agents, subcontractors, lenders and invitees shall have access to the Premises without notice to Lessor twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, at no charge. Lessor grants to Lessee, and its agents, employees, contractors, guests and invitees, a non exclusive right and easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress across that portion of the Land described in Exhibit 13. (d) Lessor shall maintain all access roadways from the nearest public roadway to the Premises in a manner sufficient to allow pedestrian and vehicular access at all times under normal weather conditions. Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing such roadway, at its sole expense, except for any damage caused by Lessee's use of such roadways. 8. interference. (a) Lessee shall operate the Lessee Facilities in a manner that will not cause interference to Lessor and other lessees or licensees of the Property, provided that their installations predate that of the Lessee Facilities. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by Lessee. In the event interference occurs and is caused by I.essec, Lessee agrees to take all action necessary to eliminate the interference in a reasonable time.' In the event Lessee fails to comply with the terns of this paragraph, Lessor may terminate this Agreement and/or pursue other remedies available under this Agreement, at law and/or at equity. All operations by Lessee shall be in compliance with_all Federal Communications Commission "FCC requirements. (h) Subsequent to the installation of the Lessee Facilities, Lessor shall not permit itself, its lessees or licensees to install new equipment on the Property or property contiguous thereto owned or controlled by Lessor, if such equipment is likely to cause interference with Lessee's operations. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by Lessor. In the event interference occurs, Lessor agrees to take all action necessary to eliminate such interference, in a reasonable time period. In the event Lessor fails to comply with this paragraph, Lessee may terminate this Agreement and/or pursue any other remedies available under this Agreement, at law, and/or at equity. 9. Taxes. Lessee shall pay all personal property and possessory interest taxes, business license fees and other taxes as may be legally and properly imposed or assessed against the Lessee Facilities. Lessor shall pay all other taxes, fees and assessments attributable to the Premises 10. Waiver of Lessor's Lien. (a) Lessor waives any lien rights it may have concerning the Lessee Facilities which are deemed Lessee's personal property and not fixtures, and Lessee has the right to remove the same at any time without Lessor's consent. (b) Lessor acknowledges that Lessee has entered into a financing arrangement including promissory notes and financial and security agreements for the financing of the Lessee Facilities (the "Collateral with a third party financing entity (and may in the future enter into additional financing arrangements with other financing entities). In connection therewith, Lessor (i) consents to the installation of the Collateral; (ii) disclaims any interest in the Collateral, as fixtures or otherwise; and (iii) agrees that the Collateral shall be exempt from execution, foreclosure, sale, levy, attachment, or distress for any Rent due or to become due and that such Collateral may be removed at any time without recourse to legal proceedings. I I. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated without further liability on thirty (30) days prior written notice as follows: (i) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the other party, which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default, provided that the grace period for any monetary default is ten (10) days from receipt of notice; or (ii) by Lessee for any reason or for no reason, provided Lessee delivers written notice of early termination to Lessor no later than thirty (30) days prior to the Commencement Date; or (iii) by Lessee if it does not obtain or maintain any license, permit or other approval necessary for the construction and operation of Lessee Facilities; or (iv) by Lessee if Lessee is unable to occupy and utilize the Premises due to an action of the FCC, including without limitation, a take back of channels or change in frequencies; or (v) by Lessee if Lessee determines that the Premises are not appropriate for its operations for economic or technological reasons, including, without limitation, signal interference, or (vi) by Lessor upon a ruling or directive of the FCC, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION or other governmental agency with authority to make such a determination that the operations being conducted by Lessee at the Premises constitute a material hazard to the health or safety of the public and Lessee does not remcdiate the material hazard within thirty (30) days written notice by Lessor to do so. 12. Destruction or Condemnation. If the Premises or Lessee Facilities are damaged, destroyed, condemned or transferred in lieu of condemnation, Lessee may elect to terminate this Agreement as of the date of the damage, destruction, condemnation or transfer in lieu of condemnation by giving notice to Lessor no more than forty -five (45) days following the date of such damage, destruction, condemnation or transfer in lieu of condemnation. If Lessee chooses not to terminate this Agreement, Rent shall be reduced or abated in proportion to the actual reduction or abatement of use of the Premises. 13. Insurance. (a) Lessee shall maintain the following insurance: (i) Commercial General Liability with limits of Five Million and 00 /100 Dollars ($5,000,000.00) per occurrence, (ii) Automobile 1.iahility with a combined single limit of One Million and 00 /100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident, (iii) Workers' Compensation as required by law, and (iv) Employer's Liability with limits of One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. (h) Lessee shall maintain standard form property insurance "All Risk" coverage) equal to at least ninety percent (90 of the replacement cost covering the Ixssee Facilities. (c) Lessee shall name Lessor, its officers, employees and agents as an additional insured with respect to the above Commercial General l.iahility insurance. Lessee shall have the right to self insure with respect to any of the above insurance. (d) Lessee shall provide certificates of insurance or self insurance to Lessor evidencing the above required coverage. 14. Waiver of Subrogation. Lessor and Lessee release each other and their respective principals, employees, representatives and agents, from any claims for damage to any person or to the !'remises or to the Lessee Facilities thereon caused by, or that result from, risks insured against under any insurance policies carried by the parties and in force at the time of any such damage. Lessor and Lessee shall cause each insurance policy obtained by them to provide that the insurance company waives all right of recovery by way of subrogation against the other in connection with any damage covered by any policy. Neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be liable to the other for any damage caused by lire or any of the risks insured against under any insurance policy required by Paragraph 13. 15. Assignment and Subletting. Lessee may not assign, or otherwise transfer all or any part of its interest in this Agreement or in the !'remises without the prior written consent of Lessor; provided, however, that Lessee may assign its interest to its parent company, any subsidiary or affiliate of it or its parent company or to any successor -in- interest or entity acquiring fifty -one percent (51 or more of its stock or assets, subject to any financing entity's interest, if any, in this Agreement as set forth in Paragraph 10 above. Lessor may assign this Agreement upon written notice to Lessee, subject to the assignee assuming all of Lessor's obligations herein, including but not limited to, those sct forth in Paragraph 10 above. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Lessee may assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer without consent its interest in this Agreement to any financing entity, or agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Lessee (i) has obligations for borrowed money or in respect of guaranties thereof, (ii) has obligations evidenced by bonds, debentures, notes or similar instruments, or (iii) has obligations under or with respect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances and similar facilities or in respect of guaranties thereof. 16. Warranty of Title and Quiet Eniovment. Lessor warrants that: (i) Lessor owns the Property in fee simple and has rights of access thereto; (ii) lessor has full right to make and perfonn this Agreement; and (iii) Lessor covenants and agrees with Lessee that upon Lessee paying the Rent and observing and performing all the terms, covenants and conditions on Lessee's part to be observed and performed, Lessee may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises. 17. Repairs. Lessee shall not be required to make any repairs to the Premises or Property unless such repairs shall be necessitated by reason of the default or neglect of Lessee. Except as set forth in Paragraph 7 (a) above, upon expiration or termination hereof, Lessee shall restore the Premises to the condition in which it existed upon execution hereof, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Lessee's control excepted. 18. Hazardous Substances. Lessee agrees that it will not use, generate, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material on, under, about or within the Land in violation of any law or regulation. Lessor represents, warrants and agrees (1)that to the best of its knowledge neither Lessor nor, to Lessor's knowledge, any third party has used, generated, stored or disposed of, or permitted the use, generation, storage or disposal of, any I lazardous Material on, under, about or within the Land in violation of any law or regulation, and (2) that Lessor will not, and will not permit any third party to use, generate, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material on, under, about or within the Land in violation of any law or regulation. Lessor has not performed any independent research to confirm the representations made by Lessor Lessor and Lessee each agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other and the other's partners, affiliates, agents and employees against any and all losses, liabilities, claims and/or costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from any breach of any representation, warranty or agreement contained in this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "Hazardous Material" shall mean petroleum or any petroleum product, asbestos, any PMENGIISITEDEV \SITESV.EASMriV.SFR OM071N111 cvrr rw. ;f substance known by the state in which the Land is located to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity, and/or any substance, chemical or waste that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 19. Liability and Indemnity. Lessee shall indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from all claims (including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of defending against such claims) arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of Lessee or Lessee's agents or employees in or about the Property. Lessor shall indemnify and hold Lessee harmless from all claims (including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of defending against such claims) arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of Lessor or Lessor's agents, employees, licensees, invitees, contractors or other tenants occurring in or about the Property. The duties described in Paragraph 19 survive termination of this Agreement. 20. Miscellaneous. (a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements concerning the subject matter contained herein. Any arnendments to this Agreement must. be in writing and executed by both parties. (h) If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable with respect to any party, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (c) This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assignees of the respective parties. (d) Any notice or demand required to be given herein shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below: Lessor: CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attn: City Manager (408) 868-1200 With a copy to: Nextel Communications, Inc. 1505 Farm Credit Drive McLean, VA 22102 Attn.: Legal Dept., Contracts Manager Lessor or Lessee may from time to time designate any other address for this purpose by written notice to the other party. (e) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. (1) Lessor acknowledges that a Memorandum of Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C will be recorded by Lessee in the Official Records of the County where the Property is located. In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust, Lessor agrees to obtain and furnish to Lessee a non disturbance and attornment instrument for each such mortgage or deed of trust. (g) Lessee may obtain title insurance on its interest in the Premises. Lessor shall cooperate by executing documentation required by the title insurance company. (h) In any case where the approval or consent of one party hereto is required, requested or otherwise to be given under this Agreement, such party shall not unreasonably delay or withhold its approval or consent. (i) All Riders and Exhibits annexed hereto form material parts of this Agreement. (j) This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which shall he deemed an original. 21. Marking and Lighting Requirements. Lessee shall be responsible for compliance with all marking and lighting requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration "FAA and the FCC. Should Lessee be cited because the Property is not in compliance and, should Lessee fail to cure the conditions of noncompliance, Lessor may either terminate this Agreement or proceed to cure the conditions of noncompliance at Lessor's expense, which amounts may be added to the Rent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. LESSOR: LESSEE: Cfl'Y OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications 13y: By: Its: Date: Approved by Resolution No.: Title: Adopted \\M N:N(;I\SITIiDI /\s TF.SU.HASnarnr qcc 04,120 trm r r, Lessee: Nextel of California, Inc. 475 14th Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94612 Attn.: Property Manager EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LAND to the Agreement dated 1998, by and between CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, as Lessor, and NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Nextel Communications, as Lessee. The Land is described and/or depicted as follows (metes and bounds description): APN: 389 -02-002 All that certain real property situate in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: Beginning at a point in the centerline of a road 24 feet in width, said point being the Northwest corner of Lot 3 as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Map of the Partition of Lands of the John Cox Estate in the Quito Rancho surveyed January 1917, by Chas. Herrmann, and recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California in Book "Q" of Maps, at Page 13; thence from said point running South 85 degrees, 26 minutes, 0 seconds east 580.71 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence from said True Point of Beginning, South 45 degrees, 10 Minutes, 0 seconds East 580.67 feet along the Southwesterly line of the lands conveyed to the State of California by deed recorded November 23, 1964 in Book 6750, page 80 of Official Records; thence continuing along said Southwesterly line, the following courses and distances; South 40 degrees, 06 minutes, 18 seconds East 246.57 feet; Thence South 37 degrees, 04 minutes, 43 seconds East 93.19 feet; thence South 40 degrees, 46 minutes, 11 seconds East 43.65 feet; thence leaving said Southwesterly line of lands conveyed to the State of California, and running South 58 degrees, 18 minutes, 0 seconds West 61.21 feet; thence running North 59 degrees, 17 minutes, 53 seconds West 747.02 feet; thence North 30 degrees 42 minutes, 07 seconds east 268.24 feet; thence North 45 degrees, 10 minutes, 0 seconds West 181.51 feet; thence running South 85 degrees, 26 minutes, 0 seconds East 30.94 feet to the True Point of Beginning. PARCEL TWO: Beginning at a point in the centerline of a road 24 feet in width, said point being the Northwest corner of Lot 3 as shown on that certain map entitled, "Map of the Partition of Lands of the John Cox Estate in the Quito Rancho" surveyed January, 1917, by Chas. Herrmann, and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California in Book "Q" of Maps, at page 13; thence from said Point of Beginning running South 85° 26' 00" East 549.77 feet; thence South 45° 10' 00" East 181.51 feet; thence South 30° 42' 07" West 268.24 feet; thence North 59° 17' 53" West 627.82 feet to a point in the centerline of the previously described 24 foot wide road; thence running along the centerline of said 24 foot wide road North 00' 01' 16" East 81.84 feet, to the Point of Beginning. ARB No: 391 -6 -117 117.01 APN No: 339 -03 -002 INIT1A S •d EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES to the Agreement dated 1998, by and between CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, as Lessor, and NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Nextel Communications, as Lrecr• The Premises are described and/or depicted as follows: s a oPI I\ NG I\SI'IEDEV\SITES\LEASING\LSES 98 \897DUJ2 EXEC nor 1 a 1 i? 'S Ii il I� I 4 l 6i1- p.! 5. Ali li p!:•� 1; E 4� B BI 1 5 'ig fit Pi it ggg 3 ill G 1 k 5- r h' s e 1 i s T Ci- �'i y 1 v. s J U O INmSLS Notes: 1. This Exhibit may be replaced by a land survey of the Premises once it is received by Lessee. 2. Setback of the Premises from the Land's boundaries shall be the distance required by the applicable governmental authorities. 3. Width of access road shall be the width required by the applicable governmental authorities, including police and fire departments. 4. The type, number and mounting positions and locations of antennas and transmission lines are illustrative only. Actual types, numbers, mounting positions may vary from what is shown above. 5. The location of any utility easement is illustrative only. Actual location shall be determined by the servicing utility company in compliance with all local laws and regulations. CLERK: Please return this document to: NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 475 14th Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94612 Attn: Property Manager This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into on this day of 199_, by and between CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, with an address of 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 hereinafter referred to as "Lessor and NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Nextel Communications, with an office at 475 14th Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612, (hereinafter referred to as "Lessee 1. Lessor and Lessee entered into a Communications Site Lease Agreement "Agreement on the day of 1998, for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a radio communications facility and other improvements. All of the foregoing are set forth in the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the day and year first above written LESSOR: LESSEE: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications By: By: Date: Date: Title: Title: Tax ID#: STATE OF COUNTY OF On before me, Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrtument. WITNESS my hand and official seal: Notary Public My commission expires: STA'T'E OF COUNTY OF WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 2. The term of the Agreement is for ten (10) years commencing on date Lessee begins construction of the Lessee Facilities or twelve (12) months following full execution of the Agreement, whichever first occurs "Commencement Date and terminating on the tenth anniversary of the Commencement Date with one (1) successive five (5) year option to renew. 3. The Land which is the subject of the Agreement is described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. The portion of the Land being leased to Lessee (the "Premises is described in Exhibit B annexed hereto. (SEAL) On before me, Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. (SEAL) \(1'I1\ EN( I\SrrIo)ov\SrriiS\1.EASINGV SES 7M14771) \f17 rvcr V' INIMIS RESOLUTION NO. UP- 98-008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nextel: S/E Corner of Congress Springs Park, Glen Brae Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Use Permit approval to construct two panel antennas mounted on a 48 ft. tall monopole and to construct an equipment building 10 ft. (w) x 20 ft. (1) x 10 ft. (h) located at the base of the proposed monopole, 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 the Planning Commission finds: a. That the proposed wireless communication antenna facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually unobtrusive. b. That the proposed wireless communication antenna and equipment building and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that an Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared that found that the facility will be operated under the restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy; and that the aesthetic impact of the facility will be less than significant. c. That the proposed wireless communication antenna complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this 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, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Nextel Communications for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed antennas and monopole shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. A minimum of two (2) warning signs shall be posted near the transmitting antennas so that they are visible to workers intending to perform work on the site. Signs will comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. These signs would note the potential hazards of coming within 9 feet of the face of the antennas. Contact information will also be provided with a 24 -hr. phone number to arrange for access to restricted areas. 3. The proposed antennas shall be painted gray to match the existing adjacent monopole. File No. UP -98 -008; S/E Corner of Congress Springs Park, Glen Brae Drive 4. The proposed equipment structure shall be painted beige, with a brown asphalt shingle roof. Staff shall approve final color. 5. Applicant shall provide landscaping consisting of drought- tolerant, native species, and designed to screen the equipment structure. Staff shall approve final landscape plan. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all equipment, structures, and landscaping in a timely manner. 7. Within 30 days of cessation of business, applicant shall remove all equipment and structures. 8. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. Paint samples for both the antenna screen and monopole and the equipment structure. A landscape plan, consisting of drought tolerant native species, and designed to screen the equipment structure. This plan shall include provisions for irrigating the landscaping for a sufficient period of time to allow the drought tolerant planting to establish itself. 9. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. 10. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 11. 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. 12. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. File No. UP -98 -008; S/E Corner of Congress Springs Park, Glen Brae Drive Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12 day of August, 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Nartlage, Nurakami, Page and Chair Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Patrick Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: /21..4 TIME: Wednesday, September 2, 1998 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting for the Purpose of a Closed Session 6:30 p.m. in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: San Francisco Baykeepers at al. v. Saratoga Pursuant to Government Code 54957.6: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Larry I. Perlin Employee organization: Saratoga Management Organization Mayor's Report on Closed Session No actions taken. 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance Led by Finance Commissioner Nick Streit. 1. ROLL CALL 1) Planning Commission Actions, 8/12 Note and file. qA() The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw, and Mayor Wolfe were present. Staff members present were City Manager Perlin and City Attorney Riback. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None. 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 28. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously- Discussed Items 1) Resolution on Argonaut Appeal heard 8/5 MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98- 29. Passed 5 -0. B. New Items Councilmember Bogosian requested the removal of Items 5.B.3 and 5.B.8. City Manager Perlin requested the removal ahem 5.B.5. MORANBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR B EXCEPT ITEMS 5.B.3, 5.B.5, AND 5.B.8. Passed 5 -0. 2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Two Appeals. 3) Resolutions amending Memorandum of Understanding with Saratoga Employees Association and setting Salary Ranges for Undesignated Positions Councilmember Bogosian requested clarification regarding the creation of a Human Resources Analyst position. City Manager Perlin responded that staff does not intend to fill the position; however, because it is part of the currently approved classification plan, the position will remain in the plan. He said the position would be removed in next year's budget. MORAN /SHAW MOVED THAT RESOLUTIONS NO. 85 -9.113 AND 85 -9.114 BE ADOPTED AND THAT THE POSITION OF HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST NOT BE FILLED AND WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. Passed 5 -0. 4) Approval of Check Register 5) Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Conference City Manager Perlin explained that there was no designation of voting and alternate delegates on the agenda. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, THERE WAS CONSENSUS TO DESIGNATE CITY MANAGER PERLIN AS THE CITY'S VOTING DELE GATE AND CITY ATTORNEY RIBACK AS ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE. 6) Award of Contract for 1998 Pavement Management Program 7) Notice of Need to Amend Conflict of Interest Codes 8) Temporary Use of City Van for ALTRANS Shuttle Program Administrative Analyst Irene Jacobs responded to Councilmember Bogosian' s concerns regarding a certificate of insurance from ALTRANS complying with the City's requirements, responsibility for the van's maintenance, and alternate means of transportation for City business. BOGOSIAN/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE TEMPORARY USE OF CITY VAN FOR ALTRANS SHUTTLE PROGRAM. Passed 5 -0. C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None. Mayor Wolfe moved the agenda to Item 7. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes 8/5; 8/11 JACOBS /SHAW MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 5. Passed 5 -0. JACOBS /SHAW MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11. Passed 4 -0 -1. (Bogosian abstained.) 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for next adjourned regular meeting: 1. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Items Suggested by Commission: Budgeting for a minutes clerk Councilmember Moran directed staff to prepare an analysis of the budget impacts on a Planning Commission minutes clerk position. B. Other Mayor Wolfe moved the agenda to Item 6. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 p.m. Discussion of Cellular Transmission Antennas Items Suggested by Community Development Director: Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance Amendments Preview of pending applications (e.g., Sisters of Notre Dame Novitiate, Azule Crossing) Circulation Element Mountain Winery Update 2. Measure G Implementation Resolution 3. City Attorney Evaluation City Manager Perlin noted that the Council would be considering Item 3, the City Attorney evaluation, at 5:30 p.m., and the joint meeting with the Planning Commission would begin at 7 p.m. He requested that Item 2 not be included in the joint Planning Commission agenda. i. Councilmember Shaw requested agendizing at a future meeting a discussion regarding establishing a written policy for staff addressing correspondence from constituents. He proposed a central log to be supervised by the City Clerk for entering all incoming correspondence, assigning to specific individual, indicating name of individual responsible for response, response due date, etc. City Manager Perlin conveyed that this issue had previously come forth, that a procedure had been developed, and that he would include the issue in a future agenda. Councilmember Moran requested that the procedure include a description of the current practice. She also requested a procedure for addressing electronic mail (e- mail). ii. Councilmember Bogosian requested a staff update on the current efforts to repair last year's damage on Quarry Creek and the related work performed on the lot located at the very end of the canyon known as the Old Quarry site. He requested a description of how the fix on the quarry lot differs from the current or the past year's work, specifically, how the difference would prevent a repeat of what happened last winter on that road. Additionally, he asked that the report include what the City's responsibility would be for the lot in terms of the approval process prior to building on it and what standards would the property owner have to meet regarding the hydrological considerations. He requested that the report be available before the end of September when the rainy season could begin. iii. Councilmember Moran requested agendizing at a future meeting the plan and timeline for the septic system abandonment. Councilmember Shaw commented that critical to this issue would be City Attorney Riback's research on ordinances from other sanitation districts. City Attorney Riback stated he would bring an update regarding his research on this issue to the Council at its September 22nd meeting. A. Vessing Road Assessment District Protest Hearing (continued from July 15) City Manager Perlin reported that the issue was not ready for the hearing as the property owners met with staff this week and had outstanding issues to resolve. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing to October 21. Mayor Wolfe opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 21. Passed 5 -0. B. Proposed Formation of Underground Utility District Number 8 (Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Baroni Court) (continued from August 5) City Manager Perlin reported that the hearing was not ready to come before the Council as the property owners still had outstanding issues to mediate. Staff recommended continuation of the public hearing to November 4. Mayor Wolfe opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. No one appeared to speak. SHAW /JACOBS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 4. Passed 5 -0. 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications Mayor Wolfe invited the public to the Saratoga parade at 1:30 p.m., September 6, on Big Basin Way and Saratoga. Mayor Wolfe moved the agenda to Item 11. 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Perlin announced that the new City Finance Director, Mary Jo Walker, would begin employment on September 8. City Manager Perlin announced that the Finance Commission would begin its long -range budget planning on September 14, and would be looking at revenue projections for the next five -year period. 12. ADJOURNMENT At 8:10 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk