Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-1986 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA BILL NO: 3 Agenda Item TE DATE: September 17, 1986 City Mgr Approval DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Award of Contract Purchase of Utility Truck Issue Summary Bids were received on the subject medium sized utility truck and were opened on September 15, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. We received only one bid, from Cerrito Chevrolet, in the amount of $9,341.79 which is within the amount budgeted for this purchase. Fiscal Impact $11,000 is included in the 1986 -87 F.Y. Budget funded from the Equipment Replacement Fund. Exhibits /Attachments Truck bid form. Recommended Action Award the bid to Cerrito Chevrolet in the amount of $9,341.79. Council Action Approved. 1 CITY OF SARATOGA DEPARTMENT OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES TRUCK BID FORM Bids must be submitted by 3:00 p.m., Monday, September 15, 1986 Please complete the following: I. COST OF NEW TRUCK TRADE -IN A. Truck Parks Division Medium sized w /long box Sales Tax B. Truck (Sub Total) C. Less trade -in 1978 Ford Courier D. Truck Net Cost A vv4 A5 1�- a55 WtLL, MDT EAGEED go 1 TIME of AtotT4v I AT1o4 II. DELIVERY DATE: Ta�uR4 -1r}�E �ECS�veD *Fton r�r 4.47Y. III. DEVIATIONS FROM SPECIFICATIONS: l AE U p_ 44trIDE —o "P2.051-75(414 To G4R2 f WIM I.M M�'(LAAD If deviations exist attach a separate sheet outlining same. IV. BID VALID UNTIL: SPiH jsP -r3E_.1. q-114 tg V. COMPANY AND DEALER NAME: (r,SRp, 4 -ro 6-1€./ Re. L G Address: I to t 1-05 44 —,r5 PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR BID: J JE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: L o t 0 elA --tp C A q 9 0 Phone: (40 8el (a4. qSc I. ri '2 SD. ST 44. TITLE: FLT tvtgnlAege2. DATE: 5EPT-• I5' c466 AGENDA BILL NO. 3 DATE: September =17, 1986 DEPT.: City Manager CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: ABAG PLAN Claims Management Suumary: In order to implement policies established by the Corporation for claims management and settlement, resolutions need to be adopted to set aside a reserve pool for claims under the City's $25,000 deductible and to establish settlement authority by the City Manager for claims involving property damage only which do not exceed $2,500. Fiscal Impacts: Direct impacts none. Necessary funds to be transferred from one expenditure account to another. Indirect impacts should reduce City's paid -in premium in future years if loss experience is good. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Resolution delegating settlement authority for certain claims 3. Appropriations Resolution transferring funds. Recommended Action: Council Action AGENDA ITEM 7 4 CITY MGR. APPROV UMR7 ©2 Ln' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 September 9, 1986 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject: ABAG PLAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson BACKGROUND Since the formation of the ABAG PLAN CORPORATION in July, several policies have been developed by the Board of Directors to specify how claims both under and over the various deductibles chosen by the members will be handled. In order to assure the smoothest possible handling of claims, the following process has been adopted. 1. Injury claims under $1,500 are to be settled by the contract claims adjustor, George Hills, Co. 2. Property damage only claims for less than 10% of the deductible are to be handled directly by the City itself with no referrals to the Corporation or to the claims adjustor. 3. All other claims up to the limit of the deductible, in our case this is $25,000, are to be settled by the Corporation risk manager with the concurrence of the City. 4. All claims above the deductible are to be settled by the claims committee of the Corporation. All losses under the deductible are to be billed on a monthly basis to each city so as to keep the claims fund= at the maximum for interest revenue purposes. ANALYSIS In order to implement these decisions, several actions on the part of the City are required. In dealing with claims settlement authority, the City is governed by Section 935 et. seq. of the Government Code. Because we are now an association of self- insured cities which have pooled resources to cover losses, rather than being insured by an insurance company, these specific provisions are now applicable. ABAG PLAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT Page 2 9/9/86 Section 935.4GC allows the City Council to delegate claims settlement authority up to $20,000 to an employee of the City. Further, Section 935.2GC allows for the establishment of a claims board or commission of not less than three members to perform the entire claims settlement function. This latter delegation was made to the ABAG PLAN CORPORATION when the City executed the documents to join the PLAN. Under the proposed scheme, only those claims for $2,500 or less and for property damage only would remain exclusively in the purview of the City although the risk manager is charged with the responsibility for consultation with the City prior to making settlements under the deductible. If a difference of opinion exists as to whether or not to settle a claim under the deductible, the decision is referred to the claims committee whose decision will be final. Council has two options in handling these small, property damage only claims. One, you can decide to approve settlement directly by Council decision each time. Two, you can delegate settlement authority to a member of the staff. The other action involves setting up a claims payment reserve in the budget to handle claims costs under the deductible. We have been told that the standard reserve which should be budgeted is 1.2 times the amount of the deductible. In our case, this would be $30,000. Because of the revised communications costs which were negotiated after the budget was adopted, a transfer of expenditures from one activity to another can be made without having to appropriate any funds from the reserves. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. delegating claims settlement authority for propertry damage only claims in an amount not to exceed $2,500.00 to the City Manager. 2. Adopt Resolution No. transferring $30,000 in appropriations from Program Code 0001 -12 -4510 (Public Safety Communications General Contractual Services) reducing the appropriation to $245,846 to Program Code 0054 -74 -5340 (General Government Financial Management Insurance) increasing the appropriation to $88,700. arry R jm ?,9 Peacock BILL NO. 3 7 c L`Ari• 9/11/86 (9/17/86) Planning DEPT.: g SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: N /A Exhibits /Attachments: 1 Staff report to City Council 2. Staff report to Planning Commission dated 8/13/86 3. Appeal letter 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 8/13/86 Recommended Action: Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. AGENDA ITEM g,4 SUP -86 -001 Batson, Appeal from the Planning Commission decision to deny a second unit at 18710 Aspesi Dr. Summary: 1. On August 13, 1986, the Planning Commission considered applicant' for a conditional use permit to legalize an existing second unit at the above address. 2., The Planning Commission took public testimony at the hearing and discussed the proposal. The Commission felt that since the unit is non conforming, the driveway would have to be widened to accomodate parking and the size of the lot does not meet the second unit ordinance. The Commission concluded that the proposal was not compati- ble with the neighborhood. On a 5 -0 vote, the Planning Commission denied the request. 3. On August 25, 1986, the applicant appealed the decision for the reasons stated on her appeal application. 5. Exhibits 6. Correspondence to Planning Commission and City Council REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ISSUE YH /kc /dsc SUP -86 -001 Batson, Appeal from the Planning Commission de- cision to deny a second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive The appellant, Carol Batson, wishes to legalize an existing detached accessory structure as a second living unit. On August 13, 1986, after the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the request. They denied the use permit because they could not make all the findings required by City Code Sec. 15- 56.060 as follows: (1) The unit did not comply with the standards for a second unit, i.e., meet the required setbacks (10 ft. side and 25 ft. rear rather than 6 ft. side and 6 ft. rear) and minimum lot size (1.6 times the minimum site area for the district or 16,000 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone rather than 9,949 sq. ft.), (2) the proposed second unit would create parking congestion since the driveway in the front would have to be widened for required parking with the resulting loss of front yard vegetation, and (3) the potential noise could impact the neighbors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION JUSTIFICATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The existing structure is non- conforming under City Code and the Commission weighed the facts and testimony and could not make the findings required to approve the second unit use permit. v U Yuuek Hsia Planing Director 1 DATE: 9/11/96 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/17/86 Use Permit WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has reCeived +he application Carol Batson for second unit use legalize 1z� =�;unu un�� u�� permit ,approval to 1agu1 an existing, detached, one-story 585 sq. ft' second unit at 18710 Hspesi Drive. WHEREAS, Ms. Batson has net the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consi6eratiOn maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in connection with this application for the second unit use permit be and the matter, m an c aama `�s hereby granted the u,�n��o subject to zn� con�itions contained in Exhibit 8-1. `�''�o PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Sarafoga Planning Commission,: State 13th of H t of California, av p u�ua 1B86 bv t he following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION N8. SUP-86-001 CITY OF S8RATOGH PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA File No. SUP-86-001 Chairman, Planning Commission o m �o r' REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION OEMF ©2 0 FROM: Robert Calkins DATE: 8/13/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SUP -88 -001 18710 Aspesi Drive APPLICANT: Carol Batson APN: 389 25 -21 AGENDA ITEM 7 PROJECT CE$CRIPTION: The applicant is requesting use permit approval to legalize an existing detached one story 595 sq. ft. second unit on a level lot in the R 1 10,000 :ontnq dtstrici. ISSUES: fhe applicant's proposal requires modifications to the restrictions and standards for scond units as set forth in Section 15- S6.010 of the City code such as lot area setbacks, occupancy and parking. In staff's opinion the required modifications. will not adversly impact the adiacent properties or neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the use permit subiect to conditions which will 1) increase the privacy of adjacent propery owners 2) provide for an additional parking space and 3) require the applicant (at a later date) to comply with the occupancy restrictions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution SUP 86 001 for an existing second unit subject to conditions, Exhibit A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution SUP -86 -001 approving second unit use permit with conditions, E,.hibit A -1 Exhibit B Findings 3. Technical Information 4. Exhibit C. Property Inspection Report dated 7/11/86. S. Location Map SUP BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE EXHIBIT A -1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUP 66- -001 r S /3 /1't 1 The applicant shall submit a written agreement to the conditions and the proiect as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of the resolution or the resolution approving SUP 867001 is automatically void. Applicant shall eecute note and deed of trust. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the existino second unit, and comply with all requirements of the Inspection Division. Prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit the applicant ;hall provide proof that the tenant of the second unit has been in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. If the current tenant Vacates, the owner shall comply with Section 15 S6.030(i> regardino occupancy. 5. The applicant shall landscape the area between the southern property line and and the second unit. 6. A landscape plan indicating the landscaping required in Condition 44 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit. 7 The applicant shall pave an area south of the existing driveway to accomodate 6 18'x9 1/2' parking space. The design and location of the additional space shall be .reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit. 8. 6t each five _,ear- interval From the date a second unit use permit i5 oranted, the holder of such permit shall certify to the Plannino Director, on such form as he may prescribe that the holder has complied and continues to comply with all of the applicable restrictions and standards of this Article and all conditions as set forth in the use permit. The Planning Director may request the holder to furnish such information and documents as the Director may deem necessary in order to verify the truth or accuracy-of any statements contained in the certification. 9. The orioinal second unit use permit shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 611 of the restrictions and conditions applicable co such use permit shall be set forth therein, together with the requirement for certification of compliance ds provided in Subsection lb-56.080(b). "UP-8G-00/ 8HTSJN. WSPESI DRIUE EXHIBIT B FINDINGS 1. The second unit 1s compatible with the exist1no ne1ohborhood in terms of forw, bulk. heioht material and landscaping. 2. The second unit is constructed with plywood oid1no (painted blue) which notches the exterior appearance and character of the existing main ducllino. 3 The second unit was originally built in 1963 and has been occupied continuously since 1986. There(ore, approval of the use permit will not cause any additional unreasonable no1oa, traffic, parking oonguation, or overload existing public facilities or utilities. 4. Approval of the application for a second unit 10 conditioned on (1 no new windows are to be constructed along the south wall of the second unit and (2) a 1andoapino strip is to be planted between the second unit and southerly property 11ne' There[ure, the second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of udjoi^ino properties. 5. The location of the second unit and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, uufdty or be wuiariall iniuriuus to properties or improvements in the ia1n^t/. EXISTING SETBACKS: TECHNICAL INFORMATION COMMISSION MEETING: 8/13/86 APN: 389 -25 -021 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SUP -86 -001 MAIN UNIT ACTION REQUESTED: Second unit use permit approval for an existing, detached, one -story second unit. APPLICANT: Carol Batson PROPERTY OWNER: same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEOA (15303(a)) ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density EXISTING LANG USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 9 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical landscaping in the front and rear yard including a large oak tree along the western property line located approximately 10 ft. from the existing second unit. SLOPE AT RUILOING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: <1% SECOND UNIT Front: 107 Ft. Rear: 6 Ft. Left Side: 6 Ft. Right Side: 54 Ft. Front: 40 Ft. Rear: 30 ft. _6 in. Left Side: 6 ft. .Right Side: 5 ft. EXISTING HEIGHT: (Second unit) 10 ft. 9 in. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: +35% SIZE OF STRUCTURES MAIN RESIDENCE: First floor (including garage): 2241 sq. ft. SECOND UNIT: First floor: 595 so. ft. TOTAL: 2836 sq. ft. SUP 86 -001 BATSON ASPESI DRIVE ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance contained in Section 15- 56.010 regarding second units. MATERIALS COLORS (second unit): Plywood exterior painted blue to match existing house with tar and oravel roof. III SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE STAFF ANALYSIS A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting use permit approval to legalize an existing second unit in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning distirct. The applicant has indicated the second unit was originally constructed in 1963. The subject property is in a City designated SHARP area. The applicant has applied for a loan to finance repair wort: on the existing main dwelling and (subject to second unit use permit approval) the second unit. The Saratoga City Council approved deferring the collection of fees and deposits ($700.00) in connection with Ms. Batson's second unit use permit application, until (1) upon the initial disbursement of the SHARP loan or (2) 180 days after the execution of the promissary note, whichever occurs first. B. LOT AREA The subject lot is approximately 51 sq. ft. less than the minimum lot area required for the zoning district and therefore does not meet the minimum lot area standard (1.6 times the minimum site area prescribed for the zoning district) for detached second units set forth in Section 15- 56.030(m) the City code. The Saratoga Fire Chief visited the site and concluded that they would not have any difficulty servicing the structures in an emergency. Given the above, and the fact that staff is recommending actions that will assist in increasing the adjacent property owners privacy (see below) staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a modification to Section 15- 56.030(m) regarding minimum lot area. C. SETBACK „PRIVACY The existing second unit is located in the southeast corner of the subject property, 6 ft. from the rear and side property lines where 10 ft. and 25 ft. is required respectively. While the applicant's lot is relatively flat, the rear yard.area is approximately 1 -2 feet higher than the adiacent property to the south. As a result, when viewed from the applicant's property, the wooden fence separating the two properties is only 4 ft. high. A small (2'x:3') bathroom window is the only window located along the second unit's south wall. Any impact on the adjacent property owners privacy will be minimal provided the applicant is restricted in the future from constructing additional windows along the southern wall. In addition, to help soften the blank south wall, staff recommends the applicant landscape the area between the second unit and the southern property line prior to issuance of the second unit use permit. SUP -86 -001 BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE The existing landscaping along the rear property lines, (west) minimizes any potential privacy impacts on the adiacent residences to the west. D. OCCUPANCY Pursuant to Section 15- 56.110(b)(5 the requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person who is sixty years of age or older or physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. The applicant has owned the subiect property for twenty years and intends to continue to occupy the main dwelling. According to the applicant, her twenty year old son has occupied the second unit since 1979. The applicant has indicated she will submit proof of her son's tenancy to the Planning Commission on the night of the meeting. Provided the applicant submits sufficient proof to verify her son's occupancy staff recommends the Planning Commission may waive the requirement set forth in Section 15- 56.030(i) and permit the applicant's son to occupy the second unit. If however, the applicant's son vacates the second unit staff, recommends the Planning Commission require the applicant to comply with the restrictions regarding occupancy. E. PARKING The City's zoning ordinance requires an additional off street covered parking space be provided for the second unit. However, the Planning Commission may waive this requirement, provided not less than three off- street parking spaces are available on -site and there is no feasible location on the site for the additional covered space. The size and shape of the applicant's lot and location of the existing structures on the site, prohibit the construction of a new covered parking space. The applicant has indicated that the current two car garage functions as a garage. Staff recommends the requirement for a third space be met by widening the existing driveway to accomodate an additional parking space. E. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE The second unit was inspected by a private inspection service on July 11, 1986. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit C. The City's Inspection Division has reviewed the above report and recommends the following: 1. All non -code complying electrical conditions noted on pg. 5 of the Property Inspection report must be corrected. Install battery operated smoke detector in the hallway adjacent to the bedroom. 3. Install an adequate heating system capable of maintaining a room SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE F. CONCLUSION temperature of 70 F at a point 3 ft. above the floor in all habitable rooms. The staff analysis identified deficiencies in the applicant's proposal which require modifications to the standards set forth in Section 15- 56.030 of the zoning ordinance including; lot area setbacks, occupancy, parking, buildino code compliance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the second unit standards as discussed above and approve the applicant's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit subject to conditions. PROPERTY INSPECTION SERVICE, INC. 1741 SARATOGA AVENUE SUITE 106 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95129 (408) 446 -9400 STATE CONTRACTORS LIC 190583 Date of inspection: July 11, 1986 Inspected for: This property was inspected by an experienced inspector using reasonable effort to provide an opinion of the existing conditions of the mechanical systems and structural components of this property. This report does not provide a_warranty for the continued use of the systems or components within this property, nor does it dictate what should, or should not be included in the property. Thank you for giving us .the opportunity to provi s inspection service and please feel free to call if you have any questions concerning this report. Respectfully submitted, Property Inspection Service FB \jc PROPERTY INSPECTED Cottage 18710 Aspei Drive Saratoga, California Carol Batson. 18710 Aspei Drive Saratoga, California 95070 GENERAL CONTRACTOR 469463 Floyd R. Butler INTRODUCTION Our inspection is performed by visual examination only. We do not include examination of concealed items within the walls, under concrete slabs or concealed vapor barriers. These items can be inspected by special arrangements and additional cost. Many of the items included in our report can be judged for code compliance or lack of code compliance. However, there are some items included in our inspection that require a subjective opinion of relative condition. Obviously, a subjective opinion is most credible when provided by a neutral and unbiased inspector, certainly, this is our intended position. It is also important that you understand our use of several key words in'our report. They are as follows: 1. MINOR: We note "minor" condition to reflect the current level of wear and tear and /or "minor" exposure to health and safety or "minor" exposure to ultimate failure of a system or component. This type of comment usually suggests that the item should be corrected during routine maintenance. 2. SERVICEABLE: We note "serviceable" to a system or component if that system or component is actually capable of providing its intended function. Therefore, a system may show some minor wear or deterioration and still be considered serviceable. 3. SEVERE: We note "severe" to a condition of a system or component when in our opinion, immediate action should be taken to correct the condition. We believe the report in its narrative form should be easily understood, however, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. PROPERTY SITE: The wood perimeter fence is in serviceable condition with no evidence of excessive or unusual deterioration. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The plywood exterior covering of the building is in serviceable condition with no signs of unusual or excessive deterioration. There is a condition of wood to earth contact at the front and west end of the cottage. This condition could result in premature deterioration or pest infestation. It is suggeGtPd th compe4ent pest c a tro .l_._contractor_be__-co.nsulted _so that they may determine if there is any pest infestation or wo.od.�destroying organ.isaii A representative number of exterior windows were inspected and appear to be in serviceable condition for proper operation and weathersealing. However, our inspection does not include the confirmation of the condition of water proofing flashing. This flashing is concealed behind the exterior siding and is not visible, therefore, inspection of this item will require special arrangements and additional cost. However, the window at the bathroom is not provided with an adequate locking device for sufficient security. The exterior doors appear to be in serviceable condition. ROOF COVERING: The tar and gravel roof covering for the building appears to be in serviceable condition. There is evidence of minor deterioration that appears to be the result of normal wear. There is some exposed underlayment that appears to be the result of normal wear. There are overhanging tree limbs or shrubs which could come in contact with and damage the roof covering. While performing the routine maintenance, they should be _tr-immed__prevent an_y__ contact the roof covering. C This roof is covered with a large amount of tree eaves and beaches It is su th the_ debris be_removed to prolong the life of the roof covering and to allow proper water The roof is equipped with metal flashing. The metal flashing serve to provide a water tight seal for all .penetrations through the roof; i.e. plumbing vents, flues, and chimneys. The flashing at this roof appear to be in serviceable condition and do not show any unusual signs of excessive deterioration. Routine maintenance should include the cleaning and spot painting of all exposed metal flashing on the roof. The downspouts appear to be in serviceable condition with no signs of unusual or excessive deterioration. Routine maintenance should include the annual cleaning, spot painting, and joint sealing of the downspouts. There is a missing downspout that should be ser-v g fhP giit_ter at the rear and front of_ the building. It is suggested that ns_p _.a _d. owout-�be' installed to adequately control the roof drainage. BUILDING INTERIOR: The building interior is inspected for evidence of structural failure only, therefore, there are no comments made concerning the cosmetic condition of the paint, wall covering, carpeting, drapes, etc. The condition of the walls and the ceilings within the building do not reflect any signs of unusual or excessive settlement or structural failure. There are several minor hairline cracks at the plaster surfaces. This condition is not the result of structural failure but is due to normal building movement or material shrinkage. It is suggested that these minor cracks could be repaired duringr.o.utine redecorating. The stall shower appears to be provided with a safety glass type enclosure. This condition complies with the most current code for safety. Our inspection of a wall cavity at the exterior wall of the bedroom indicated that the walls are insulated with fiberglas insulation which helps to improve the energy efficiency of the cottage. 4 K The cottage is_ no. _equipped__with a smokg_Lf ixe alarm located in the hall adjacent to the bedrooms. Effective January 1,1986 it is a state _requirement that any home sold California.mu st be equipped with an approved type of smoke /fire alarm. It is suggested that the property be provided with this_s afety feature. Our inspection of the sink cabinet in the kitchen of the cottage did not reveal the presence of a fire extinguisher. Although this is not a code required safety device, it has been determined by the fire marshal to be an effective safety device. It is our suggestion that a unit be stored in the sink cabinet of the cottage and checked periodically for proper operation. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: The primary electrical supply for this property is a 220 volt at 70 amps, all of which appears to be code complying and in serviceable condition. The electrical system is provided with a main disconnect switch located outside the building. This switch should always be kept accessible for use in emergencies. The branch circuit wiring uses copper conductors (wire), all of which appear to,be properly protected and code complying for the date of its original installation. However, after a representative number of circuit and outlet inspections it was noted that there are non -code complying_ electrical condtt.io.ns_at the _following Tocatio Si- °'1': "`The exterior duplex outlet and conduit at the east end of the cottage is not adequately fastened. This condition could result in a shock hazard. 2. The exterior duplex outlet at the west end is not grounded, therefore, does not provide adequate user protection for appliances using a three prong type plug. 3. There is exposed and unprotected wiring at the north wall of the living room above the window. Itis sug eg sted that a competent electrical contractor be consulted for recommendations and corrective work. 5 The current electrical code requires certain circuits to be protected with ground fault interruptors. This property appears to predate the adoption of the code, therefore, it is not required to add this protection at this time. For maximum user protection, consideration could be given toward incorporating the use of ground fault circuit interruptor type circuit breakers at certain locations. PLUMBING SYSTEM: The plumbing drainage system for this property is served by the city /county sewage treatment facility. The drainage piping within the property is cast iron all of which appears to be in serviceable condition with no signs of unusual or excessive deterioration. The property is served with the city /county water service for domestic water needs. The domestic water piping is galvanized iron all of which appears to be in serviceable condition with no signs of unusual or excessive deterioration. The hot water piping is not insulated with energy saving insulation. This condition is normal in this climate area, however, wrapping the hot water piping would help to reduce energy consumption and speed up the time it would take for the hot water to reach distant faucets or showers. It appears that the faucets and showers are not equipped with low flow water restrictors. This condition is normal, however, the installation of these flow restrictors would offer some energy cost savings. 6 ssz The domestic hot water is furnished by a gas hot water heater with a capacity of thirty gallons. The unit appears to be in serviceable condition and is equipped with the following: A temperature /pressure relief valve to protect the system from failure because of excessive temperature or pressure. An approved type gas valve and piping to provide convenient gas shutoff. An adequate flue to handle flue gases. Sufficient combustion air ventilation to serve the burners of the water heaters. The water heater is not equipped with the following items: An insulation blanket to provide additional energy conservation. A seismic strap to protect the water heater from tipping over in the event of an earthquake. HEATING SYSTEM: The buildirtq heating_ is.__ f_ ux. ni _shed___with_an__electrc, baseboard heating unit.. The unit i_s not considered serviceable its present condition because of w.�_..,.._ ...._..._..._....,.._,r.__..___ There is no permanent heat installed at the time of this inspection. However, the home owner has expressed that a new gas type wall heater will be installed into this building. ATTIC SPACE: The design of this building does not incorporate the use of an attic space. FOUNDATIONS CRAWL SPACE: The design of this building does not incorporate the use of a crawl space, therefore, underfloor structural and mechanical items can not be inspected. RAL COMMENTS: The main house has approximately 2,016 square feet. The garage has approximately 508 square feet. 7 11 1..;1 to an1111111 IT Ann .4 NI I Ewa: 211 _ummul11111111 num! gall 1411413:1112119•101•1 =4.... imi NW MN kp 4 4 Si 411111114 IIIMinill .41. 4.1191111ARILITI WIIMIAS -wwwilillePra 4 4 1 Pa tahla '1111 PAR It MUM 2ows 61 klutakeit m ilL our Sift fPAI 3,001i 07/e4CNN r Su P- 840-001 s August 25, 1986 Ms. Carol F. Batson 18710 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Batson: We have received your appeal application dated August 25, 1986, regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of legalization of an existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We have received Mr. Carrol's check #4976 in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal and public noticing. The public hearing on this matter has been set for September 17, 1986. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. Please submit eight (8) 17" by 11 1/2" exhibits for this hearing. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, e, oaiixw 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: ✓Planning Department John Carroll, 2176 The Alameda, San Jose 95126 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson #62-t Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: pLN1A Grounds *Please do not City offices. appeal please Tot APPEAL APPLICATION C,S(1Zo L F 13 I4 T SUN t g? 0 AS PE3 l D2 UN r7 y'— 3 y Lk SAAA6 F PA Date Received:Y Hearing Date: Fee 570.0 CITY USE ONLY LE6A .t pF EXIST /A SEcokiD N IT PL_Ati N nJ C6M it" ‘S5 for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): V IQ( T WAS G c N S TR v CD a (e"`'`- `c r Rp��r s,vg—di m rev -a 0-1-4 (l �1 AA-61A tL- 1 0 n-e PV Y 6 75t‘ 691,-,-,: 4 A-e-ctyyt,L.w\aq,462-/ Gpo',1-.3 v61-6 /“.4-e r, L e fA1 G RANT 16\36 WoUL D HE2P S A r o So (IA c pe6IZEZ1 -N6- Nt�" PR S" I o C L F. ATSo NJ Ho c, f o G A5 00 4 Y t, C arILsV 9 f J 1 o, G t T I 61 s w 0 V I- 'D IA o 0 Sk D tN pc la t s Signature �e-u ATTokA sign this application until it is presented at the If you wish specific people to be notified of this list them on a separate sheet. a 0 THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF d THE DATE OF THE DECISION. .PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1986 7. SUP -86 -001 Carol Batson, request for a conditional use permit to legalize an existing second unit located at 18710 Aspesi Dr. in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district City Attorney Toppel requested necessary documents from the applicant. Planning Director Hsia read the Report to Planning Commission of August 13, 1986. He called attention to six letters received which protest the praised Permit approval. The City Attorney stated that Condition 2 should be deleted; this requirement has been met. On Condition 6, delete the wording "Condition 4" and insert "Condition 5 Vice Chairwoman Harris reported on the Site visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Ms. Carol Batson, stated that she has no arguments with requests made by the City; paving over lawn area will be done to provide an extra required parking space. A plan design will be forthcoming. To the back, facing south, plantings will be done to block the view of the house, make the area quieter and provide more privacy for neighbors. The Applicant assured the Commission that plants would grow in this area; it is a matter of finding which will grow best. The Applicant addressed the concerns of the neighbors; application for a Permit was made to comply with City requirements and have an older person in occupancy in the back unit. She has been a widow since 1984 and has had health problems; her mother -in -law had lived in the back wait for 11 years. There were no problems until her son occupied the unit; he has agreed to move out and will put this agreement in writing to satisfy the neighbors. This is the main concern of the neighbors. Secondly, Ms. Batson does not believe that this application will cause a rash of second units to be built in the neighborhood. This second unit has existed since 1963 and no other neighbor has applied for a permit to build a similar unit. The applicant wishes to utilize this unit for needed extra income for herself and her children; she has spent time and money to prepare this unit for rental use. In summary, the applicant stated that this testimony answers the main concerns of the neighbors, namely, that: 1) There would be non compliance with City Codes addressing the age of an occupant in second units 2) Rental units would increase significantly in the neighborhood Ms. Batson presented a letter verifying that her son occupied the second unit from 1978, six months after the death of her mother -in -law. Planning- Director Hsia added that Ms. Batson is eligible for a housing rehabilitation loan. The Council has agreed to defer payment of fees; Planning department is awaiting a decision on the second unit and is prepared to help the applicant rehabilitate the main house and the second unit. Vice Chairwoman Harris confirmed that Council action will enable the applicant to rehabilitate her hone even if the Planning Commission denies the application for a Use Permit for the second unit. The Planning Director informed. the Applicant of the options and procedures available to her at this time. City Attorney Toppel clarified the legal definition of a second stricture. used as a dwelling; the kitchen is a benchmark of what defines a second unit. He stated that if the Application is denied, the unit would have to be removed or relocated due to nonconformance of setback requirements unless a Variance was obtained. The Commission can modify the setback standards in granting a Use Permit; this unit could then be occupied as a rental unit, subject to City. Code restriction. Such occupancy must be by a senior citizen with the owner residing on the property. Mr. pert gyp, Wilk Homeowners Association, 13638 Riverdale Ct., Saratoga, presented a formal statement to the Commission which registered Objections of the Wildcreek Homeowners Association to the application under consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES I JGUST 13, 1986 Item #7 cont. Nr. F. Ryalls, 13631 Mrs. J Tiir s, 18696 letter registered the from occupancy by a concerns. Riverdale Drive, Saratoga, read a letter of Mr. and Aspesi Drive, Saratoga, dated August 8, 1986. The objection of the Lucus' wing the second unit family member to a rental unit and listed other Mrs. Batson restated that her intention is to make the neighborhood a quieter area. She plans to screen potential renters and prefers to rent to one, older person; this would reduce traffic and noise. Ms. Becky Riles, 13631 Riverdale Drive, stated that the neighborhood does not want second units; she asked why the question of bringing this building up to Building Code has not been raised. Vice Chairwoman Harris responded that the Staff Report clearly address this issue. City Attorney stated that this unit would be brought into compliance with 1986 Blinding .Codas and an inspection report would detail any work to be completed. sIEGFRIED/CALIANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE I BLIC HEARING AT 8:56 P.M. Passed 5 -0 Commissioner Siegfried stated that he originally opposed second units in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Upon reconsideration of the issue and review of the Council's recommendations, this lot is 9,950 sq. ft. with a house in exrpss of 2,200 sq. ft.; a second unit is very close to the ply line. This unit would not have been permitted to be built. The potential impact on the neighborhood is of serious concern. Commissioner Tucker concurred and stated that she visited the site. She noted that one of the trees in the back yard with a limb, ten inches in diameter, which overhangs the roof of the second unit; the City Horticulturist needs to assess whether damage will be caused to the tree if overhanging limbs are removed. In the opinion of the Cc mnissioner, removal of overhanging limbs will insure the safety of the roof and prevent fire hazard. Secondly, the Commissioner noted the narrowness of the driveway which would have to be widened to accommodate another car; this is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood character. Finally, the impervious coverage is greater than not on plans; there is a shed and a patio. Vice Chairwoman Harris stated that she did not concur with -Staff Finding 3 that approval of the Use Permit would not cause any additional or unreasonable noise; any unit 6 feet from a property line will create additional noise. The Ordinance requires the lot to be 1.6 times the Standard; this application is below Standard. The Vice Chairwoman was unable to make the necessary Findings. Commissioner Callans stated that he sees no place to add additional parking in the front lot. He added that he has difficulty with the fact that the second unit has been on this property for a long time without any prior complaints. The City Attorney stated that while the City has grandfathered main dwelling units in residential districts, City Ordinances do not grandfather accessory structures; there is no evidence that this secondary structure was legally built in the first place. Even if the structure was legally built, with the adoption of present zoning regulations it would have become non conforming. The structure would then have been removed, or a Variance granted allowing setbacks at the existing allocation of the structure. A second Variance application is required to allow the building to stand. SIEGFR1ED/TUCIR MOVED TO DENY SUP-86 -001. Passed 5 -0. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Yuchuek Hsia, Planning Director Dear Director: Please reject this permit application. Thank you. Augast 13, 1986 We are against the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to legalize an existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive for rental purposes by Carol Batson. We have been Mrs. Batson's next door neighbors ever since she and family moved into 18710 Aspesi Drive, and have had good relations. We understand her present desires to want to rent her existing second unit to non relatives. This unit has always been occuppied by the immediate family regardless of the home owner, but to rent the unit out is different. The second unit does not conform to neighborhood architecture, or does it conform to building codes and ordinances. We are very concerned for our- selves, as well as all our neighbors welfare and safety. The type of structure and loseness to our property line creates a serious fire prevention�� c i e increased non absorbant conditions on the property floor increases rain run -off, which could cause excess water onto our property which is at a lower elevation. Added parking spaces and additional traffic adds to the hazards of the neighborhood where many small children still play. We have not always appreciated the activity next door to our home, but being friends of Carol Batson, we have never said anything realizing it was a family oriented situation. Now, though, a second unit as a non family rental is different. Leniency on a permit not only will effect adjacent neighbors but has an adverse effect on the entire neighborhood. We must think of what is best and of the desires for all, not just that of one individual. Sincerely, 9 /V4i f4,e -e MR. MRS. HN H. LUC S 18696 Aspesi Drive Saratoga C_di g/ /_rg‘ SO i City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 TO: Yuchuek Hsia, Planning Director RECEIVED AUG 81946 PLANNING DEPT. August 7, 1986 I am responding to Carol Batson request for granting a conditional use permit to legalize an existing second unit located at 18710 Aspesi Drive. I am concerned about setting a precedence for other property owners who may have or would like to have a second unit on there property. Therefore, I object to granting the requested use permit. �iyrz 1 2/' 1-i% �z Emil M. Nederostek 18665 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, California 95070 /cl,! -P C •LAC /L �L.r..tc�� �iG� /Cc`� z6 is L l i(� L 6Y e, j -;I /L .A.f ,IL _-(---/-e ,i G L i7 /L• •L. C CT i‘.4 (C.'., c c z az.. .-l2 L 2e,,-L/ i (t- c e -!L -[!.!lC.- tT,LCl L "Cf r/�-�.c.'i,ylc� dGC� fed.`. _L. t��c G'� /t/ �C�a� -C .....,1(c?..-4 dv.--4 cr.) /-o-L 27i k /9 %y C i;;�..IC1C'uG•1� LP -S6-061 ROCSIVECI Atm n 1966 PLANNING DEPT, 9 L� Y ��C i/ r cl�� iL L' L -ee je/2-tz./- Az/ �cJ L /4 a_ .<s� Cif•. ��l.- -��izc /227 )42 /5/1. ;L.�r C�`.�. /ti� f .cam J l C•tCi�t c C 4 -6. Gam_ My name is Robert Culp and I reside at 13638 Riverdale Drive. I am here representing the Wildcat Creek Homeowners Association and concerned residents in our area. We object to the applicant's request to legalize and illegal building at 18710 Aspesi Drive. This building does not, cannot, nor has it ever satisfied code. Therefore, this request should be denied. This area is zoned R -1- 10,000. Allowing an illegal second unit would open the door for zoning changes in this area. This request is in direct violation of the General Plan (see Exhibit A) which states, "Without exception, the land here is developed for single family detached residential use. To preserve the area's integrity it is essential that this low density single family detached residential character be maintained throughout the entire area." Granting this request would encourage people to put the cart- before the horse, i.e. build illegally first and get permits later. This type of unchecked construction can have hidden potential hazards and creates a precedence for legalizing illegal buildings. The present and future visual impact of the area would be negatively affected and would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The requirement to widen the driveway to provide an additional parking space would have a negative visual impact. The frontage of the lot is narrow and the additional concrete parking space would fill up most of the front yard. The front yard would look like a parking lot and would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Traffic problems created by second units are also a concern. The home is situated on a lot near where the street makes a sharp curve. There have been concerns expressed about the safety of pedestrians and small children in this area as cars do not heed safe speed limits and we have no sidewalks. Additional cars will aggravate this problem. The second unit was not only built without permits; it does not meet the side and rear yard setback requirements for R -1- 10,000 zoning. Ordinance states 10' side setback; 25' rear setback. This second unit has only a 6' side and 6' rear setback. These setback violations potentially increase the speed in which a fire could spread to neighboring areas. The lot itself does not meet code. It is only 9,949 sq. ft. when it should be 10,000 sq. ft. This lot is 38% smaller than the minimum required for 2 unit dwellings (which is 16,000 sq. ft.) The homes in the neighborhood have been well maintained. There has been a trend toward upgrading and preserving existing dwellings. Residents moving into the neighborhood are professionals with young children who desire to live in single family units. Long established residents (some of them original owners), have expressed a strong desire to maintain the single family dwelling nature of the neighborhood. Item 3 of the City Exhibit B states, "the second unit has been occupied continuously since 1966. Therefore, approval of the use permit will not cause any additional unreasonable noise, traffic, parking congestion, or overload existing public facilities or utilities." This unit has been occupied since 1966 by family members. It has not been used as a second unit rental. Such use would adversely affect parking, noise, traffic, etc. because there would be two families using one lot zoned for single family dwellings only. Existing law requires that in second unit dwellings at least one person has to be 60 years of age or older. The city has no program to enforce this requirement. Someone can move in one day and out the next. Who is going to montior these second unit requirements? The staff analysis identified deficiencies in the applicants proposal which require modifications to the standards set forth in Section 15- 56.030 of the zoning ordinance. The staff in essence is recommending that the Planning Commission modify and eliminate second unit standards with regard to zoning ordinances, lot requirements, building codes, parking provisions and occupancy. By granting this request, a precedence would be set and the character of the neighborhood would soon change for the worse creating potential parking, safety problems and run -down, 3 unkept properties. In conclusion, the Wildcat Creek Homeowners Association of this established single family neighborhood of over twenty years, opposes the granting of this request. We object to the legalization of an illegal second dwelling on the grounds that it has at least 10 violations of city ordinances, it also violates the General Plan and sets an undesirable precedent for others to do the same. The overwhelming majority of neighborhood residents object to second units. Therefore, we encourage the Planning Commission to adhere to the General Plan and retain this long established neighborhood for single family dwellings only. 4 AREA L, KENTFIELD Area L, Kentfield, is bounded on the north by the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, West Valley Transportation Corridor and the PG &E right -of -way, on the west by Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues, on the south by Allendale and Pollard Road, and on the east by San Thomas Creek. Quito Road forms westerly boundaries for a small portion of the area and Vasona Creek, an all -year creek of special environmental value, connects to Wildcat Creek in the northeastern corner of the planning area. This area is almost completely developed. The northern and eastern portions of this area have predominant quarter -acre (R -1- 10,000) zoning. The more recently developed southwest portion has half -acre (R -1- 20,000) zoning, and is separated from the older residential area by an intermediate portion that has one -third acre (R- 1- 15,000) zoning. Without exception, the land here is developed for single family detached residential use. To preserve the area's integrity it is essential that this low density single family detached residen- tial character be maintained throughout the entire area. The only major underdeveloped sites are adjoining parcels at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. Their development will be a major factor in determining not only the overall character of this portion of the planning area, but also the additional traffic at, and the future appearance of, this congested intersection. To maintain cohesiveness of this planning area, future develop- ment of these parcels shall be low density single family detached „4 (R -1- 20,000), as designated in the 1974 General Plan. This density would avoid aggravating an already serious traffic and congestion problem at the intersection. Ronnie Way shall not be developed through to Saratoga or Fruitvale Avenues, thereby preventing intrusion of heavy traffic into the area's residential streets. The development of these parcels will have a significant visual effect. The pleasant open space look which these orchards have afforded the City should be preserved, insofar as possible, through attractive landscaping and adequate setbacks in conjunction with any development of the sites. The major traffic carriers which form the boundaries of the Kentfield area create serious planning problems. Saratoga Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue, Quito Road and Allendale Avenue are heavily travelled by West Valley College students and residents of. the City. Bicyclists and pedestrians also use these routes but are not well accommodated. Adequate pedestrian pathways and bicycle trails should be completed wherever possible along these routes. /9 7 AP, /916 6' -o7c .4?/Se )Ard 4)7i. -7W 7 .2 771/ /1711 ,g' ir c 447/_7222 l ;i w r _P ld) 4Y11 0 91" :V i r f 7 t'Z" 7 ,n 0 0 ,11 1 4,2v �>v g,pr- 1' Y /b /w virmv Af a r i mAyww, mfr ,1,o 72 Y 711 u P"P 7 /2 /7 a�Jid <WdP WI/ wfr-rvFi 27/' /00 9 -°d S c,/ 792-7/7-9- /S avAppp- IV) STEVENSON PATTI 18682 ASPESI DR SARATOGA CA C C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 95070 389/25/023 RECEIVED AUG 121986 PLANNING DEPT. NOTICE OF HEARING CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on WEDNESDAY, the 13th day of August, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Ca. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. SUP -86 -001 CAROL BATSON, 18710 ASPESI DRIVE CONSIDER GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING SECOND UNIT LOCATED AT 18710 ASPESI DR., SARATOGA, CA. IN THE R -1- 10,000 ZONING DISTRICT PER CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission /Site Review Committee at, or prior to the public hearing. Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director (..Q L ,L,_lc,i, ,10 a,at,x_L .7--L &)-66cA) LC .-‘4,--e,ice jii, z, 77 ,4 ,,,:i eg,„.„,u iL L. ma x.. t- w ,4 �ze-<,c 0,(-y .GC'x ,lei, ILL A/L4t e_, di _e_a i t .--Azz‘e ,Z) ,r,L 4L(A/L674,,I, U City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director Dear Director: 1. 9 2 n H. Lucas Jacqueline R. Lucas ceOlk -k7 August 8, 1986 We, the undersigned, are against and do not approve of the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to legalize a second unit now located at 18710 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga, CA as men- tioned in your recent Notice of Hearing. The following facts and reasons explain why we do not want the permit approved. To legalize the above mentioned existing second unit would be breaking the law of a current ordinance now on the books of the City of Saratogo. From many requirements listed under the present ordinance, there are two that do not permit this second unit to be legally operated today. A second unit on a property must have a residence on the property of a person 65 years of age or older, and not have cooking facilities within the second unit. The property at the above address does not abide by either of these requirements. Why do we have laws if we are not going to enforce. them? Why permit.or authorize laws to be broken? .If the above permit is issued where a senior citizen is not involved, then the Saratoga Planning Commission is then allowing anybody and everybody to build and have second units on their properties for a sundry of reasons. Also, second units should not be specially permitted, as here, to house young teenagers. People moving to Saratoga did not move there with the desire to live in areas of congested housing, rental properties, added parking and traffic congestion. Planning Commission, let's stay within the existing law as it pertains to second units! We again say we are against the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to legalize a second unit now located at 18710 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga, CA. Sincerely, RECEIVED AUG 111986 PLANNING DEPT. City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 TO: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk September 9, 1986 I am responding to C. Batson (Sup -86 -001) Appeal of Denial of Legalization of Existing Second Unit at 18710 Aspesi_Drive:_ IIhave been a :resienf_at=18665�_ Aspesi Drive in the City of Saratoga for the past 28 years. When I purchased my home in 1958, it was with the understanding that it was a single residence area with no second units on the property to be used :_asrental "_units I= strongly;% object to the legalization of the existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive (Carol Batson:residence);. Legalizing this second unit would set a precedence and encourage other property owners in Saratoga to build second units on their property and then go before the City Council and request approval of these units. The City of Saratoga is a good place to live and I want it to stay that way. Thanks for listening to a concerned and long time resident of Saratoga. Emil Mary Nederostek 18665 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, California 95070 September 10, 1986 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Saratoga City Council Dear Council Members: I, the undersigned, appose the legalization.bf the second unit at Aspesi Drive that appears on your meeting schedule of September 17, 1-9 -86 —as an _'__Appeal _of Denial" My wife and I bought our home on Aspesi Drive in Saratoga in 1964 because we wanted to be in an area that had only single dwelling homes on each lot. This is still the situation now existing on Aspesi Drive. Many people have bought homes in this area, even as recently as the last couple of years, with the above desire and belief in mind. To allow second units per lot to be built, and ultimately allowed to be- come rentals, does not solve problems, but only creates unacceptable problems. Such problems as lowering adjacent and neighborhood property values, increasing traffic conjestion on narrow unlighted streets, increasing noise levels and problems, etc.are only a few specific reasons for denying this appeal to legalize the second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. Building second unit rentals on single dwelling lots is not the way to solve a persons economical problem in Saratoga. To legalize an illegal located house, and spot- rezone to allow this to take place is wrong. You, as a committee, must consider the welfare of the greater majority of home owners of Saratoga, not just the desires of one person. Please deny the appeal for legalization. Sincerely, JJ N H. LUCAS 8696 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Sp 1 0 1586 7 /14-4-) --„„e„,t/ e e f,r‘ ior 41IF Saratoga City Council Saratoga Planning Comm. Saratoga, CA. September 11, 1986 RE: Li c ense of se cond Unit at 18710 Aspesi Dr. for Mrs. Carol Batson Dear Members; We wish to express our approval along with many other neighbors for said licensing. We have been neighbors for almost 25 years and have the best of relations with the Batson family. Mrs. Batson is a responsible, considerate, and cawing neighbor. The said house is small and an o cazpant's car would not add ingestion to Aspesi Dr. She has stated that she plans to rent to an older person and that would be a huge improvement over the teen -agers noisly playing their auto stereos and careening around on Aspesi Dr. We can send in letters from„ Other neighbors who also approve and urge you to grant her appeal. Respectfully, Mr. Mrs. (Cu3tis Leonard 13630 Fern crest Ct. Saratoga, CA. Attention: Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director Dear Director; RECEIVED SEP 39 PLANNING DEPT. 18640 Aspesi Ct. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 June 15, 1986 I am against and do not approve of the granting of: "Appeal of Denial of Legalization of Existing Second Unit at 18710 Aspesi Dr." C. Batson Sup -86 -001, as mentioned in your Notice of Hearing. To leagalize the above mentioned existing second unit would be breaking the law of a current oridinance now on the books of the City of Saratoga. This area has always been a quiet residential good, family area. If you allow this unit to go as a non family rental, it will set a precedent for the area. A large number of the lots in this area could accomadate a second unit. If this one is passed, in a few years down the way, it could be the decline of a lovely neighborhood. We purchased our home 24 years ago because it was a good family area and we want it to stay that way. If this second unit for non family rental is approved it will have an adverse, negative effect on the entire neighborhood and area. Please reject this appeal. Thank you, G c Gladys A. Riggle 18640 Aspesi Ct. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 (408) 379 -3951 SEP 1 0 1906 (j,_ ,c$ iq 7 5z, 44-) ti(7L•z,) de74;;6 7 c_e-ex 7S _7670 0 7z0 4 co qz 4 /87/0 17SPES/ ,Opeivr 5,9eArt,G1) 7:71 ha/ cle4r c.c -6 r .11 )!c,. 0 VI' at nrari -Couch, wp. roof li2.‘4 i 12 4 •,1 Pr a is d 1 .4 C 37 37 30 STATE NINON AND GEOLOGY BOARD JAMES A. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN (i. SECTOR 0 SAN TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP BY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Reduced from L24,000 EXPLANATION Sedtor boundary Properties owned or controlled by aggregate producers Depleted resources STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GOVERNOR THE RESOURCES AGENCY GORDON K. VAN VLECN, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DON L. BLUBAUGM, DIRECTOR Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Areas In The SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY Production- Consumption Region STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD SEPTEMBER 1985 PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2790 HAYWARD OUADRANOLE SMARA DESIGNATION MAP NO.115-4 PLATE S HAYWARD, CALIF. To: City Council of Saratoga Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address N. D4f OS 7.EK' /r 3 446P2- D 7; 71/60 e sTE spes; /1 fi -I( ,45-P45 d•e,eAliZoiyA /'737 /9-se..-s; (fib FRAPi c& ie S7 13 YMl ere_. c ,{te ri- e �t- 5 U 5/q't1 K c /I °/.--Y IVO 9 A/24 64 ;Mr, 9- Mrs Mal hilsO4 i .6 1 v S4 r41 @tr ?5°7 PETITION Page Signature dA,ez? To: City Council of Saratoga Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. (Print -rint I name and address /7v)02 67)6(7' 2a o/ 7iinneri 13 F erncred CI Sir foci at C/9 9S0 7 D o Lucas 3(of ,gSPcsi 3arcciDlet, C/? 9S070 ce, C Gti, V L. V 1s6 cH., {Is -,des f e 9- q c.) U /6. eye_ rr 4 -spur /.31e. /47 -2A 7`o Cti 4 cot( qq s- 7 �v Sox e,--7 s 67 PETITION Page 2- of _/3 Signature -e �3 Z 1 4 --7;-".-6 To: City Council of Saratoga PETITION Page _3 of /5 Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address Signature �2 7i}ey To: City Council of Saratoga PETITION Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address Signature nyak es. 6er+i /77 eLb aa k C:Z we FoLGY /0630 SPOsl c Mo4Ry 5 zANA/6 Fotry I ?G3o A Kro s AT Pis ci 4 GLAD•is. A. (A.L(4. i 9( 4/ A -s pe i 71 e ‘sbt-to A E, S\ ck Page _I- of 1/4J_LQ,2c 2 Al e 4 .-I ,z,7/65 5--e-.5 eV g egiee,,). (RI tr l q- -S )1 p h E-fr cif 1 a, aALe_:e. To: City Council of Saratoga PETITI ©N Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address 4 .4 -1-(/)0 W6i_,(0/ lb'7o M ri_drl. C- Rob Cr�7�6 GJ /SO1 �h l (70, Mei-,er GF M4 R6�Ry RogiNsoA) /870/ ME TL &2 CY. ut9 d g. e Gtr PS /Ve/ me://e, ct LM033,47 Page .-C /3 Signature To: City Council of Saratoga Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address /'t 7 /4 T75 7 D Ar-- 6. Miotrk EFEY emc f\ ts'r k Lcd9-1•aR 4 1-FF 1e7 -s A opCsc v� r9-7 0 6 9 c,- PETITION Page t _of Signature To: City Council of Saratoga Print name and address Okikstc l ue 130c YV ct'" ;0 c1/3- Yc°Y -1 /;.7 d 54 2 2 R.',/{-047€ Sari 95 7 QbccQ L AV /3 1 64ided -e 2je 5ar& Ao 7 q P-Y,4 LLs 1501 tNEQcLE t g.. ■q ICJRNN 4/ii /3 c. 3 ,era /P /Jr. J f !(h<f fo Q C' C567 9 7.4 PETITION Page f _of Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of. Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5-0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. )?--(///4e To: City Council of Saratoga Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address 29 0,e6 .74 y Ode /i'1-C/0 J,9rrICS C. Orter..n /f6/ Asees1 p2 4 1/c/ W v�� /e Hq W,r ?'•r 1- n e\I k C/ u`C-n u n n /4sp 5 i ij} Oec�� /VW) s i 6k- DiK 0 s tJJG' S?), PETITION 41. iris bnsPEsi At(34 l f _Ae /77/ /e915 a AS fe3 (4-zr_42,2-O LE 0A7 J 7 4si f 1 Piz- P T L€- /ra6-7- /Ater, c7, I4 y _�46 /eg7C 5 D t dtz 1 ,kko(e 1 31 As.pe.s t 11• P c? L L) krhe /4'3/ Page _of Signature e afwz oetspi-E-L)s Print name and address Joi}J 7r Ciockriti_ To: City Council of Saratoga Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. i� 4P51 J3 n V,lCZ.K S coLPrftk 1 d LU C k Qt? b;111 J 8. 0- L4 Ss e- L I; 624 h', gi4 CPAisL, PETITION 2_41 Page _I_of /3 1 JsPesi 1)R: 4RucF M[Lz4N r R 5614 F'-e t et, N(2 c r.04A ilvicurvet [ffc& H Or, j Ar q5 To: City Council of Saratoga PETITION :Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address M M/,4 D(J/ -oC) L o ps) D u i z f a, 69sr L Page 0 of /.3 Signature S/,� S /9s&h7C2G/►- To: City Council of Saratoga PETITION Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of. Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address 1 Pit1111•s ,/p 13 L3YRi[ i0. Page of _I3 Signature To: City Council of Saratoga Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address PETITION v-�i� /g7,5 C cbteze= t't,;Al4 37S 0 #0a j --C- /7, /1%4(/e r /3750 /7/tr. PH am I') 751 76lf l e I Y�rSS'I «740 1-14c'1ri CI. Page l0 Signature 6�Ti1 ao R. E /4:/t To: City Council of Saratoga /j'I�}Rriiv e, acebeG- /3 P /t'C �D PETITION Page 1...3_of /3 Subject: SUP 86 -001. Appeal of Denial of legalization of existing second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. WE, the undersigned, request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5 -0) decision and deny this request to legalize an extremely substandard, illegal second unit at 18710 Aspesi Drive. We strongly believe this second unit is not in keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood and would pose problems to immediate neighbors. Print name and address Signature JOHN R. CARROLL JOHN J. GEORGE STEPHEN R. OLIVER LYNNE A. STEPHENSON Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 Madams /Sirs: THE LAW OFFICES OF CARROLL, GEORGE, OLIVER STEPHENSON 2176 THE ALAMEDA SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126 September 12, 1986 RE: 18710 Aspesi Drive, Second Unit Appeal I represent Carol F. Batson, a widow, of the above address, who lives on said property with three of her children, who are now 19 years, 17 and 14. The facts, briefly stated, are: this is a house and lot in a sub- division which was built prior to 1963; original owners were Mr. and Mrs. J. Lingafelter; in the summer of 1963, they secured a building permit from the City of Saratoga and, as authorized thereby, built onto their property a "1 -F Addition" which was a guest cottage. See Ex. 1 attached (building permit); in October, 1967, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Batson purchased the property and moved in with their family. On November 7, 1967, the Batsons secured a City of Saratoga Building permit, (Ex. 2) and employed Dan Palermo, a licensed Building Contractor, to add a bedroom onto an existing guest cottage. This is corroborated by a Declaration from Mr. Palermo attached (Ex. 3). From about the time that the Batsons purchased the property in 1967, the mother of Mr. Batson, Marjorie Batson, lived in the guest cottage. When she passed away 11 years later in February, 1978, the •r- son he e• o e uly, 1980, City o Saratoga plumbing and gas building permit was secured (see Ex. 4) d a toilet was put in the unit. The Zoning Regu a ions nvolved here appear in the City of Saratoga ZONING REGULATIONS, Article 15 -56 entitled SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES. They were enacted and became effective on or about January 1,. 1983, according to my information. When Mrs. Batson applied recently to the City for a HUD low interest rate loan, she was advised by the City that she would have to "legalize her existing second unit She applied to the Planning Commission to do so. AREA CODE 406 TELEPHONE 2 44 -9200 Mayor and City Council September 12, 1986 Page 2 The City Building Department looked into the matter and made its report to the Planning Commission recommending that Mrs. Batson's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit be granted, subject to certain conditions. (See attached Ex. 5.) Mrs. Batson is willing to comply with those conditions. See drawings of existing improvements attached. This is an appeal from denial by the Planning Commission. A strong reason why this use permit should be granted is that every improvement which has been made on the Batson property has been done as authorized by the City; a very basic part of the law of our land (even appears in the U.S. Constitution as "ex post facto laws prohibits retroactive legislation affecting either civil rights or criminal punishments. In Zoning and Planning laws, there are "non conforming uses" which are usually defined as lawful uses of premises existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations and continued thereafter, which do not conform to such regulations; it is the use of premises which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance and which may be maintained after the effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area. Sometimes this is referred to as "GRANDFATHERING It is requested that a conditional use permit be issued to legalize this existing second unit located at 18710 Aspesi Drive. JRC:lin s truly, AA, .0 OHN R. CARROLL CITY OF SARATOGA Building Permit Issued to Build, Alterl, Repair Address l ciS 7/D A Sf e .S! L Lot(s) S Owner T 1 i n r j'.l fe Gen'l Contractor 5' f Ca S L C� Assess. No Value, 3 (C a Permit Fee i imp Receipt No. Z Elec. Contractor 3 SELr Permit Fee gi1111111*VA ece p ..r- Permit Fee 357 p 5 Receipt No 0-/ 6 6. Variance, Change of Zone Zone Tract 9/ or Use Permit No #EATING IIN5 CTIO 1S S (.3 t• Setbacks, Yards Rough Plumb. 8..1-- L 5 Int. Lath Retaining Walls Water Test 6 Stucco Forms Excay. e- 13 lei Pt-ssure Test Plaster Power Pole OKd Ext. El Meter OKd Steel Frame 7 -f.,.' Gas Meter OKd Fireplace Foot. Vents r 1 1 r Final Insp• /0•.4 C..t -,Q HEATING, APC c Plum ontractor Gird Under Rough Wiring L Notes 'Ut= e l% �•C� Owner Permit No. G 1r2' Block Date 7 3/ 4 FOUNDATION INSP Date ROUGH HEATING INSP Date ROUGH WIRING INSP Dote Set Back 5)( /`IJ; 7 Duct Mork hfwki Grounding ti 40/6 Steel Cleard ces Service Retaining Walls Complete 3 Outlets Forms Fireplace FRAMING Complete Complete Spans Bracing Nailing /1,/J S TOP OUT Vents Flues Tubs Pans GIRDERS L Gird Spacing Joist Bridging Complete 1 Gas Test Complete LATHING Complete ROUGH PLUMBING Exterior FINAL Waste Line Test Interior Elect. Water Piping Sheetrock Nailing Plumb. Complete Complete Building '1V31211D3."13_d!Od NDIi.VDI'ldd ,VOOiViYs do i s DATE 11-7- BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO BUILD, ALTER, REPAIR Address 18710 Aspesi Dr. Owner Robert Batsin Contractor General Dan Palermo Electrical S 'rr L /ec t r Plumbing Heating Elect. Fix. `7)o INSPECTION RECORD A/ re/// 14 tN oLO Rr r A'' o ✓,Ez, d r d(1,6. vFi CITY OF SARATOGA GUEST HOUSE Lot Tract Phone Value 800.00 o r. 5 Permit No. -1027 Sewer No. \e"-/Y. Ins a. Fee 6.00 s: �S Date BUILDING DEPT. Receipt No. 12732 Final Complete Insp 'L'�'L4:5"" Date Notified PGE Gas ate Elec Date 1 I, the undersigned, declare: I am Dan Palermo, 1815 Meridian Avenue, San Jose, California; I am now a retired general contractor; I was duly licensed and fully accredited as such under the Contractors License Board and the law of the State of California in 1967, when I was employed as the building contractor to build, for Bob and Carol Batson, a bedroom onto an existing guest cottage at the Batson residence commonly known as 1870 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga, California. The plans and the construction were all totally legal and complied with all laws, ordinances and regulations at the time; attached hereto is a copy of the building permit dated November 7, 1967, which was then secured from the City of Saratoga Building Department. I am submitting this DECLARATION to be used by Mrs. Batson, a widow, in connection with her appeal to the Saratoga City Council for a use permit so that she may continue to have and use the above mentioned improvement to her real property. I also ask the City Council to grant to her a use permit for this purpose. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 4( 1986, at San Jose, California. DECLARATION i DAN PALERMO Ex_ 3 lire ret_ i luri tctl_urcu 1 FOUNDATION INSP Date ROUGH HEATING INSP Dote ROUGH WIRING INSP Dote Set Bock ('J_ Duct ork r /i /61, Groundin• UMW MINIM ti r lv/4 1 Steel Clear •nces Service Retaining Walls Forms Fireplace Complete F RAM ING Outlets Complete Complete S eons 411' J]o. TOP OUT GIRDERS Brocin• Vents Flues e Gird Spacing Naili Tubs Pons Joist Bridging Complete Gas Test Complete LATHING Complete ROUGH PLUMBING Exterior FINAL Waste Line Test Interior Elect. Mater Piping Sheetrock Noilin• Plumb. Complete Complete Building y 1. i• 'nen kIDote H0 'SL BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO BUILD, ALTER, REPAIR CrES7 Address 16710 AFheFi Dr. Lot Troct O•ner Rohcrt i.atsin Phone Volue 80(.00 f e 3 `6 S e B 1027 Fee 00 Receipi Na 1 Fi 5:75 ',It/C. DATE U L- I.i ur J AKA I VOA Contractor General Electrical Plumbing Heating Elect. Fix. Dan Palermo r /e-rT ✓(C. Ins D. Dote Notified PGE Gas in 6 ate Elec Dote APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING AND GAS PERMIT Job Address /v Lot Tract ?1D 3, j Owner °'sT Address Phone Plumb. Contractor CITY OF SARATOGA I, the undersigned, hereby state with regard to Chapter 9, Division 3 of the Business and Professional Code: 1. I hove o valid California State Contractor's license in full force and effect with the following classification and license number: Date P•800•75 Classification License No. ia ln exempt from these provisions by reason of the following: o. 1 am the owner of the property described in this permit application and 1 am building or improving structures t. thereon for my own occupancy and not to be offered for sole. (D b. Exemption is based on the following section of the State Contractor's Law: Section• I (We) hereby agree to save, i and hold harmless the City of Saratoga, its officers, agents and employees against all claims, liabilities, actions, suits, judgments, costs or expenses which may in any wise arise or result from the granting of this permit or the doing of any work thereunder, or from the use or occupancy of any sidewalk, street, or sub sidewalk by virtue thereof. CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT I hereby acknowledge that I hove read this application and state that the above' is coirect and agree to comply with all City Codes and Ordinances and State Laws regulating building construction, and all conditions of this permit. ity Business License No. Address Phone e Receipt No INSURANCE COVERAGE: Check appropriate box (one must be checked, Sec. 3800 Calif. Labor Code) Certificate of Workmen's Compensation Insurance, copy thereof or certificate of consent to srif insure from Director of Industrial Relations, has been filed with the City and is still in effect. ii The permit sought is for one hundred dollars or less. I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to be. come subject to the Workmen's Compensation lows of California. I understand that failure to comply with applicable Workmen's Compen• sation laws shall cause revocation of the permit. Permit No. AGENDA ITEM 7 01127 cD2 �aC� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Call;ins DATE: 8/13/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SUP -86 -001, 18710 Aspesi Drive APPLICANT: Carol Batson APN: 389 -25 -21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting use permit approval to legalize an existing detached, one -story 595 sq. ft. second unit on a level lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. ISSUES: The applicant's proposal requires modifications to the restrictions and standards for second units as set forth in Section 15- 56.010 of the City code such as, lot area setbacks, occupancy and parking. In staff's opinion, the required modifications will not adversly impact the adjacent properties or neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the use permit subject to conditions which will'1) increase the privacy of adjacent propery owners, 2) provide for an additional parking space and 3) require the applicant (at a later date) to comply with the occupancy restrictions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Resolution SUP -86 -001 for an existing second unit subject to conditions, Exhibit A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution SUP -86 -001, approving second unit use permit with .conditions, Exhibit A -1 2. Exhibit B Findings 3. Technical Information 4. Exhibit C, Property Inspection Report dated 7/11/86.• 5. Location Map ix 5 SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE EXHIBIT A -1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUP -86 -001 LLB/ S/i /z2 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to the conditions and the project as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of the resolution or the resolution approving SUP -86 -001 is automatically void. 2. Applicant shall execute note and deed of trust. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the existing second unit, and comply with all requirements of the Inspection Division. 4. Prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit, the applicant shall provide proof that the tenant of the second unit has been in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. If the current tenant vacates, the owner shall comply with Section 1S- 56.030(i) regarding occupancy. 5. The applicant shall landscape the area between the southern property line and and the second unit. 6. A landscape plan indicating the landscaping required in Condition #4 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit. 7. The applicant shall pave an area south of the existing driveway to accomodate a 18'x9 1/2' parking space. The design and location of the additional space shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit. 8. At each five year interval from the date a second unit use permit is granted, the holder of such permit shall certify to the Planning Director, on such form as he may prescribe, that the holder has complied and continues to comply with all of the applicable restrictions and standards of this Article and all conditions as set forth in the use permit. The Planning Director may request the holder to furnish such information and documents as the Director may deem necessary in order to verify the truth or accuracy of any statements contained in the certification. 9. The original second unit use permit shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. All of the restrictions and conditions applicable to such use permit shall be set forth therein, tooether with the requirement for certification of compliance as provided in Subsection 1S- 56.080(b). SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE EXHIBIT 8 FINOINGS 1. The second unit is compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material, and landscaping. 2. The second unit is constructed with plywood siding (painted blue) which matches the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. 3 The second unit was originally built in 1963 and has been occupied continuously since 1966. Therefore, approval of the use permit will not cause any additional unreasonable noise traffic, parking congestion, or overload existing public facilities or utilities. 4. Approval of the application for a second unit is conditioned on: (1) no new windows are to be constructed along the south wall of the second unit and (2) a landcaping strip is to be planted between the second unit and southerly property line. Therefore, the second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. 5. The location of the second unit and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health safety or be materially iniurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. TECHNIcAL NFORMAT I ON COMUSION CEETING: 8 /13/86 APN: 389 -25 -021 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SUP -86 -001 ACTION REQUESTED: Second unit use permit approval for an existing, detached, one -story second unit. APPLICANT: Carol Batson PROPERTY OWNER: same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA (15303(a)) ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESI6NATION: Residential Medium Density EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 9,949 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical landscaping in the front and rear yard including a large oak tree along the western property line located approximately 10 ft. from the existing second unit. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: EXISTING SETBACKS: SECOND UNIT Front: 107 Ft. Rear: 6 Ft. Left Side: 6 Ft. Right Side: 54 Ft. level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: <1% MAIN UNIT Front: 40 Ft. Rear: 30 ft. 6 in. Left Side: 6 ft. Right Side: 5 ft. EXISTING HEIGHT: (Second unit) 10 ft. 9 in. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: +357. SIZE OF STRUCTURES MAIN RESIDENCE: First floor (including garage): 2241 sq. ft. SECOND UNIT: First floor: 595 so. ft. TOTAL: 2836 sq. ft. 5 SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI_DRIVE ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance, contained in Section 15- 56.010 regarding second units. MATERIALS COLORS (second unit): Plywood exterior painted blue to match existing house with tar and gravel roof. SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE STAFF ANALYSIS A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting use permit approval to legalize an existing second unit in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning distiict. The applicant has indicated the second unit was originally constructed in 1963. The subject property is in a City designated SHARP area. The applicant has applied for a loan to finance repair work on the existing main dwelling and (subject to second unit use permit approval) the second unit. The Saratoga City Council approved deferring the collection of fees and deposits ($700.00) in connection with Ms. Batson's second unit use permit application, until (1) upon the initial disbursement of the SHARP loan or (2) 180 days after the execution of the promissary note, whichever occurs first. B. LOT AREA The subject lot is approximately 51 sq. ft. less than the minimum lot area required for the zoning district and therefore does not meet the minimum lot area standard (1.6 times the minimum site area prescribed for the zoning district) for detached second units set forth in Section 15- 56.030(m) the City code. The Saratoga Fire Chief visited the site and concluded that they would not have any difficulty servicino the structures in an emergency. Given the above, and the fact that staff is recommending actions that will assist in increasing the adjacent property owners privacy (see .below) staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a modification to Section 15- 56.030(m) regarding minimum lot area. C. SETBACK /PRIVACY The existing second unit is located in the southeast corner of the subject property, 6 ft. from the rear and side property lines where 10 ft. and 25 ft. is required respectively. While the applicant's lot is relatively flat, the rear yard area is approximately 1 -2 feet higher than the adjacent property to the south. As a result, when viewed from the applicant's property, the wooden fence separating the two properties is only 4 ft. high. A small (2'x3') bathroom window is the only window located along the second unit's south wall. Any impact on the adjacent property owners privacy will be minimal provided the applicant is restricted in the future from constructing additional windows along the southern wall. In addition, to help soften the blank south wall, staff recommends the applicant landscape the area between the second unit and the southern property line prior to issuance of the second unit use permit. SUP- 86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE The existing landscaping along the rear property lines, (west) minimizes any potential privacy impacts on the adiacent residences to the west. D. OCCUPANCY Pursuant to Section 15- 56.11 0(b)(5); the requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person who is sixty years of age or older or physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant•in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. The applicant has owned the subject property for twenty years and intends to continue to occupy the main dwelling. Accordino to the applicant, her twenty year old son has occupied the second unit since 1979. The applicant has indicated she will submit proof of her son's tenancy to the Planning Commission on the night of the meeting. Provided the applicant submits sufficient proof to verify her son's occupancy staff 'recommends the Planning Commission may waive the requirement set forth in Section 15- 56. 030(1) and permit the applicant's son to occupy the second unit. If however, the applicant's son vacates the second unit staff, recommends the Planning Commission require the applicant to comply with the restrictions regarding occupancy. E. PARKING The City's zoning ordinance requires an additional off street covered parking space be provided for the second unit. However, the Planning Commission may waive this requirement, provided not less than three off- street parking spaces are available on -site and there is no feasible location on the site for the additional covered space. The size and shape of the applicant's lot and location of the existing structures on the site, prohibit the construction of a new covered parking space. The applicant has indicated that the current two car garage functions as a garage. Staff recommends the requirement for a third space be met by widening the existing driveway to accomodate an additional parking space. E. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE The second unit was inspected by a private inspection service on July 11, 1986. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit C. The City's Inspection Division has reviewed the above report and recommends the following: 1. All non -code complying electrical conditions noted on pg. 5 of the Property Inspection report must be corrected. Z. Install battery- operated smoke detector in the hallway adjacent to the bedroom. 3. Install an adequate heating system capable of maintaining a room SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE F. CONCLUSION temperature of 70 F at a point 3 ft. above the floor in all habitable rooms. The staff analysis identified deficiencies in the applicant's proposal which require modifications to the standards set forth in Section 15- 56.030 of the zoning ordinance including; lot area, setbacks, occupancy, parking, building code compliance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the second unit standards as discussed above and approve the applicant's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit subject to conditions. September 18, 1986 Ms. Carol Batson 18710 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Batson: As you know, the Saratoga City Council, at its regular meeting of September 17, 1986, considered your appeal of denial of legalization of an existing second unit on your property. This is your official notification that the appeal was denied. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk G ct 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: September 17, 1986 DEPT. Community Services SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Sheriff's DUI Grant Proposal Summary: CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 64 Pft CITY MGR. APPROVAL Reconsideration of the Sheriff's DUI grant is being recom- mended in light of additional information the Sheriff has presented to the City with regards to the extent of the DUI problem in Saratoga, and the cost effectiveness of their proposal. It appears the DUI accidents as a percentage of all accidents has historically been approximately 25% in Saratoga until this year, when they in- creased to an estimated 31% of all accidents. The actual number of DUI related accidents and arrests have both increased signif- icantly, however. DUI accidents went from 81 in 1983 to an estimated 119 in 1986, which is a 47% increase. DUI arrests went from 76 in 1983 to an estimated 120 in 1986, which is a 58% increase. In add- ition, the DUI program proposed by the Sheriff will generate a con- siderable amount of revenue over costs for the City, currently estimated between $116,800 and $238,985. Fiscal Impact: The fo1 ow- ing -adde- d -r- eve -nue- a- nd- expens-e -a projected for the 24 months of the project: FY 86 -87 FY 87 -88 FY 88 -89 Traffic Safety Revenue $39,130 $74,923 $27,452 Police Protection Expense -0- $16,068 $16,068 This the most conservative projection spread over time. Exhibits /Attachments: Report from Community Services Director Recommended Action: Authorize participation in the program as proposed including the allocation of $32,135 as a match during the second year of the program Council Action (Lifr' ao REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Reconsideration of DUI Grant Proposal PURPOSE The Sheriff's Office has requested reconsideration of their DUI Grant proposal by the City. The purpose of this report is to identify the extent of a DUI problem in Saratoga specifically, determine the projected impact the Sheriff's program would have on the DUI problem in Saratoga, and determine_the projected cost effectiveness of the program. It should be noted that this infor- mation was not previously available to the Council. BACKGROUND MP= ©2 0 °'V o C� DATE: _9111./86 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/17/86 The State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) indicated a willingness to fund a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) program proposed by the Sheriff's Office for the contract cities. The grant would total $258,908 which would provide two years funding. During the first year, the State and the County would provide 100% of the funding for the program. During the second year, the State and the County would provide 50% of the funding, with the remaining 50% coming from the contract cities. A summary of the funding for the two -year program follows: Year 1 State $164,639 73% County 60,571 27% 100% Cupertino -0- 0% Saratoga -0- 0% Los Altos Hills -0- 0% 9% Monte Sereno -0- 0% Subtotal $225,210 100% ANALYSIS Arrests 1983 1984 76 (base) 100 (32% increase) Reconsideration of DUI Grant Proposal Page 2 Year 2 State 94,269 38 %1 County 30,268 12% Cupertino 70,622 28% Saratoga 32,135 13% Los Altos Hills 7,722 3% Monte Sereno 14,075 6% Subtotal $249,091 100% 50% 50% 2 -Year Summary State $258,908 55% County 90,839 19% Cupertino 70,622 15% Saratoga 32,135 7% Los. Altos Hills 7,722 1% Monte Sereno 14,075 3% TOTAL $474,301 100% The program would involve the addition of three (3) more fulltime traffic patrol units in the contract cities. The officers would be specially trained to more effectively identify DUI drivers. The following analysis illustrates the degree to which DUI arrests and accidents have grown in Saratoga since 1983. DUI Accidents as a Percent of All Accidents (Projected) 1985 1986 113 (13% 120 (6% increase) increase) (Projected) Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 No. of Accidents 332 340 389 381 No- of of DUI _Accidents* 81 74 93 119 of Total 24% 22% 24% 31% *The DUI accident figures involve combining actual alcohol caused accidents with hit and run accidents which is commonly done for this kind of analysis since most hit and run accidents involve the use of alcohol. CONCLUSION It appears the DUI accidents as a percentage of all accidents has historically been approximately 25% in Saratoga until this year, when they increased to an estimated 31% of all accidents. The actual number of DUI related accidents and arrests have both in- creased significantly, however. DUI accidents went from 81 in 1983 to an estimated 119 in 1986, which is a 47% increase. DUI arrests went from 76 in 1983 to an estimated 120 in 1986, which is a 58% increase. In addition, the DUI program proposed by the Sheriff will generate a considerable amount of revenue over costs for the City; currently estimated between $116,800 and $238,985. PREPARED BY: Todd W. Argow Community Services Director -m Reconsideration of DUI Grant Proposal Page 3 Cost Effectiveness Analysis The cost effectiveness analysis has been computed based on two assumptions; assumption B being the more conservative of the two. Assumption A assumes that each officer in the three officer team will have an average of three (3) DUI arrests per night for each ten (10) hour shift worked. Assumption B assumes each officer will only be able to make two (2) DUI arrests per shift. To determine annualized figures, the amount of time each officer is available to work is adjusted for vacations, holidays, and the average use of sick leave. The result is that each officer will work a net of 176.8 days per year; times three (3) officers assigned to the special enforcement team; times either two (2) or three (3) DUI arrests per officer; equals the total number of arrests anticipated in the contract cities. Saratoga's share of these arrests would be 26% based on current arrest statistics, so 26% of the total arrests would be credited to Saratoga. This figure, in turn, is adjusted for all circumstances which would not lead to a DUI conviction, such as failure to appear, plea bargain, and dismissals (estimated at 30 The average DUI fine is then multiplied times the number of projected convictions to determine cost effectiveness. Assumption A Assumption B Total Cost to Saratoga: 32,135 Total No. of Projected Arrests 827 Total No. of Projected Prosecutions: 579 Average Fine 1,000 Average Revenues: $578,900 City's Share of Fine Revenue (80 $463,120 Revenues Over Costs for 2 Yrs.: $430,985 Offset for Current level of Enforcement -$192,000 Net Revenue $238,985 *Projected by the Sheriff's Office *Source: Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office 32,135 552 386 1,000 $386,000 $308,800 $276,665 $192,000 $116,800 AGENDA BILL N6. 4 3 CD DATE: 9/8/86 (9/17/86) CITY OF SARATOGA DEPT.: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: PARKING PROHIBITION PORTION OF ALLENDALE AVENUE Suamary: The parking of vehicles along the northerly side of Allendale Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to a point 660 feet westerly thereof (along City of Saratoga side) should be prohibited because of the westbound lane width (12 to 15 feet between double yellow lone and face of curb) is restricted to proper use when vehicles are parked along said northerly side. Periodically when there is an activity at the Council. Chambers /Theatre and the parking lot fills, the overflow parks along this northerly curb causing westbound vehicles to drive to the left of the double yellow centerline. The Public Safety Commission approved the proposed parking prohi- bition at its meeting of 7/14/86. Fiscal Impacts: The cost of painting the curb red along the northerly side of Allendale Avenue as described above should amount to about $250± and 'would come from the traffic safety budget (3033- 3010). Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV 2. Sketch showing location Recommended Action: Council Action AGENDA ITEM 46- Adopt Resolution No. MV Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Allendale Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF ALLENDALE AVENUE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following desig- nated portions of street in the City of Saratoga are hereby declared to be congested areas and the following limits for parking of motor vehicles are hereby established for said portions of said street: Name of Street Allendale Avenue AYES: NOTES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Description Parking Limit Along the northerly side from Fruitvale Avenue to a point 660 feet westerly thereof NO PARKING ANYTIME This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed as delineated above. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: MAYOR M l/ RES 0 L CI TIOM PRO11/8/ T//VC PARK/N6 ON ,4 PORT /ON O,= AL LE//D4L E AVEN 413 CITY ue s w au(;A AGENDA BITS, No. l /3/ D A T E R- 2 7- R 6 9 In=11 DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE F+O SDR -1478, POLITI BROOKWOOD Issue Summary The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site. Release cash bond and assignment certificate. Fiscal Impacts None Council Action Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. 2. Memo Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. er C. Mgr. MEMORANDUM 1. Developer: 2. Improvement Security: Type: 3. Special Remarks: Certificate. RSS /dsm Address: Amount: $25,000 Issuing Company: Address: OgiUT' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1478 Name Location: Brookwood, Politi Public Improvements required for have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: Joseph Politi 14447 Deer Canyon Lane Saratoga, CA. 95070 Investment Certificate Saratoga National Bank 12000 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 646 Release cash bond of $5,000 and Assignment Robert S. Shook DATE: 8 -27 -86 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 8 -27 -86 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Release of Monument Bond for SDR -1478 Name Location: Brookwood, Politi All public street monuments for SDR -1478 have been in- stalled, verified in writing by the engineer or surveyor and are acceptable to us. The engineer or surveyor has also verified he has received payment for placing the monuments. Therefore, I recommend the City Council approve the release of the monument bond posted by the developer. The following information is submitted for your use: 1. Developer: Joseph Politi Address: 2., Bond Type: 3. Bond Amount: $1200 5. Issuing Company: RSS /dsm Address: 6. Special Remarks: II off 12) 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 14447 Deer Canyon Lane Saratoga, CA. 95070 Investment Certificate 4. Bond, Certificate or Receipt 647 Saratoga, CA. 95070 Saratoga National Bank 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Robert S. Shook RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS FOR: PLAN CHECK FEES CONSTRUCTION TAX BUSINESS 21 3040 LICENSE TAX BUILDING PERMITS 21 -3500 21 3500 PLUMBING PERMITS 21 3501 ELECTRIC PERMITS 21_3502 21 502 MECHANICAL PERMITS 21_3503 23503 GRADING 21 PERMITS PUBLIC HE 2 0t P 0/CONSULT SIT SULT oeNOSiTs REFUNDABLE 21 DEPOSITS OFFICIAL RECEIPT OTI ®f 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE gPHONE: (408)867 -34308 0 DATE 21-3510 21 -303 SUBDIVISION 21 REVIEW FEES BUILDING SITE 2 REVIEW FEES 21 2 VARIANCE APPLICA- 21 _3520 TION FEES APPLICATION CATION FEES P 21 -3521 ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES 21-3530 APPLICATION NO. OR ADDRESS OF PROJECT: AMOUNT' No. 0 9 0 0 2 RECEIVED BY UARCO Business Forms Cie. F O R APPEALS OTHER DEVEL- OPMENT FEES DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FEES EIR REVIEW FEES CENTRAL REZONING FEE/ FINAL MAP REVIEW 2 1 3513 SUBDIVISION PARK DEDICATION FEES 55 -3550 STORM DRAIN FEE CALABAZAS IMPROVEMENT FEE CALABAZAS FIRE PROTECTION FEE SPECIFIC PLAN FEE SALE OF XEROXING 214800 250 -20 e 21 -3565 21-3549 21 3540 2 1 -3547 21 -35 87 -355 21 -3560 21 -356 21 3562 21 -370 AMOUNT: TOTAL: I t tom DEPT L AGENDA BILL NO. /3 DATE: September 17, 1986 DEPT.: Community Services Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: Recommended Action: Council Action None CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM L 4 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUB.TECT: Agreement with West Valley College for Television Local Origination /Public Access In August 1985, Hearst cablevision agreed to donate, to the City, video equipment valued at $40,000 to do local origination/ public access television programming in Saratoga. Such programming would include features on local events such as parades, footraces, and festivals. Other programs could include promotionals on services offered the City. Since the City's equipment is portable, West Valley College has expressed an interest in using it in ex- change for access to their studio and editing facilities, training of City volunteer's, and maintenance of the equipment. The attached agreement between the College and the City clarifies the rates and and responsibilities of each agency with regards to the shared use of the City's equipment. Draft Agreement between the City and West Valley College Approve agreement, authorizing the City Manager to sign in City's behalf West Valley College and City of Saratoga Local Origination and Public Access PURPOSE: This Agreement is between West Valley College, hereinafter referred to as COLLEGE, and the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as CITY. The purpose of the Agreement is to identify the conditions underwhich COLLEGE will use CITY'S video equipment; identify conditions under which CITY will use video and studio equipment owned by COLLEGE; clarify maintenance responsibilities for equipment owned by CITY; and establish a governing board through which the nature, content, and circumstances for the airing of local programs would be determined. ARTICLE I Identification of Equipment Video equipment owned by CITY is identified in Exhibit A to the Agreement. All other equipment to be used for the production of local origination and public access programming for the purposes of this Agreement is presumed to be the property of COLLEGE. ARTICLE II Use of Equipment AGREEMENT I I CITY agrees to allow COLLEGE the use of CITY -owned equipment. COLLEGE agrees to allow CITY the use of COLLEGE -owned equipment. In the event of a scheduling conflict with regards to equipment owned by CITY and COLLEGE, COLLEGE will prevail with regards to the use of COLLEGE -owned equipment, and CITY shall prevail with regards to the use of CITY -owned equipment. COLLEGE may establish reasonable training requirements for persons wishing to use equipment owned by COLLEGE or CITY. COLLEGE agrees to provide training to volunteers recruited by CITY at no charge to the volunteer If CITY allows any person to use CITY ownecf equipment who have not been certified by COLLEGE for such use, COLLEGE will be relieved of any maintenance responsibility for such equipment so used and owned by CITY as outlined in Article III to this Agreement. COLLEGE agrees to provide an acknowledgement to CITY for any production involving the use of CITY -owned equipment, and CITY agrees to provide acknowledgement to COLLEGE for the use of COLLEGE -owned facilities. 2 ARTICLE III Maintenance of Equipment COLLEGE agrees to maintain all CITY equipment at no charge to CITY as a community service, except under the circumstances as provided under Article II. ARTICLE IV Creation of Public Access Board Recognizing the need for there to be a governing Board to make decisions with regard to the suitability and appropriateness of programs for airing in Saratoga over the cable television network. A Public Access Board will be created with the responsibility of determining what programs will be. aired. COLLEGE and CITY agree to form such a Board in the following manner: COLLEGE will appoint a member from its Board of Directors and a member of its staff to serve on the Public Access Board. CITY shall appoint a member of its Council and a member of its staff to serve on the Public Access Board. The four individuals appointed as described above shall, in turn, appoint three more citizen -at -large members to the Public Access Board. The citizen -at -large members would be required to be residents of Saratoga and cable television subscribers. The vote of each Board member shall be equal, and the Board shall appoint a Chairman and Vice Chairman from amongst its own members. The Board will determine how often to meet, and decisions of the Board for public access shall be final. ARTICLE V Agreement Term and Termination Clause This Agreement between COLLEGE and CITY shall have a term of one year from the latest date of execution by either party. Agreement will renew automatically in the absence of any action by either party to the contrary. Additionally, this Agreement can be terminated with 30 days written notice to the other party. WEST VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE CITY OF SARATOGA Signature Signature by b Title Title Date Date TWA: 9/86 3 AGENDA BILL NO. //,33 DATE: 9/12/86 (9/17/86) DEPT.: SUBJECT: ADDITION AND ALTERNATIONS TO VILLAGE LIBRARY SuQmary: ENGTNRFRTNa Bids were received on the above project on September 11, 1986. Two (2) contractors submitted bids; with Andero Concrete of San Jose's proposal of $10,849.00 being low, (Christensen Construction Company proposal was $11,200.00). This project includes the remodeling of the lavatory area for handicapped access and remodeling of the front entrance. CITY OF SARATOGA Exhibits /Attachments: AGENDA ITEM 4t_ CITY MGR. APPROVAL Fiscal Impacts: The $10,849 cost for this project will come from the Capital Improvement Budget Fund 4510 -0012 HCD. Budget for the project is $11,000.00 Recommended Action: Award Contract to ANDERO'CONCRETE, INC. for the bid amound $10,849.00. Council Action AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: September 9, 1986 DEPT.: SUBJECT: Summary: Engineering FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL OF SDR -1617 CHESTER AVENUE JERRY HOUSTON (1 Lot) 1. SDR 1617 is ready for final approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been met. 3. All fees and bonds and agreements have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1617 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission. 3. Location Map. Recommended Action: Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROV Adopt Resolution No. 1617 -02 attached, approving final Building Site for SDR 1617. Authorize execution of building site agreement. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Jerry Houston The 0.918 Acre Parcel shown on Record of Survey prepared by Martin Kingston, Land Surveyor, and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1617 -02 MAYOR APN: 397 -01 -19 C EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential gi REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *Revised: 4/9/86 Date_: 3/28/86 Commission Meeting: 4/9/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1617, A -1178; 14082 Chester Ave. APPLICANT:. Jerry Houston OWNER: Kenneth Fujikawa ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative building site and design review to construct a two -story single family residence. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential- Very Low Density PARCEL SIZE: .918 acre (39,988.08 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: A creek runs through the central portion of the site. The rear portion of the site is heavily wooded. The front portion of the site is fairly level. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 14% GRADING REQUIRED: PROPOSED SETBACKS: HEIGHT: 28 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 10.27. Lower level (garage): Main floor: TOTAL: (6200 sq. ft. design review standard) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 23% Cut: 440 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 6.5 Ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 70 ft. Left Side: 25 ft. Right Side: 130 ft. 850 sq. ft. 3,297 sq. ft. 4,147 sq. ft. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1617, A -1178; Houston, Chester Ave. 3/28/86 Page 2 MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior stuccostone flint veneer with wood lap siding painted navajo white with blue -grey trim. Roof natural cedar shake. STAFF ANALYSIS: The building site is restricted by the creek which runs through the central portion of the property. The residence complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the zoning ordinance. The site 15 interpreted to be a corner lot because with the proposed development of the site, the ingress /egress easement will serve two parcels. Therefore, the residence is required to maintain a 25 ft. setback from the easement /property line. A 30 ft. wide right -of -way runs along a portion of the eastern property line. Chester Avenue was originally going to run in this direction. The layout for Chester Avenue was changed when the area was developed. The status of the right -of -way is not clear. The title report indicates that the owner of the subject site has the right to access from the right -of- way. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, the applicant have a search conducted by a title company to clarify the status of the right of -way. If possible, the right -of -way should be abandoned. If it is abandoned, an ingress /egress easement will need to be recorded along the entire eastern property line to provide access to the property to the south. The project engineer has calculated the 100 year flood zone. The majority of the residence is located outside the flood zone. Three portions of the structure and the rear deck will be cantilevered into the 100 year flood zone. The proposed location of the residence will require the removal of a 14 in. oak tree and a 20 in. clump scrub oak. The rear portion of the site is heavily wooded. The applicant is proposing to plant two 15 gal. oaks in front of the garage area to replace the trees which will be removed. Road work was recently completed on Chester Avenue. The firm doing the work compacted fill on the northwestern portion of the site. The topography shown on the site plan reflects the original grades and does not indicate the fill area. The applicant wants to have the fill removed. However, it appears that the contractors may have had the property owner's approval to place the dirt on the site. If the dirt is to remain, the plans will need to be modified to indicate the existing topography. The site slopes to the south and the east. The pad of the residence is being stepped from left to right (east to west) to fit in with the site topography. Report to Planning Commission SDR 1617, A -1178; Houston Chester Ave. SDR -1617 3/28/86 Page 3 PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: 3/5/86. The staff report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1617 (Exhibit "B -1" filed 3/26/86) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Chapter 14. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ENGINEERING DIVISION A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees.) (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to scale prints.) C. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: i. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. 2. St r Report to Planning Commission SDR -1617, A -1178; Houston, Chester Ave. 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. D. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base. The access road shall be 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders in area where the road serves two properties. The width shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. E. Construct standard driveway approaches. F. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base on easterly access. G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer on easterly access. H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. I. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Division of Engineering for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. J. Engineered improvement plans required for: 1. Street improvements 2. Storm drain construction 3. Access road construction 3/28/86 Page 4 K. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. L. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. M. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional Report to Planning Commission SDR -1617, A -1178; Houston, Chester Ave. d) Erosion control measures VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION 4/1/86 Page 5 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) c) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.G.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. e) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. C. Staking for grading to be inspected by Building Division prior to any grading being done. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT No conditions. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. A sanitary sewer connection is required. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. A. Applicant shall comply with the City Geologist's letter dated 3/5/86. B. Design review approval is required on project prior to issuance of a building permit. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1617, A -1178; Houston, Chester Ave. southern portion of the site to provide a useable access to the adjacent property to the south. OTHER PG &E 3/28/86 Page 6 D. The trailer located on the property line shall be removed or relocated to comply with the required setbacks. E. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. F. Clarify the status of the 30 ft. wide right -of -way adjacent to the east of the site. If possible, the right -of -way should be abandoned. An ingress /egress easement will be required to provide access to the property to the south. If the right -of- way is abandoned, the applicant and adjacent property owner should enter into an agreement for the maintence of the minimum access road. A. A 10 ft. wide Public utilities easement shall be provided along the existing wires on the eastern portion of the site. B. Underground utilities as required by PG &E. A -1178 FINDINGS 1.. Unreasonable Interference with Views Privacy The residence will not unreasonably interfere with privacy of adjacent properties because of the distance to other properties, the topography in the area, and the orientation of the residences. The residence will not interfere with views from the surrounding properties. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape The proposed grading will preserve the topography of the site. The residence is being stepped from left to right to fit the site. Two trees will be removed. However, the rear portion of the site is heavily wooded. In addition, the applicant is proposing to plant replacement trees. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The residence is below the design review floor area standard. The residence will not appear bulky because of the size of the residence and the mature venetation on the site. C Report to Planning Commission SDR -1617, A -1178; Houston, Chester Ave. 4. Compatible Bulk Height 5. Current Grading Erosion Control Standards 3/28/86 Page 7 The residence is compatible in terms of bulk and height with surrounding residences within 500 ft. of the site. The residence will not interfere with light or solar access on adjacent properties. The project will incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the staff report dated 3/28/86, Exhibits "8 -1, C and D" subject to the following conditions: 1. The replacement trees shall be installed prior to final. 2. If the fill is not removed from the front portion of the property, the plans shall be modified to accurately reflect the existing topography. APPROVED: LH /dsc P.C. Agenda: 4/9/86 0 Lucille Hise Planner 5T vA14ay cow-ece 4 atiti lim i y mbri lla gi" A 1 1 ferd ig kJ, ift0Pirtirt# et el posig. it 4 ri",t fold Arm 4 latims Air ran a. n t Iwaliart ....,1,n ii ow IN 1111111 Aeial ce trEVP SPR- 0017, L/c2usroiI A JOHN R. CARROLL JOHN J. GEORGE STEPHEN R. OLIVER LYNNE A. STEPHENSON Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 RE: 18710 Aspesi Drive, Second Unit Appeal Madams /Sirs: THE LAW OFFICES OF CARROLL, GEORGE, OLIVER STEPHENSON 2176 THE ALAMEDA SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 98126 September 12, 1986 AREA CODE 408 TELEPHONE 244 -9200 I represent Carol F. Batson, a widow, of the above address, who lives on said property with three of her children, who are now 19 years, 17 and 14. The facts, briefly stated, are: this is a house and lot in a sub- division which was built prior to 1963; original owners were Mr. and Mrs. J. Lingafelter; in the summer of 1963, they secured a building permit from the City of Saratoga and, as authorized thereby, built onto their property a "1 -F Addition" which was a guest cottage. See Ex. 1 attached (building permit); in October, 1967, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Batson purchased the property and moved in with their family. On November 7, 1967, the Batsons secured a City of Saratoga Building permit, _(Ex. 2) and employed Dan Palermo, a licensed Building Contractor, to add a bedroom onto an existing guest cottage. This is corroborated by a Declaration from Mr. Palermo attached (Ex. 3). From about the time that the Batsons purchased the property in 1967, the mother of Mr. Batson, Marjorie Batson, lived in the guest cottage. When she passed away 11 years later in February, 1978, the eldest son of the Batsons moved into the unit, and in July, 1980, a City of Saratoga plumbing and gas building permit was secured (see Ex. 4) and a toilet was put in the unit. The Zoning Regulations involved here appear in the City of Saratoga ZONING REGULATIONS, Article 15 -56 entitled SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES. They were enacted and became effective on or about January 1, 1983, according to my information. When Mrs. Batson applied recently to the City for a HUD low interest rate loan, she was advised by the City that she would have to "legalize her existing second unit She applied to the Planning Commission to do so. Mayor and City Council September 12, 1986 Page 2 The City Building Department looked into the matter and made its report to the Planning Commission recommending that Mrs. Batson's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit be granted, subject to certain conditions. (See attached Ex. 5.) Mrs. Batson is willing to comply with those conditions. See drawings of existing improvements attached. This is an appeal from denial by the Planning Commission. A strong reason why this use permit should be granted is that every improvement which has been made on the Batson property has been done as authorized by the City; a very basic part of the law of our land (even appears in the U.S. Constitution as "ex post facto laws prohibits retroactive legislation affecting either civil rights or criminal punishments. In Zoning and Planning laws, there are "non conforming uses" which are usually defined as lawful uses of premises existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations and continued thereafter, which do not conform to such regulations; it is the use of premises which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance and which may be maintained after the effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area. Sometimes this is referred to as "GRANDFATHERING It is requested that a conditional use permit be issued to legalize this existing second unit located at 18710 Aspesi Drive. Y. truly, OHN R. CARROLL JRC:lin CITY OF SARATOGA air Add( L j �c i z- :2 WER Building Permit Issued to Build, AlterJ, Repair Address /S 7/D AS e S Uy Lot(s) 1 S Block Owner 3 n y ale 1 fe Assess. No. Value, 40 a Gen'l Contractor L3 t Cam C L C.- Permit Fee 1 -J' Receipt No h a :k Permit Fee ‘=tea' d ce p Elec. Contractor A'A 3 S Emir Plumo. 8/°C c• S Plum ontractor Permit Fee (F G No 0 6 6 Variance, Change of Zone Zone Tract 5" or Use Permit No 'HEATING II O SEWER �gk Setbacks, Yards Rou umb. 8Z /i- y Int. Lath Retaining Walls Wa Test Stucco f Forms Excay. /3 v Ptt Teat 6 Plaster Power Pole OKd Ext. Lath El Meter OKd Steel Frame .),g---t.,...4 --+d1 Gas Meter OKd Fireplace Foot. Vents t I j 1 r Final Insp. /U .3 6 C Gird Underpi Rough Wiring Notes f G'uu'' /1..( d' (6.-J Owner Permit No. Date 3/ G 3 FOUNDATION s ItISP Date ROUGH HEATING INSP Date ROUGH WIRING INSP Date Set Back SJ 4 t-/`I 7 Duct Work /Jlwfi\ Grounding /I w 4 Steel Cleord ces Service Retaining Walls Complete J Outlets 1 Forms &Fireplace FRAMING Spans Ct. %40/(� Complete TOP OUT Vents Flues Complete GIRDERS Bracing Gird Spacing Noiling f Tubs Pans Joist Bridging Complete Gas Test Complete LATHING Complete ROUGH PLUMBING Exterior FINAL Waste Line Test Interior Elect. Water Piping Sheetrock Nailing Plumb. Complete Complete Building DATE 11-7 -67 BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO BUILD, ALTER, REPAIR Address 18710 Asnesi Dr. Owner Robert Batsin Contractor General Dan Palermo Electrical .Suit' /er.t r ge Plumbing Heating Elect. Fix. 7) o INSPECTION RECORD k ,>e,VAt tA/ OLD 'ar Ncr A o vt_p dr &DC. DFiaj." CITY OF SARATOGA Sewer No. BUILDING DEPT. GUEST HOUSE Lot Tract Phone Value 800.00 Permit No. Fee Receipt No. 7' /"S 8 13-1027 6.00 12732 S:7$ /,VF Ins a. Date Final Complete Insp g Date Notified PGE Gas ate Elec Date DECLARATION I, the undersigned, declare: I am Dan Palermo, 1815 Meridian Avenue, San Jose, California; I am now a retired general contractor; I was duly licensed and fully accredited as such under the Contractors License Board and the law of the State of California in 1967, when I was employed as the building contractor to build, for Bob and Carol Batson, a bedroom onto an existing guest cottage at the Batson residence commonly known as 1870 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga, California. The plans and the construction were all totally legal and complied with all laws, ordinances and regulations at the time; attached hereto is a copy of the building permit dated November 7, 1967, which was then secured from the City of Saratoga Building Department. I am submitting this DECLARATION to be used by Mrs. Batson, a widow, in connection with her appeal to the Saratoga City Council for a use permit so that she may continue to have and use the above mentioned improvement to her real property. I also ask the City Council to grant to her a use permit for this purpose. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September ^1 1986, at San Jose, California. E x DAN PALERMO FOUNDATION INSP Dote ROUGH HEATING INSP Dote ROUGH WIRING INSP Dote Set Back if= Duct ark 1'17211121Brr,1 Groundin• OMNI I Steel Clear ces III Service Retaining Wolls Complete Outlets Forms Fireploce FRAMING Corn.lete Complete MilliMal TOP OUT GIRDERS vents Flues Gird Spocing Noili Tubs Pons Joist Bridging Complete Gos Test Complete LATHING Com•Iete ROUGH PLUMBING Exterior FINAL Waste Line Test Interior Elect. Water Piping Skeetrock Nailing Plumb. Complete l Complete Building n t i rr DATE 11 -7 -67 BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO BUILD, ALTER, REPAIR Address 187)0 AFpesi Dr. Owner Robert Batsin Contractor General Dan Palermo Electrical _Sc rr /er r.T ✓lc. Plumbing Heating Elect. Fix. `721 C =TY OF SARATOGA GUEST HOUSE Lot Troct Phone Value 800.00 �o Permit No. Fee Receipt No. y-/ :s B -1027 6.00 12732 wer no. Ins o. to Comp Notified PGE Gos ate Elec Dote bUILVINU+ utr I. Dote i:Job Address /2 owner Ale flYtei Address Plumb. Contractor Address Phone the undersigned, hereby state with regard to Chapter 9, Division 3 of the Business and Professional Code: :0 1. hove a valid California State Contractors license in full force and effect with the following classification and license number: 2 CITY OF SARATOGA APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING AND GAS PERMIT i Classification License No. 1 e exempt from these provisions by reason of the following: o. 1 am the owner of the property described in this permit Opp ll cat Ion and l am building or improving structures r. thereon for my own occupancy and not to be offered for sole. b. Exemption is based on the following section of the State Contractor's Law: Section 1 (We) hereby agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Saratoga, its officers, agents and employees against all claims, liabilities, actions, suits, judgments, costs or expenses which may in any wise arise or result from the granting of this permit or the doing of any work thereunder, or from the use or occupancy of any sidewalk, street, or sub sidewalk by virtue thereof. CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT 1 hereby acknowledge that I hove read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply' with all City Codes and Ordinances arid State Lows regulating building construction, and all conditions Of this permit. Date 7 /0 4 City Business License No. P ■500■75 Permit No. q /q Lot Tract Phone577 .�'S' a Receipt No INSURANCE COVERAGE: Check appropriate box (one must be checked, Sec. 3800 Calif. Lobor Code) El Certificate of Workmen's Compensation Insurance, copy thereof or certificate of consent to srlf insure from Director of Industrial Relations, has been filed with the City and is still in effect. The permit sought is for one hundred dollars or less. I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in ony manner so as to be. come subject to the Workmen's Compensation lows of California. understand that failure to comply with applicable Workmen's Comport. sotion laws sholl cause revocation of the permit. ,r ATTACHMENTS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Calkins PATE: 8/13/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SUP 86 001, 18710 Aspesi Drive APPLICANT: Carol Batson APN• 389 -25 -21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting use permit approval to legalize an existing detached, one -story 595 sq. ft. second unit on a level lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. ISSUES: The applicant's proposal requires modifications to the restrictions and standards for second units as set forth in Section 15- 56.010 of the City code such as, lot area setbacks, occupancy and parking. In staff's opinion, the required modifications will not adversly impact the adjacent properties or neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the use permit subject to conditions which will 1) increase the privacy of adjacent propery. owners, 2) provide for an additional parking space and 3) require the applicant (at a later date) to comply with the occupancy restrictions. 1. Approve Resolution SUP -86 -001 for an existing second unit subject to conditions, Exhibit A 1. Resolution SUP -86 -001, approving second unit use permit with conditions, Exhibit A -1 2. Exhibit 8 Findings 3. _Technical Information 4.. Exhibit C, Property Inspection Report dated 7/11/86. S. Location Map ix, 5 SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE EXHIBIT A -1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUP -86 -001 2. Applicant shall execute note and deed of trust. Lt&, /i3/ t(- n� 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to the conditions and the project as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of the resolution or the resolution approving SUP -86 -001 is automatically void. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the existing second unit, and comply with all requirements of the Inspection Division. 4. Prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit, the applicant shall provide proof that the tenant of the second unit has been in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. If the current tenant vacates, the owner shall comply with Section 1S- S6.030(i) regarding occupancy. S. The applicant shall landscape the area between the southern property line and and the second unit. 6. A landscape plan indicating the landscaping required in Condition #4 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit. 7. The applicant shall pave an area south of the existing driveway to accomodate a 18'x9 1/2' parking space. The design and location of the additional space shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of the second unit use permit. 8. At each five year interval from the date a second unit use permit is granted, the holder of such permit shall certify to the Plannino Director, on such form as he may prescribe, that the holder has complied and continues to comply with all of the applicable restrictions and standards of this Article and all conditions as set forth in the use permit. The Planning Director may request the holder to furnish such information and documents as the Director may deem necessary in order to verify the truth or accuracy of any statements contained in the certification. 9. The original second unit use permit shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. All of the restrictions and conditions applicable to such use permit shall be set forth therein, tooether with the requirement for certification of compliance as provided in Subsection 15- 56.080(b). SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE EXHIBIT B FINDINGS 1. The second unit is compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material, and landscaping. 2. The second unit is constructed with plywood siding (painted blue) which matches the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. 3. The second unit was originally built in 1963 and has been occupied continuously since 1966. Therefore, approval of the use permit will not cause any additional unreasonable noise traffic, parking congestion, or overload existing public facilities or utilities. 4. Approval of the application for a second unit is conditioned on: (1) no new windows are to be constructed along the south wall of the second unit and (2) a landcaping strip is to be planted between the second unit and southerly property line. Therefore, the second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. 5. The location of the second unit and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health safety or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. EXISTING SETBACKS: TECHNICAL INFORMATION COMMISSION MEETING: 8/13/86 APN: 389 -25 -021 APPLICATION NO. S LOCATION: SUP -86 -001 SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: <1% SECOND UNIT MAIN UNIT EXISTING HEIGHT: (Second unit) 10 ft. 9 in. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: +35% SIZE OF STRUCTURES MAIN RESIDENCE: -First floor. {including garage): 2241.sq..ft. SECOND UNIT: First floor: 595 so. ft. TOTAL: 2836 sq. ft. ACTION REQUESTED: Second unit use permit approval for an existing, detached, one -story second unit. APPLICANT: Carol Batson PROPERTY OWNER: same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEOA (15303(a)) ZONING: R -1- 10,000 &ENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density EXISTING LANG USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 9,949 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical landscaping in the front and rear yard including a large oak tree along the western property line located approximately 10 ft. from the existing second unit. Front: 107 Ft. Rear: 6 Ft. Left Side: 6 Ft. Right Side: 54 Ft. Front: 40 Ft. Rear: 30 ft. 6 in. Left Side: 6 ft. Right Side: 5 ft. SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI_DRIVE ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance, contained in Section 15- 56.010 regarding second units. MATERIALS COLORS (second unit): Plywood exterior painted blue to match existing house with tar and gravel roof. SUP -66 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE STAFF ANALYSIS A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting use permit approval to legalize an existing second unit in the R -1- 10,000 zoning distirct. The applicant has indicated the second unit was originally constructed in 1963. The subject property is in a City designated SHARP area. The applicant has applied for a loan to finance repair work on the existing main dwelling and (subject to second unit use permit approval) the second unit. The Saratoga City Council approved deferring the collection of fees and deposits ($700.00) in connection with Ms. Batson's second unit use permit application, until (1) upon the initial disbursement of the SHARP loan g_r (2) 180 days after the execution of the promissary note, whichever occurs first. B. LOT AREA The subject lot is approximately 51 sq. ft. less than the minimum lot area required for the zoning district and therefore does not meet the minimum lot area standard (1.6 times the minimum site area prescribed for the zoning district) for detached second units set forth in Section 15- 56.030(m) the City code. The Saratoga Fire Chief visited the site and concluded that they would not have any difficulty servicing the structures in an emergency. Given the above, and the fact that staff is recommending actions that will assist in increasing the adjacent property owners privacy (see below) staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a modification to Section 15- 56.030(m) regarding minimum lot area. C. SETBACK /PRIVACY The existing second unit is located in the southeast corner of the subject property, 6 ft. from the rear and side property lines where 10 ft. and 25 ft. is required respectively. While the applicant's lot is relatively flat, the rear yard area is approximately 1 -2 feet higher than the adjacent property to the south. As a result, when viewed from the applicant's property, the wooden fence separating the two properties is only 4 ft. high. A small (2'x3') bathroom window is the only window located along the second unit's south wall. Any impact on the adjacent property owners privacy will be minimal provided the applicant is restricted in the future from constructing additional windows along the southern wall. In addition, to help soften the blank south wall, staff recommends the applicant landscape the area between the ,second unit and the southern property line prior to issuance of the second unit use permit. SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE The existing landscaping along the rear property lines, (west) minimizes any potential privacy impacts on the adiacent residences to the west. D. OCCUPANCY Pursuant to Section 15- 56.110(b)(5); the requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person who is sixty years of age or older or physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. The applicant has.owned the subject property for twenty years and intends to continue to occupy the main dwelling. According to the applicant, her twenty year old son has occupied the second unit since 1979. The applicant has indicated she will submit proof of her son's tenancy to the Planning Commission on the night of the meeting. Provided the applicant submits sufficient proof to verify her son's occupancy staff 'recommends the Planning Commission may waive the requirement set forth in Section 15- 56.030(i> and permit the applicant's son to occupy the second unit. If however, the applicant's son vacates the second unit staff, recommends the Planning Commission require the applicant to comply with the restrictions regarding occupancy. E. PARKING The City's zoning ordinance requires an additional off street covered parking space be provided for the second unit. However, the Planning Commission may waive this requirement, provided not less than three off street parking spaces are available on -site and there is no feasible location on the site for the additional covered space. The size and shape of the applicant's lot and location of the existing structures on the site, prohibit the construction of a inew covered parking space. The applicant has indicated that the current two car garage functions as a garage. Staff recommends the requirement for a third space be met by widening the existing driveway to accomodate an additional parking space. E. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE The second unit was inspected by a private inspection service on July 11, 1986. A copy of the report is attached as Exhibit C. The City's Inspection Division has reviewed the above report and recommends the following: 1. All non -code complying electrical conditions noted on pg. 5 of the Property Inspection report must be corrected. 2. Install battery- operated smoke detector in the hallway adjacent to the bedroom. 3. Install an adequate heating system capable of maintaining a room 0. SUP -86 -001, BATSON, ASPESI DRIVE temperature of 70 F at a point 3 ft. above the floor in all habitable rooms. F. CONCLUSION The staff analysis identified deficiencies in the applicant's proposal which require modifications to the standards set forth in Section 15- 56.030 of the zoning ordinance including; lot area, setbacks, occupancy, parking, building code compliance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the second unit standards as discussed above and approve the applicant's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit subiect to conditions. AGENDA BILL NO. //3 J AGENDA ITEM 7L3 DATE: September 12, 1986 DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Annexation relating to Tract No. 7761 (Cocciardi /Harbor Builders Co., Inc.) Summary: Upon checking the proposed final map for Mt. Eden Estates, the engineering staff has discovered that a small portion of the subdivision, including the means of access from Mt. Eden Road, is actually located outside the City limits. A drawing showing this parcel of land is attached hereto. The parcel is owned by the subdivider and has been included within the boundaries of the subdivision. It is therefore necessary for this parcel to be annexed to the City in order to avoid the obvious problems arising from a single lot being partially located within the City and partially located within the County. There is also the further problem of the road dedication shown on the final map which now would include a small portion located beyond the City limits. The annexation is therefore necessary to avoid these problems. Fiscal Impacts: None. CITY OF SARATOGA Exhibits /Attachments: (a) Petition for annexation. (b) Resolution. Recommended Action: Adoption of resolution. Council Action: CITY MGR. APPROVAL es C.1 er— C.7 00 -1 C G1 -1 11 rn ti o m O D O 0 Z O m r 0 r D J 3? O 30 0 co 0 r r. 2 D p N 0 -1 m Q 'n I tp A 0 r, y f 1�, r i 1 gi r v .30 CO 190 O W 1 7 D 2 a/ ro 245 5 i yFi 0 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 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, do hereby represent, request and petition as follows: (a) The petition is submitted pursuant to the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, 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 procedings 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: 1 HARBOILB TILSE O., INC By EXHIBIT "A" Beginning at an iron pipe at the section corner common to Section 34 amd 35, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base Meridian; thence along the Section line between Sections 34 and 35, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, N 0¢16'20" E 150.00 feet to an iron pipe at the Northeasterly corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed by Vince Stolte Garrod, et ux, to Anthony Cocciardi and Mark Erickson by Deed dated May 12, 1958 and recorded July 30, 1958 in Book 4136 of Official Records at Page 332, Santa Clara County Records; thence continuing along said section line N 0 16'20" E 220.00 feet; thence leaving said section line and running S 88 32'20" W 93.76 feet to a point of cusp in the easterly boundary of Mount Eden Road, 40 feet wide as shown on the Record of Survey recorded in Book 216 of Maps at Page 37, Santa Clara County Records; thence running along said Easterly boundary of Mount Eden Road S 20 54'33" E 183.13 feet to a point of tangency; thence along a curve to the right with an internal angle of 48 43'10 a radius of 170.00 feet and a length of 192.36 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 43 55'20" W 27.82 feet to a point of cusp at the section line running between Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 2 West and Section 3, Township 8 South, Range 2 West MDBM thence along said section line N 88 32'20" E 82.30 feet to the aforementioned section corner at the point of beginning. Containing 0.392 acres and Lying within Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, MDBM, Santa Clara County, California. LEGEND SCALE: 1" MONUMENT AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEYS BOOK 216 OM, PAGE 37 AND /OR BOOK 134 OM, PAGE 15 Q. MOUNT EDEN RD. 0.273 ACRES D 64 R 170.00 192.36 LANDS OF COCCI DI, et. al.._ PER BK.4_136 O.R. PAGE 32 N 43 E 27.82 CENTERLINE, PROPOSED ROAD FOR MOUNT EDEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION N 88`32'20"E 93.76 7 SOUTH WEST 5 3270" W 3 2 TOWNSHI 8 SOUTH EXHIBIT "A" Beginning at an iron pipe at the section corner common to Section 34 amd 35, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base Meridian; thence along the Section Line between Sections 34 and 35, Township 7 South, Range '2 West, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, N 0 E 150.00 feet to an iron pipe at the Northeasterly corner of that certain parcel of Land conveyed by Vince Stolte Garrod, et ux, to Anthony Cocciardi and Mark Erickson by Deed dated May 12, 1958 and recorded July 30, 1958 in Book 4136 of Official Records at Page 332, Santa Clara County Records; thence continuing along said section line N 0 16'20" E 220.00 feet; thence Leaving said section line and running S 88 32'20" W 93.76 feet to a point of cusp in the easterly boundary of Mount Eden Road, 40 feet wide as shown on the Record of Survey recorded in Book 216 of Maps at Page 37, Santa Clara County Records; thence running along said Easterly boundary of Mount Eden Road S 20 54'33" E 183.13 feet to a point of tangency; thence along a curve to the right with an internal angle of 48 43'10 a radius of 170.00 feet and a length of 192.36 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 43° 55'20" W 27.82 feet to a point of cusp at the section Line running between Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 2 West and Section 3, Township 8 South, Range 2 West MDBM thence along said section line N 88 32'20" E 82.30 feet to the aforementioned section corner at the point of beginning. Containing 0.392 acres and lying within Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, MDBM, Santa Clara County, California. LEGEND MONUMENT AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEYS BOOK 216 OM, PAGE 37 AND /OR BOOK 134 OM, PAGE 15 Q. MOUNT EDEN RD. 0.273 ACRES 64 49' 5 R 170.00 /L 192.36 LANDS OF COCCI DI, et. al.._ PER BK. 4136 O.R.• PAGE 32 N 43'55'20" E 27.82 CENTERLINE, PROPOSED ROAD FOR MOUNT EDEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION N 88'32'20"E 93.76 0 ti M 7 SOUTH WEST 35 32'0" W 2 TOWNSHI 8 SOUTH AGENDA BILL NO. DEPT.: City Attorney Fiscal Impacts: Council Action: a 36 DATE: September 12, 1986 CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Final subdivision map approval for Tract 7761 AGENDA ITEM 7 V CITY MGR. APPROVAL ie Summary: Because of the relationship between the final map approval for Tract 7761 (subdivision of the Cocciardi property) and the Quarry Creek /Quarry Road Repair Project, the City Attorney is recommending that a final approval be granted even though some of the normal requirements have not yet been satisfied. This accommodation is prompted solely by the need to accomplish the Repair Project before the rainy season. The developers cannot obtain any funding on their construction loan until final map approval has been granted by the City. The proceeds from such loan will be utilized not only for construction of the subdivision improvements but also for construction of the buttress and drainage facilities in Quarry Creek and the reconstruction of Quarry Road. Unless this work is commenced immediately, the. Project will have to be delayed until next spring. In order to grant a final map approval while at the same time preserving the City's right to enforce our normal conditions, a building restriction agreement will be executed by the subdivider and recorded along with the final map. This agreement will provide that no building permits shall be issued by the City for the construction of a residential structure upon any lot until the requirements described in paragraph 3 of the resolution, items (a), (b), (c) and (d) have all been satisfied. We expect that all of these items, except for the availability of water, will be satisfied within the next two weeks. The water service will be provided through the establishment of the new water district which is now being formed. This process should be completed by spring of next year, but if there is some delay beyond that time, no construction of residential structures will be allowed upon any of the lots in the subdivision until the water service is available at the site. It should be emphasized that a conditional final approval would be granted in this case by reason of exceptional circumstances involving numerous properties in the immediate area, and the deferment by the City of normal requirements should not be viewed as a precedent for any other application. Exhibits /Attachments: (a) Resolution conditionally approving final map of Tract 7761. (b) Report to the Planning Commission, as revised. (c) Final subdivision map. Recommended Action: Adoption of resolution granting final map approval. DATE: IN1TIA S: City of Saratoga APPROVED BY: _1,<f2L MU4 04 U REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: SD -1356 Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Map Approval 23 Lots. Draft Written 1/3/80 rev. 1/9/80 rev. 1/18/80 rev. DATE: 2/7/80 Commission Meeting: 2/13/80 rev. 2/13/80 FaCJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative map approval for a 43.19 acre parcel in the HC -RD zoning district. Generally the site is characterized by steep hillside topography with an average slope of 23 Numerous landslide deposits are present as geologic conditions which constrain the development of the property: 1) orientation and inclination of the bedrock; and 2) potential slope instability. The City Geologist has approved the map for Commission Tentative Map Approval. Access for the site as proposed is to be a loop public road system from Mt. Eden Road with a cul -de -sac of Quarry Road at the eastern end of the property and with an extension into Lands of Thomas which may eventually connect with Via Regina. A 50' right -of -way to the lands to the north is offered on the Tentative Map and is conditioned for improvement. The Quarry Road cul -de -sac will require an exception from the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 13.3 -4, since it is over 400 feet in length. Geological features, details of corrective grading and open space easements are now shown on the Tentative Map. The proposed lots range from 1.0 to 5.2 acres in size with the required depths, widths, and frontages. PROJECT STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission as adequate on June 13, 1979. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Record- er's Office when this project is approved. FINDINGS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The Planning Commission is responsible for making the necessary findings according to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission must make one or more of the following findings with Exhibit "D", in addition to previous findings. (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which mitigate of avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. J Report to Planning Co fission A OF. SD -1356 Cocciardi (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation and measures of project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The Staff Report will recommend approval of the tentative map for SD -1356 (Exhibit "B -8" filed February 7, 1980) subject to the following conditions: I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2/7/80 Page 2 A. Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977. B. Street improvements on 50 -foot right -of -way to be 26 feet. (Improvements may be altered per approval of the Planning Commission' prior to Final Map Approval.) C. Improve Quarry Road to "Minimum Access Road" standard from proposed turn around at Lot 1 to Pierce Road. (Note: At present Quarry Road from Vaquero Court to Pierce Road meets this condition.) D. Improve secondary access road from Cocciardi Ct. to Mt. Eden Road to Minimum Access Road (developer is to enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to pay pro rata share of the cost of improvin this road to "City Street Standards E. 50' right -of -way through Lot 19 is to be improved to "City Street Standards Submit an offer of dedication for an easement for a minimum access road running from public street on Lot 19 to northerly boundary. F. Provide adequate sight distance at all driveway and street inter- sections as approved by the Director of Public Works. G. The "Structural Section" of the roadbed of all streets is to be 125% of the "Gravel Equivalent" as determined by standard design practice. All requirements of Exhibit "D" are to be followed as they apply to roadway design and construction operations and pro- cedures. H. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by the Director of Public Works. I. Comply with all storm drainage, siltation, and erosion control measures required in Exhibit "D" including but not limited to the provisions for energy dissipaters and siltation basins. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. A final geotechnical report for the subdivision shall be submitted and approved prior to final map approval. Report shall include pavement design parameters. All conditions of the City Geologist shall be met. B. Soil and foundation reports required for each lot. Soils engineer shall review plans for all proposed on -site work and structures for siting, grading, drainage, foundation structures and erosion control Any geotechnical corrective measures for lots shall be addressed. Letter from soils engineer certifying he has done this review and that the plans are consistent with the geotechnical report is required prior to issuance of building /grading permits. C. Surface drainage on plan as shown is not approved. Detailed on- site improvement plans required for each lot prior to issue of building /grading permits. Plan shall include: 1. Grading (limits of cuts and fills; slope rates; cross- sections; existing and proposed elevations; and earthwork quantities). 7. Report to Planning Ct. ission SD -1356 Cocciardi 4. Erosion control measures. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT 2/7/80 Page 3 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall location, etc., Subsurface drainage shall be considered). Private storm drain easements may be required prior to final map approval. 3. Retaining structures (by licensed designer). D. Soils engineer shall inspect and approve all excavation and grading operations.` A written report of that is to be submitted to the City prior to final inspection of all structures. Report shall include accurate "as- built" information including foundation soil types/ locations and dimensions of foundation structures. E. No grading shall be undertaken after September 30 and before May 1. Excavations shall be winterized prior to November 1. F. All grading is to be sloped and contoured to match existing terrain. Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 except as specifi- cally approved by City. G. Single Family Dwellings to be equipped with security and fire detection devices required by City. H. All existing structures, debris and improper grading shall be corrected or removed. I. Abandoned quarry is to be reclaimed as necessary to provide slope stability, runoff and erosion control as approved by City. J. Private utility structures to be constructed so as not to be a detriment to slope stability. K. Construction traffic required for subdivision and lot improvements shall not use Quarry Road. If used it shall be repaired to conditic as it existed prior to construction. L. CC &R's and Open Space Maintenance Agreement shall contain require- ments for Homeowners Maintenance Association to preserve and maintain open space, emergency gate, and off -site minimum access road in good condition to prevent and correct erosion, runoff and/ or slope stability problems. A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated February 21, 1978. B. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval. A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38_58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggre- gate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 121% withoug adhering to the following: ;w Report to Planning Cd_.{ission SD -1356 Cocciardi Driveways having slopes between 121% to 15% shall be surfaced using 21/2" of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 171% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 1. r D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. G. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering 1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1,000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. H. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. I. Developer to install 7 hydrants that meet Saratoga Fire District's specifications and deposit $1,365.00 to cover hydrant rental for a period of five (5) years. Hydrants to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. J. Developer to deposit a fee of $10.00 per hydrant for a total of $7 prior to issuance of building permits. K. Provide emergency access gate(s) as required by Saratoga Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit. L. Driveways to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga Fire Department prior to Final Map Approval. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and" connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an ade- quate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32' inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY SERVICES 2/7/ 2/7/80 Page 4 A. Dedicate 15' trail easement and improve as approved by Parks and Recreation Commission (in conjunction with public right -of -way where possible). h L is R e port to'Planning 1' SD -1356 Cocciardi C. Prior to issuance of building permits comply with criteria for the keeping of horses (to be established by the Planning Commission prior to Final Approval). VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT CC, fission B. Trail grading to be done by developer prior to issuance of building permit per requirements of Parks and Recreation Commission. Pathway to be comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed. A. Prior to final approval, submit CC &R's which state: 1. No recreational courts are allowed. 2. Residences require Design Review Approval. Individual house design to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the physical environment and compliance with Site Development Plan. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evaluation. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions. All grading to be smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. 3. Fences, walls and hedges are allowed only per City of Saratoga's HC -RD Zoning District regulations "proximate to the principal structure and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in excess of 4,000 square feet." 4. Pools on lots to be placed on slopes of thirty (30) percent or less and are subject to Staff Design Review to insure reasonable placement in relation to the site's physical characteristics and City planning criteria. Decisions of Staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission through the Design Review Process. 5. No pool is to be placed on Lot 15 unless and except it is reviewed and approved by Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Equestrian Trails are placed on Lots 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. These CC &R's are not to be amended without written consent of the City of Saratoga and are enforceable by the City. B. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to issuance of permits, per HC -RD ordinance. C. Design Review Approval for the following is required prior to Final Subdivision Approval: 1. Treatment of trail easement. 2. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height. 3. Landscaping for graded areas, with slopes of 2.5:1 or flatter and exceeding 20 feet in height (toe to top) or with slopes-: steeper than 3:1 and exceeding 10 feet in height (toe to top), and landscaping for areas in which combustive vegetation is required to be removed. 4. Treatment of emergency access gate(s). D. Site Development Plan for each lot to be reviewed for conformance to Tentative Map and approved by Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. Any modifications shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. E. Comply with special architectural residences as previously approved to issuance of building permits. F. All cut and fill slopes shall be port landscaping. 2/7/80 Page 5 mitigation measures for the by the Planning Commission prior of such material as to fully sup- „57 *Report to Planning Cc ,fission SD -1356 Cocciardi G. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face height. H. Cuts for driveways, visible from viewshed, shall be hidden behind houses and /or screened. I. Applicanishall comply with Mitigation Measures attached and included on Tentative Map (Exhibit "D section (a). These Mitigation Measures are to be shown or stated on the improvement plans or Final Map prior to Final Map Approval. Approved: KK /clh J. Scenic easements to be shown on Final Map per the following written statement: We hereby dedicate to the City of Saratoga easements for permanent open space on and over those certain areas designated as "Scenic Easement" on the written map, which are to be kept open and free from building and structures and other improvements (including ornamental landscaping, fencing and decks), but subject to the rights, limitations, powers and obligations as set forth on that certain Scenic Easement Agreement dated and which is being recorded concurrently herewith. K. Enter into Scenic Easement Agreement with the City for the scenic easements prior to Final Map Approval. Neither the CC &R's nor the Scenic Easement Agreement are to be amended without the written consent of the City of Saratoga and they are to be enforceable” by the City. L. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. M. All street names to be checked and approved by County Communications prior to Final Map Approval. N. No access onto "Quarry Road" from Lots 12, 15, 16. P. C. Agenda: 2/13/80 Kathy Kerd;s, Assistant Planner 2/7/80 Page 6 (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. GEOLOGY SOILS SEISMICITY DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" SD -1356 The project geotechnical consultants should review and approve the final subdivision plans, the final location of each structure, final grading an foundation plans for each structure prior to construction, observe all earthwork operations, observe the subsurface conditions and pier and foot ing excavations, and observe the installation of any subdrains and drains behind retaining walls. Conform with recommendations of City Geologist. Grading should conform to the objectives of the Grading Ordinance. Design surface drainage carefully to prevent concentrated surface runoff from flowing over slopes. Provide positive drainage adjacent to all residential structures to direc surface water away from the foundations of all buildings into closed pipe that lead to suitable discharge facilities. Collect rainwater from roofs through gutters, downspouts and closed pipes to discharge facilities. Also, rainwater from roadway should be collected in lined ditches or along berms to suitable discharge facilities. Regrade incised gullys as required by project consultant to provide stability. All grading should be contoured so as to appear natural. Provide details of the corrective plans for the filling of the stream canyon and the stabilization of the roadway in the area of Lots 11, 12, and 13. The plans for the filling project should show the actual length of the stream canyon that is to be filled, the lateral extent of the engineered fill, and "typical" transverse and longitudinal finished pro- files. The stabilization plan for the road alignment should be presentee at construction scale, (20- scale) prior to Final Map Approval. See the Ecology section relative to the use of drought tolerant landscap- ing (to avoid water saturation of ancient landslides). Plans for the channelization of watercourses should conform to the design principals of the City's General Plan. Rip -rap should be avoided Design all buildings according to the seismic design criteria in the 1976 Uniform Building Code. To reduce hazards further, attach water heaters to building frameworks. Install manual shut -off valves for branch gas lines to reduce potential fire hazard. Use flexible conduit material for buried utility lines. Erosion and sedimentation of this and adjacent properties should be studied and corrective measures undertaken. .,:haft Exhibit "D" 2 HYDROLOGY ECOLOGY NOISE In order to reduce erosion and consequent siltation of the creeks, all grading should be done during the May September dry period. Revegetatio: of the site should be initiated as soon as possible following grading on any portion of the site but in no case should unvegetated graded areas be left exposed to the winter rains. All revegetation should be maintained and watered by the developer until well established. A landscape archi- tect should be retained to plan and supervise all revegetation. Long term maintenance of open space and landscaped areas should be assure by maintenance agreements with the Homeowners Association. Catch basins and silt basin should be provided at properly spaced intervals on the roads of the site to control the flow of water down them. Energy dissipaters should be provided for all conduit outfalls which car: runoff to the creeks. Drainage conduits from the proposed lots and from the roads should be constructed down to the creek channels and not be constructed to empty onto the ravine slopes. Erosion control measures should be provided along the creek channels whe: active scour of the channel and banks is occurring. A landscape architec and engineer should be retained to plan and supervise the necessary erosion control methods to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Subdivision improvements should be designed so that downstream erosion and flooding situations are not aggravated. Require that all developer installed landscaping (e.g., street trees and hydromulching of graded areas) be plant species native to northern California. Require that lot buyers be provided with lists of native drought-toleran landscaping species and of nurseries which can supply them. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC Require the applicant to recontour the back walls of the former quarry areas to approximate a natural land form. Require the applicant to repair the erosion gullies and establish a natural land form. See Traffic mitigation measures regarding the realignment of Cocciardi Road. Limit construction hours to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday. ;caft Exhibit "D" :'Page 3 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WATER SERVICE LAND USE AND PLANNING Require the applicant to secure right -of -way across the private property which lies between the site and Mt. Eden Road. Require the applicants to contribute financially to the cost of establish ing a new fire station in the vicinity. The developers of the subject parcels have joined with adjacent landowner' to establish a special water district that would provide adequate fireflc and domestic water supply as well as the appropriate system appurtenances to the site. Require that water heaters be located as close as possible to fixture outlets and insulate water pipes to reduce water wasted while residents wait for hot water from water lines. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION If it is found to be geologically feasible, realign the west end of the proposed Cocciardi Road so that it passes through the proposed Lots 14 ar. 15 to join the existing driveway serving the Cocciardi house and follow its alignment down to the existing (Garrod Road) intersection with Mt. Eden Road. This would eliminate several sharp curves and would avoid creating an additional intersection with limited sight distances on Mt. Eden Road. An intersection should have 10 feet of sight distance for eac mile per hour of speed; e.g., 30 mph requires 200 feet of clear sight distance. Revise site plans to show a turnaround on all driveways longer than 100 feet. The applicant has stated he can conform to this requirement. Require the subdividers to contribute a proportional share of the cost of making the recommended improvements to the Pierce Road /Route 85 intersection. Require the subdividers to contribute land and /or money in proportion to the size of each subdivision towards the expense of providing a new fire station. Require the subdividers to join any road and water maintenance district if it should be found necessary. Require the subdividers to participate on a pro -rata basis in the capital cost of required major traffic, flood control or fire improvemen (including Pierce Road improvements, a new fire station, drainage improv bents for Calabazas Creek, water and sewer improvements). There are a number of mitigation measures designed to reduce the number of accidents in the City which were proposed in a recent citywide accidc survey (TJKM:1978). The subdivisions could be required to contribute tc the payment for cost of improvements to Pierce Road and the Pierce Road, Route 85 intersection. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES If subsurface archaeologic remains are uncovered during grading, halt a- work for 30 meters around the site and retain a qualified archaelolgist to evaluate the find and recommend further mitigation. (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdict of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such oth• agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. �traft Exhibit "D" Page 4 (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation and measures of project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Delete plans for a house on the proposed Lot 11. (The alternative "mitigation" of brush removal would have secondary adverse effects of increased erosion and possible reactivation of an ancient landslide.) Require that all houses have well lighted entrances which are visible from the street and that all doors be equipped with dead -bolt type locks The provision of entrances visible from the public street may be incon- sistent with the City's policy requiring a 100 -foot setback from major streets and design goals of the General Plan. The provision of well lighted entrances does not eliminate a potential crime problem but does reduce the opportunity for criminal activity. To reduce hazards further, provide firm anchorage of light fixtures, panel walls and architectural decoration to structures. Improve the pavement along Quarry Road from Pierce Road to the site so that it meets City standards and investigate the possibility of dedicatic' of the privately owned portions of this road. Require the subdivider to contribute to the cost of this work. Reconstruct the intersection of Quarry Road /Pierce Road by widening the Pierce Road bridge across Calabazas Creek at this point, realigning the roadbed to straighten the curves, pruning or removing vegetation which blocks sight distances, and lighting the intersection at night. Require that horse trails be kept at least 50 feet away from water- courses and that stream crossings be kept to a minimum. Perform a geologic evaluation of the off -site portions of Quarry Road require that the subdivider contribute to the cost of any corrective work needed if Quarry Road is used for Subdivision access. Require that the keeping of horses be restricted to lots which have one acre of level land (less than 5% slope) and that paddock areas not be traversed by water courses. For steeper areas, and those larger than onE acre of land, horses should be limited to grazing areas large enough to provide an adequate food supply (about seven acres). r3'