Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1992 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.1 t5 AGENDA ITEM 458 MEETING DATE: March 4 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering (kQ CITY MGR. APPROV SUBJECT: Civic Center Improvements Capital Project No. 956: Project Financial Review Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Budget Adjustment Resolution transferring $34,480 from General Fund Reserves to Capital Project No. 956. 2. Authorize staff to execute an additional $139,891 in change orders to the construction contract with Swenson and Associates. Discussion: As a follow up to Tuesday evening's discussion, I have recalculated the financial summary of the Civic Center project. The current revised summary which itemizes expenses to date and projected expenses through completion for each component of the project is attached. The revised summary forecasts a shortfall of $34,480 at the completion of the project. The assumptions used to arrive at this projection are: 1. Total project expenditures to make the Warner- Hutton House functional will be held to $25,321. It's possible that $10,000 $12,000 of that amount will not need to be expended if vol- unteers are recruited to paint the house. 2. The $52,500 contained in the original project budget and ear- marked for the Fire Alarm System and Skateboard Ramp will not be used for those purposes and instead the funds will be utilized to offset the higher than budgeted Design and Con- struction costs. The Skateboard Ramp should be programmed as a separate Capital Improvement Project if and when plans for the ramp are finalized and approved by the Council. 3. The entire $109,160 budgeted as a Project Reserve wil be used to offset the remaining expenses that are anticipated to com- plete the construction and remodel work. 4. Up to $15,000 may be required to abate asbestos from the exist- ing City Hall buildings. The asbestos is contained in approx- imately 4,000 square feet of floor tiles and mastic primarily under carpeted areas, but also under the flooring in the hall- way near the City Manager's office and in the break room. The asbestos was discovered during a recent inspection for which staff had contracted. The $15,000 figure is a conservative estimate and provides for development of a bid package with specifications, air monitoring during asbestos removal, project management and documentation and asbestos disposal. The actual abatement is estimated to take 5 days to complete and should only have a minimal effect on the Contractor's schedule for the City Hall remodel. Of the total anticipated project cost of $1,925,400, the total pro- jected construction costs for the new wing and remodel of the existing wings, Community Center and Maintenance Building is $1,504,451 or approximately 78% of the total project cost. This total projected construction cost exceeds the construction budget of $1,289,560 by $214,891 or by approximately 16.7 When compared to industry standards for building and remodel projects of similar magnitudes, this percentage of construction cost overrun is not considered unusual or excessive. The following explains how the $214,891 in construction extras have been or are proposed to be expended. While reviewing this, please bear in mind that 74 separate changes to the construction contract amounting to $73,746 have been authorized to date. The remaining $141,145 involve 29 separate items totalling $89,645 which staff can identify at this time and an additional $51,500 which staff believes. should be set aside as future contingencies for the purposes described below. o Sanitary sewer costs: $17,115 These costs entail $8,126 to reconstruct a portion of the existing sewer lateral south of the Theatre which was at a shallower depth than shown on the City's records. Because of this lack of depth, a sewage ejection system also had to be installed to service the new wing. In addition $8,989 will need to be spent to connect the original City Hall wing (presently housing the Engineer- ing Planning and Building Departments) to the sanitary sewer system. Unbeknownst to everyone, the original wing was connected to a septic system until it was recently discovered during construction of the new wing. The septic tank, (no leach field), which was in the vicinity of the Warner- Hutton House, has since been abandoned. Connection of the original wing to the sanitary sewer system will require installation of a second sewage ejection sytem because of a lack of positive gradient to the connection point with the sewer main in the parking lot behind City Hall. o Electric and Telephone utility costs: $10,726 This expense was necessitated by the required relocation of on -site electric and telephone utilities from under the building pad of the new wing. The City's records did not have these utilities shown in their proper location. o Gas service costs: $7,651 The existing gas services to the Community Center and Maintenance Building turned out to be undersized and consequently, had to be upgraded to meet current Building Code standards. o Water service costs: $10,776 The existing water service to the Community Center also turned out to be undersized and had to be upgraded. Additionally, the water service to the original City Hall wing ran under the building pad of the new wing, contrary to where the City's records showed it to be, and it too had to be relocated. o Parking lots, landscaping and site costs: $10,682 The maj- ority of these costs are associated with changes in the scope of landscaping and site work due to the acceptance of two alternate bid items. Approximately $2,500 of these costs is due to poor soils conditions encountered under the north end of the new wing and the subsequent removal and replacement of of that material. o Construction changes at New Wing: $23,863 This cost covers the typical kinds of changes one would expect to encounter during construction and for which contingencies were budgeted. To date there have been 17 changes executed at a cost of $7,880. In addition, staff, the Architect and the Contractor have identified 11 more possible changes which are estimated to cost $15,983. The total anticipated cost of all changes to the new wing however, as a percentage of the contract price of $615,692 for the new wing, is only 3.8 o Construction changes at Community Center: $21,313 The remodel of the Community Center has been complicated by the discovery of numerous structural and mechanical system def- iciences which required correction. To date, 24 changes totalling $12,236 have been executed to the contract. In addition, staff, the Architect and the Contractor have identified 10 more possible changes which are estimated to cost $9,077. Of that amount, $3,083 is for the construction of a dumpster enclosure on the west side of the building. With the dumpster enclosure, the total estimated cost of all changes as a percentage of the contract price of $127,400 is 16.7 Without the dumpster enclosure, the percentage is 14.3 o Construction changes at Maintenance Building: $21,904 To date, there have been 12 changes executed to the contract for extra work at the Maintenance Building totalling $9,904. This represents 12.6% of the original contract price of $78,186. The only additional change envisioned at the Maintenance Building is a $12,000 ramp to provide for reasonable accommodation to the building in order to bring it into compliance with the recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While the building complies with Title 24 handicap access requirements of the State of California, the ADA standards requiring reasonable accommo- dation to public buildings do not appear to be satisfied in staff's opinion. Unfortunately, the ADA was enacted after the building was designed. While the City has the option to defer installation of the ramp until January of 1995, it is staff's recommendation to install the ramp now using the Civic Center contractor. o Construction changes at existing City Hall: $14,463 As Phase 2 of the construction has yet to begin, the only change affecting the existing City Hall was for some exploratory demolition work totalling $356. However, staff, the Architect and the Contractor have identified 8 possible changes which are estimated to cost $14,104. Of that amount, $10,193 is for reroofing the entire City Hall building since it is no longer practical to patch and repair the many leaks which exist. At this time, the $4,270 in expended and foreseen changes, exclusive of the reroofing, constitute 1.9% of the contract price of $216,853. o Energy efficient light fixtures: $13,168 Staff reviewed the lighting demands in the new wing and the existing City Hall with P.G. E. to determine the cost effectiveness of purchasing energy efficient lighting fixtures. We discover- ed that switching from the specified fixtures to energy efficient models would reduce the City's lighting demand by almost 51,000 kilowatt -hours annually. This translates to an annual savings in the City's electric bill of approxi- mately $4,450. In addition, the City will qualify for a rebate of $3,054 from P.G. E. reducing the net cost of the energy efficient fixtures to $10,114 (the cost to the pro- ject however remains at $13,168). The City will recapture the cost of the light fixtures in a little over 27 months. o Irrigation system upgrade: $11,730 It is recommended that the entire Civic Center irrigation system be connected to the new controller which will be provided for the landscaped areas around the new wing and in the new courtyard. This will accomplish one of the goals of the recently adopted Irrigation System Master Plan, conserve on water use and reduce mainten- ance labor costs. o Contingencies: $51,500 In addition to everything above, it is recommended to set aside additional contingencies to cover unexpected costs that are certain to arise before this pro- ject is finished. Some of these contingencies can be ear- marked for specific purposes while others can't. The $51,500 recommended amount includes the following: $5,000 to complete the Phase I work. $28,250 to complete the Phase II work (City Hall remodel) and which would make the total construction contingency for the remodel $32,520, (including the $4,270 identified above), or roughly 15% of the contract price of $216,853. $10,000 to perform termite related repair work if it be- comes necessary. $4,250 to repair any structural damage of the existing City Hall roof due to past leakage. $3,500 to provide additional informational signage around the Civic Center complex for the public if, at the com- pletion of the project, such is desired. To summarize, the $214,891 in construction related changes breaks down as follows: Sanitary sewer costs $17,115 Electric /Telephone utility costs $10,726 Gas service costs $7,651 Water service costs $10,776 Parking lots, landscaping, site costs $10,682 Construction changes at New Wing $23,863 Construction changes at Community Center $21,313 Construction changes at Maintenance Building $9,904 Maintenance Building Ramp $12,000 Construction changes at existing City Hall $4,270 Reroof existing City Hall $10,193 Energy efficient light fixtures $13,168 Irrigation system upgrade $11,730 Contingencies $51,500 TOTAL 214,891 Depending on how one views the current financial summary for the Civic Center project, it is possible to draw several conclusions from the reported numbers. For example, if one were to consider the numbers for the project as a whole, then the projected $34,480 shortfall represents only a 1.8% overrun of the original project budget of $1,890,920. On the other hand, if one chooses to back out the allocated amounts for the Fire Alarm System, Skateboard Ramp, Construction Contingency and Project Reserve from the original project budget and consider the revised project budget to be only $1,654,260, then the total projected expenses of $1,925,400 would exceed the revised budget by $271,140 or by 16.3%. A third way, and the way I prefer to evaluate the numbers, is to back out the allocated amounts for the Fire Alarm System and Skateboard Ramp from the original project budget and consider a revised project budget of $1,838,420. On the expense side, I would back out the costs for abandoning the septic tank and connecting the original City Hall to the sanitary sewer system, reroofing of the existing City Hall, the Maintenance Building ramp, the energy efficient light fixtures, the upgrade of the existing Civic Center irrigation system, the Community Center dumpster enclosure and the recommended contingencies earmarked for termite and roof damage repairs. This would reduce total projected expenses by $73,413 making the revised total projected expenses $1,851,987. Compared to the revised project budget of $1,838,420, the project cost overrun, as 1 view it, is $13,567 or .7% with $36,750 still available as construction contingencies. Regardless of how one chooses to view the project, the bottom line numbers as they pertain to the adopted City budget remain the same. The current financial summary projects a $34,480 shortfall for the project and this funding gap should be closed to ensure a successful completion of the project. The attached Budget Adjustment Resolution, if adopted, would authorize the transfer of $34,480 from General Fund Reserves to Capital Project No. 956 thus closing the funding gap. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution. Additionally, when the Council awarded the construction contract to Swenson and Associates, staff was authorized to execute up to $75,000 in change orders to the contract. To successfully complete the project as I have described in this report, staff's authority to execute change orders should be increased by $139,891 raising staff's total change order authority to $214,891. Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion to that effect. Fiscal Impacts; As noted. Sufficient funds exist in the General Fund Reserves to supplement the budget for Capital Project No. 956 by the $34,480 that is recommended. Attachments; 1. Project Financial Summary. 2. Budget Adjustment Resolution. Notion Vote: CIVIC CENTER C.I.P. 956 DESIGN TRAILER RENTAL SEWER CONNNECTION FEE PRINTING ADVERTISING TESTING /INSPECTION VOICE /DATA MOVING P.G. E. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM U.G. UTILITIES WARNER HUTTON HOUSE SKATEBOARD RAMP CONSTRUCTION CONST. CONTINGENCY PROJECT RESERVE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT 2/28/92 PROJECT BUDGET 275,000.00 38,000.00 100.00 1,250.00 350.00 9,000.00 20,000.00 7,500.00 1,500.00 7,500.00 0.00 12,000.00 45,000.00 1,289,560.00 75,000.00 109,160.00 0.00 287,149.12 23,340.54 100.00 4,396.56 337.50 8,841.25 11,232.09 1,062.15 1,452.24 65.00 1,400.00 1,321.00 0.00 796,367.83 73,745.76 0.00 0.00 12,850.00 7,229.75 0.00 100.00 0.00 4,750.00 8,822.00 7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,000.00 0.00 493,192.17 1,254.24 139,890.80 15,000.00 EXPENSE EXPENSE TO TOTAL TO DATE COMPLETE EXPENSE VARIANCE 299,999.12 (24,999.12) 30,570.29 7,429.71 100.00 0.00 4,496.56 (3,246.56) 337.50 12.50 13,591.25 (4,591.25) 20,054.09 (54.09) 8,562.15 (1,062.15) 1,452.24 47.76 65.00 7,435.00 1,400.00 (1,400.00) 25,321.00 (13,321.00) 0.00 45,000.00 1,289,560.00 0.00 75,000.00 0.00 139,890.80 (30,730.80) 15,000.00 (15,000.00) 1,890,920.00 1,210,811.04 714,588.96 1,925,400.00 (34,480.00) Meeting Date: March 4, 1992 To: City Council From: City Manager _Printed on recycled paper. gU ©g 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Harry(. Peacock City Manager jm Attachments: Proposals (2) fie Subject: Selection of Consultant and Dates for Team Building/ Conflict Resolution Training COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman As directed the City Council, I have solicited proposals from two firms: facilitate a training' program for team building /conflict_ resolution involving the City Council and possibly top management: These_proposals are attached. Both are similar in approach_ and cost.` Several clients of each will be called,. by the time of your March 4th meeting and I will have a recommendation for you at that time. Should the Council decide to proceed, a date for the first session should be selected. As you indicated previously, a Monday_or Friday would be best. It might be helpful to pick two or three dates if the choice is to use Ginny Jaquith since- -her schedule is not known. If Marilyn Manning is selected, she_ has indicated five dates she has available so Council should pick the most convenient date. Next step in the- process- -set up individual interviews with -councilmembers. Hughes, Heiss Associates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Harry, 675 Mariners Island Blvd. /Suite 108 San Mateo, California 94404 415/570 -6111 FAX 415/570 -5320 February 18, 1992 201 W. Fourth Street /Suite 205 Claremont, CA 91711 714/626 -2014 FAX 714/626 -5450 RECE1WEr u k FEB 211992 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal to work with the City Council in Saratoga toward working effectively as a policy- making body. The proposal which follows is based on our brief conversation regarding the situation, my experience in working with other Councils and Boards in team building workshops and my own dissertation research related to conflict among City Council members. The following describes our approach to the team building effort. 1. TENTATIVE WORKPLAN FOR CITY COUNCIL TEAM BUILDING PROGRAM The team building effort would be designed to accomplish the following objectives: Develop an understanding of the issues and behaviors that cause conflict among Council members. Identify ways of effectively working together as a City Council. To achieve these objectives we would propose a conflict resolution/team building process which would include the following components: Part 1 Identifv Issues and Behaviors that Cause Conflict Amonz Council Members. The purpose of this initial task is to define the issues and behaviors that cause conflict and, as a result, lessen the Council's effectiveness. We would conduct in -depth individual interviews with each Council member to identify the issues which are causing conflict. During these interviews Council members would complete an instrument designed to identify individual conflict manage- ment styles. Data obtained during this part of the process will help us to understand how each Council member manages conflict situations and will be of value in the team building workshop. Part 2 Conduct Conflict Resolution/Team Building Workshop for Council Members. The City Council will work as a group, in a facilitated workshop, to resolve those issues which are creating conflict among Council members and, most importantly, to identify ways in which the Council can work effectively together as a policy- making body. The workshop will include a variety of exercises, discussions, problem- solving techniques and consensus building approaches to assist the Council in resolving conflicts and developing the skills needed to work effectively as a team. Part 3 Follow -Un City Council Workshop. A follow -up meeting would be held with Council members approximately one month after the workshop. This facilitated meeting will serve to identify and resolve any additional issues which may have arisen, provide an opportunity for Council members to reaffirm the commitments which were made and to practice the strategies which were developed in the initial workshop. Part 4 Workshop with New Council Members. As there will be two new Council members in June, it will be critical for the Council to meet as a group to establish effective working relationships as soon as possible after the election. We would propose to conduct a team building session with the new Council. The specific agenda would be determined We believe this process will assist the Council in working more effectively as a body. The process may be modified as we talk further in order to ensure that it meets the needs of the City Council. My dissertation research, completed in 1991, verified that as the level of conflict among Council members increases, the effectiveness of the Council's decision making decreases. Identifying ways to effectively work together is important, not only to the Council, but to the City organization and the community as well. 2. CONSULTANT COSTS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION/TEAM BUILDING PROJECT Based on the scope of work described in the previous section we estimate the consulting charges for professional time to be $3,200.00 and $100.00 in reimbursable expenses. This would provide for 4 days of consulting time. The reimbursable expenses do not include the costs for meeting rooms and meals for the workshop meetings. 2 We would be pleased to assist the City Council with this important project. We look forward to talking with you about providing consultant services. Ginny Silva Jaquith, Senior Associate 3 Sincerely, HUGHES, HEISS ASSOCIATES San Mateo Hughes, Heiss Associates MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS February 27,1991 TO: Harry Peacock City of Saratoga FROM: Ginny Silva Jaquit Hughes, Heiss an iates SUBJECT: References 675 Mariners Island Blvd. /Suite 108 San Mateo, California 94404 415/570 -6111 FAX 415/570 -5320 201 W, Fourth Street /Suite 205 Claremont, CA 91711 714/626 -2014 FAX 714/625 -5450 The following are individuals with whom we have worked in team building and/or conflict resolution sessions with Councils/Boards. Our most recent client is: Paul Causey, General Manager, Oro Loma Sanitary District, San Lorenzo, CA Strategic Planning Board Staff Workshops in 1992, 1991 and 1988. (510) 276 -7400 Clients with whom we have worked in the past include: Jennifer Clark, Executive Director, Nebraska Arts Council, State of Nebraska Board/Staff Team Building Retreats in 1989 and 1990. (402) 595 -2122 Bob Holmes, City Council member and past Mayor, City of Manhattan Beach, CA City Manager /City Council Objective Setting Workshop. (213) 538 -8338 Judy Cross, President, Board of Directors, San Mateo County Arts Council, Belmont, CA Board/Staff Goal Setting Retreats in 1989 and 1991. (415) 593 -1816 UL: t t Uc 1.1:: DU p410 a oJLU HUGtILS, kit; 1SS Jim Armstrong, former City Manager, City of Hanford,CA, (current Assistant City Manager, City of Anaheim) Board/Staff Goal Setting Retreat in 1988. (714) 999 -5100 '4j 001 Mir--"w r 41111/118111111• ASIZIN ■iii■ A i■11 1111■■■■ 1111■ •11■ February 20, 1992 Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Harry: Thank you for your interest in my facilitating some sessions for your City Council. Enclosed is a proposal. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, 61444t, Marilyn anning, Ph.D MM /scj Encls. MARILYN MANNING Ph.D. 945 Mountain View Avenue Mountain View, California 94040 415- 965 -3663 11115/ .411111 11 ASEM NM 132111 •1111••• MARILYN MANNING Ph.D. 945 Mountain View Avenue Mountain View, California 94040 415 965 -3663 Proposal for City Council of Saratoga One day of interviews with Council members and City Manager One -on -one confidential interviews of 1 1/2 hours each Objectives: Allows confidentiality of individual concerns Assists in planning and customizing of all day session Promotes efficiency by surfacing concerns ahead and building rapport with facilitator One day session from approximately 8:30 4:00. Agenda could include: Communication Style Assessment: shows how to deal effectively with diversity of styles and capitalize on differences. Useful among council members and with the public. Relating style diversity to negotiations. Could be applied though short practice skill building exercises in giving and receiving feedback. List and prioritize current and upcoming issues facing the city and the council. Use nominal group decision making technique. Discuss, using a problem solving model, several of the issues identified, which might include: Council procedures Council ground rules during sessions Council /staff challenges Roles and procedures of commissions City -wide issues Selection and role of mayor Council may wish to develop some informal operating procedures which will enhance meeting management. Se all day meeting after election. Suggested that morning session be with council to continue any of the above discussions. Afternoon session could include city department heads for a discussion on how to most effectively work together, mutual expectations and concerns. Marilyn Manning, Ph.D., is an experienced facilitator and trainer and mediator with many cities, other governmental agencies, and in the private sector. She works with city councils, commissions, and within all city departments including Police and Fire. /Her per diem is $1200. Half day rate is $750. The Personal Profile communication assessment costs $12.00 each (plus tax). ..11B1 ...AIM ma A M M■■ 41111■ ■1111■■ MARILYN MANNING Ph.D. 945 Mountain View Avenue Mountain View, California 94040 415 965 -3663 Dates available: April 3, 13, 17, 20, 27. Please notify me as soon as possible if you'd like me to hold a day. 6,06 STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND TEAM RETREATS FOR CITY GOVERNMENTS Presented by Marilyn Manning, Ph.D. TEAMWORK IN CHANGING TIMES Every team needs a "lube and oil" job every 2 years, to look at how they are doing their work. Improve coordination, procedures, communication, and problem solving, and learn how to manage your conflicts productively. WORKING WITH CHALLENGING PEOPLE Are you a people mover, a people motivator, a consistent team player, or an analyzing planner. Learn the strengths of various styles, and how to appreciate and capitalize on differences. All examples and role plays created for your agency. USING STRESS POSITIVELY Discover how to cultivate a Stress Resistant Personality. Stress can be a powerful motivator. Identify thinking patterns that cause unnecessary stress and convert them to "winning" attitudes. Improving your organizationally caused stress can also be included. FUNDAMENTALS OF SUPERVISION Communication, motivation, on-the-job training, and much more. All role plays and case studies from your agency. This course can be tailored to first -line supervisors, or lead workers in the field. QUALITY CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES Learn the difference between adequate and outstanding customer service. Tips for handling the telephone well. Role plays from your agency on dealing with irate citizens, or handling conflict positively. This course can be targeted for front line people, or for managers of those people. LEADERSHIP For experienced managers, a seminar in the qualities of leadership, complete with exercises. This course can be customized for the group of managers attending. MEETINGS THAT PRODUCE RESULTS From a meeting with two other people to task force meetings or public involvement efforts, learns how to get the most from your meeting time. Dr. Marilyn Manning's clients include school districts, community colleges, universities, and city governments as well as Fortune 500 companies such as GE, AT T, and United Airlines. She is a former administrator and teacher who has worked in industry for the past 10 yeas. 945 Mountain View Avenue, Mountain View, California 94040 415- 965 -3663 MARILYN MANNING, Ph.D. OBJECTIVES: SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES: BUILDING PEAK PRODUCTIVITY TEAMS To increase productivity and foster cooperation through team activities where members support one another to reach common goals. To enhance the understanding of group dynamics, strategic team interventions, and group problem solving models. BENEFITS: Participants will learn how to: Recognize stages of team development Strategize for appropriate interventions Capitalize on different styles of team members Use conflict and change constructively Align team for high productivity goals The Map Game: interactive competitive board game for multiple teams of 7, highlighting issues of competition vs. cooperation, process vs. content, inclusion vs. exclu- sion; acts as a vehicle to give players feedback on their patterns and beliefs, enabling them to find more powerful ways to solve problems and conflicts in the future (takes 1 -1/2 to 2 hours). Structure Construction: a fast moving, fun and creative activity using teams of 7 -10 who plan and construct the largest structure possible, using the maximum number of straws; lively debriefing and insights about the stages teams go through, the selection of leaders, workers vs. thinkers, and the importance of planning and alignment with team projects (takes 1 -2 hours). Personal Profile System (Performax): a measurement tool for identifying behavioral styles, showing how to capitalize on differences (takes 2 -3 hours). Thomas- Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: identifies five styles of managing conflict and how to be more flexible (takes 1 -2 hours). Group Problem solving Model: develops skills in clearly identifying conflicts, generating creative alternatives, and designing accountable action plans (takes 2 hours). Dr. Manning's clients include United Airlines, General Motors, General Electric, AT &T, Apple Computer, Lockheed, Security Pacific Bank, city governments, school districts colleges. 945 Mountain View Avenue, Mountain View, California 94040 415 965 -3663 MARILYN MANNING, Ph.D. DR. MARILYN l4ANNING'S LIST OF CITY GOVERNMENT CLIENTS Services provided: teas Building, Commission i City Council Facilitation, Conflict Mediation, Customer Service, Cossunication i stress Mgmt trainings City of Albany John Nachbar, City Administrator (510) 528 -2128 City of Campbell Tara Adams, Assistant City Manager (408) 866 -2128 Team Building for City Council, Department Managers, tire, Police, Finance, Public Works Depts. City of Concord Ann Crossey, Personnel (510) 671 -3433 Personnel Department Commission Facilitation, Customer Service Training City of Foster City Rick Wykoff, City Manager (415) 349 -1200 Management Department Head Team Building City of Fremont Roger Anderman, City Manager; Pat Ackley, Personnel (510) 190 -6768 Team Building for Human Services, Building Safety, Executive Team, Housing, Senior Center Depts. Customer Service Training city -wide City of Livermore Lee Horner, City Manager (510) 373 -5270. Department Managers Team Building City of Los Altos Diane Gershuny, City Manager (415) 948 -1491 City Council, Department Heads, Commission Team Building City of Mountain View Kevin Duggan, City Manager (415) 903 -6301 Dept. Heads, Public Works, Chamber of Commerce Team Building City of Piedmont Geoff Grate, City Administrator (510) 420 -3040. City -wide Customer Service City of Pleasant Hill Pat Sully, Assistant City Manager (510) 944 -3237. Customer Service Training City of Redwood City Denise Daly, Training (415) 180 -7303. Management Training City of San Jose Sandy Tyson, Training (408) 277 -5127 City -wide Customer Service Design, Training Train The Trainer Team Building for Commission, Building Dept., etc. City of Santa Cruz Richard Wilson, City Manager (408) 429 -3540 City Council Department Heads Team Building City of South San Francisco Barry Nagel, Recreation (415) 877-8560 Team Building for Recreation, Public Works, Planning, Community Development Departments City of Sedona, Arizona Kevin Dunlap, City Manager (602) 282-3113. Management Retreat ABAG Consortium of San Mateo County Cities 'Quality Customer Service' Training Jevnote Maker at: Arizona Municipal Clerks Association Marie Brown (602) 282 -3113 City Clerks Association of California Sharon Whitten (415) 790 -6768 D.S. Chamber of Commerce Bev Woods (415) 348 -4011 CA Assoc. of Chamber of Commerce Executives Dave Kilby (916) 444.6670 945 Mountain View Avenue, Mountain View, California 94040 415-965-3663 Kit, OA% ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 610 FOSTER CITY BLVD. FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 (415) 349 -1200 FAX: (415) 574 -3483 March 11, 1991 Marilyn Manning, Ph.D. 945 Mountain View Avenue Mountain View, CA 94040 Dear Marilyn: On behalf of the City Manager, I just wanted to say "thank you" for facilitating the City Manager /Department Head Executive Team Workshop on February 21 at our executive team retreat in Boulder Creek. Using the "Stress Maps" for the department heads was a useful tool. The Executive Team especially liked the fact that you had facilitated a class with our mid management group using the "Stress Maps which enabled you to provide insight into the working relationship between our two groups. All of the department heads and the City Manager felt that it was a very worthwhile and rewarding experience. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Therese Tyree City Clerk Ce City of Fremont 39100 Liberty Street P. O. Box 5006 Fremont, CA 94537 January 31, 1992 Marilyn Manning 945 Mountain View Avenue Mountain View, California 94040 Dear Marilyn: Thank you so much for facilitating our very successful off -site meetings to improve the team work, communication, and problem solving abilities of the Housing Department staff. You did an excellent job in helping us develop the meetings to meet our needs and in providing the training we need to improve our working relationships. I wish you could have been at our last two staff meetings (or at least there as a bug on the wall) to see how successful we have become in using the nominal group technique you taught us at the staff retreat and off -site meeting. We have actually reached resolution on the two priority problems identified using this problem solving method. We completed the decision making process to resolve the concern that specialization leads to lack of information, communication and sharing and are implementing our plan. Even more amazing, we have developed a plan to deal with the fear of retribution that inhibits open communication. The group participation to analyze this problem, and generate and evaluate alternatives was remarkable. Everyone participated so readily it was a real sign that the "fear" may already be dissipating and we are opening lines of communication. Much of our team's problem stems from the conflict that was exposed, but not dealt with at last year's staff retreat. The last facilitator we worked with just was not skillful enough to see this and prevent it. We have worked steadily to transcend the fear and ill feelings that were generated at that time to build trust in our group as a team. You were very patient with us in developing a fear proof, yet productive program for our retreat in October. This was difficult because the retreat became the symbol for our group dysfunction and the difficulty'we had as a group to make these arrangements was symptomatic of the problems our team faced. By joining together at staff meetings over the past year to make these arrangements we grew together. A lot of credit goes to Linda Smith who helped us focus on the development of the off -site meetings and who continues to provide leadership to encourage use of the tools you taught us. Thank you for all of your guidance and assistance to Linda these many months. page 2 At the off -site meeting in December it was clear we had grown in our trust and were more willing to learn new methods of working together, although you could see we were still a bit hesitant. It was really helpful that you encouraged us to apply the new techniques to the specific problems we had identified. The feedback model and listening practice has also excellent training to help us communicate in a direct, specific and nonpunishing manner. The real results of your training and the off -site meetings are now apparent. I think you would be really proud of how well our team is working together now to work through issues in a constructive, supportive, open manner. We know we will still have differences and there will be conflict, but I can see that we now have some confidence in our problem solving abilities and a greater willingness to work through issues to seek resolution. We are not perfect yet, but are getting closer. While our working relationships seem to be going really well at the moment, I believe there is still a potential for one -on -one conflicts which would benefit from your mediation and individualized training. One of the alternatives the group identified to resolve the "fear of negative reactions" issue is the use of a mediator to resolve disputes or misunderstandings. I have told staff I am prepared to request your service as a mediator in such cases as an investment in further improving our staff relationships. I would like to talk with you about how to recommend you be called in to help in the heat of such an incident. I want to do this in a way that is nonthreatening and encourages a willingness to participate in the mediation. Thank you again for your guidance and facilitation of our off site staff meetings. You have helped us grow together so we can work better together. Sincerely, Carol Lamont Housing Director (510) 745 -2836 c: Pat Ackley Linda Smith TEAMWORK: THE PASSWORD OF THE 1990s Scan the headlines in the business section of practically any newspaper and you're sure to run across an article or two on teamwork. Teamwork is definitely the password of the business world in the 1990s. What impact does this have on you? Office support professionals are being urged to play a more active role on the management team. How? By becoming more adept in such areas as decision making, problem solving, and project planning. But you can't just jump right in and expect to automatically exercise skills in these areas. First, you must establish yourself as an excellent support person for the team, states Marilyn Manning of Mountain View, California. "And at the same time, you must demonstrate how your expanded role will benefit your boss adds Manning, who holds a Ph.D. in organizational psychology. Manning recommends taking these five steps to lay the groundwork for expanding your team role: 1. Volunteer to organize team meetings. Prove your value by smoothly handling all the important details, from arranging a meeting date that's compatible with all the attendees' schedules to scheduling the room to organizing a meeting topic file for your boss. Your efforts will illustrate your competence to team members and give you valuable experience as well, says Manning. 2. Offer to develop the meeting agenda. "Organizing information for the agenda will require input from team members, Bureau of Business Practice, February 15, 1991 so you'll have an excellent opportunity to familiarize yourself with their personalities and views," Manning says. 3. Express interest in attending meetings, Manning urges. Suggest ways you can be helpful; you might offer to follow up on decisions made at the meeting, for example. "Remember, when you demonstrate how you can make your boss's job easier, you take a giant step toward becoming involved in the decision- making process," she maintains. 4. Be observant of each team member's personal style. Study group dynamics as well. Determine how the team makes decisions, for example. Do a couple of people with dominant personalities basically direct the group? What steps would you take to fit in with the group if you were invited to attend the next meeting? 5. Join committees. Working on particular phases of group projects will help you hone your decision making skills. "once you're on a committee, you can initiate focus groups to resolve problems and evaluate issues, and then provide reports to the committee," Manning notes. Assess Personal Styles "Tune in to the strengths and weaknesses of team members," Manning advises. Learn to identify the four main personal styles you're likely to encounter on your team: The loyalist, the controller, the cheerleader, and the analyzer. The loyalist is committed to the team- -and to the status quo. "This type supports traditional views," Manning observes. No visionary, the loyalist can nonetheless bring a healthy sense of realism to the team. This person's sense of caution and balance can help the group from making risky decisions. The controller is a confident decision maker and risktaker. He or she likes to be right -and to win. Assertive, controllers see problems as challenges and are comfortable with change particularly when it leads to more personal power and prestige, Manning points out. "They make a lot of demands on others as well as on themselves, and they get things done." The cheerleader can charm, cajole, and convince others. The cheerleader's enthusiasm can provide the team with an invaluable source of vitality and drive. Highly verbal and intuitive, cheerleaders are not, however, strong on details. And despite their social skills, they prefer a degree of autonomy, especially freedom from constant supervision or tight deadlines. The analyzer is predominantly a rational thinker. He or she is most comfortable with a step -by -step, problem solving approach, Manning says. The analyzer tends to be very committed to any task undertaken and is conscientious about carrying out assignments that involve detail work. Bureau of Business Practice, February 15, 1991 Appreciate the Differences "Obviously, none of us fits neatly into just one of these four categories," Manning acknowledges. "People do, however, have predominant styles that tend to influence their individual approaches to teamwork. Your knowledge of each person's style can help you appreciate the differences that benefit the group," she explains. When someone is frustrated by an individuals quirks, try to point out the person's strengths. If for example, a team member complains, "He's so picky that he's driving me crazy!" you might say, "Yes, but on the last project he alerted us to the omission of X, which helped avert a string of problems. He's so good at detail work, maybe he could..." "This positive approach helps synergize the team, "Manning explains. "Synergy occurs when a group appreciates members' differences. A synergistic group has creative power as a result of all that collective energy. You can see creativity blossom in a good brainstorming session. The collective energy of the group triggers zany suggestions and generates exciting new ideas." Your contributions to the team will help you earn a track record for being someone who can be counted on to get things done, Manning stresses. Start taking steps to develop your potential, she urges, by implementing the above suggestions to inspire the confidence of team members and to enhance your reputation as a team player. Marilyn Manning, Ph.D. 945 Mountain Viaw Ave_ Mountain V iaw CA 94040 (415)965 -3663 M►' P 40o r O 4.11 4 1111 MARILYN MANNING, Ph.D. 945 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 9 4 0 4 0 415- 965 -3663 MARILYN MANNING, Ph.D. S pecializes in communication. An international speaker, trainer, consultant and author, she holds an M.A. in Social Science and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology. Dr. Manning is a recognized expert in the areas of leadership, success strategies, high productivity teams, and managing conflict, stress and change. Dr. Manning served as president of the world's largest chapter of the National Speakers Association, was a national television talk show hostess, and is a regular guest on radio and television. She has published several books and cassette programs. Her articles frequently appear in magazines such as Delta Sky, Federal Managers Quarterly, and Association Meetings. Dr. Manning's interactive speaking style and her authentic interest in her audiences are uniquely educational and motivational. Drawing on her rich background in corporate work, sales, management and education, she creates presentations that are entertaining, practical, immediately useful and tailored to fit her audience's needs. Dr. Manning is informative, inspiring, and fun. She lives what she teaches, which is evident in her enthusiastic presentations. MEET MARILYN MANNING MARILYN MANNING DESIGNS FOR YOU. She uses objective needs assessment testing and other proven methods to assist com- panies in determining productivity and planning needs. Marilyn takes the time to understand your goals and objectives. Her programs are tailored to help your company or organiza- tion meet its own unique needs. MARILYN MANNING COMMUNICATES. Her topics include Managing Conflict in the Workplace Evaluate conflict styles. Practice conflict resolution strategies. Problem -solve in 8 simple steps. Using Stress Positively Understand causes of stress. Identify and evaluate stress related behaviors. Practice no -fail relaxation techniques. The Psychology of Leadership Define principles of leadership. Identify leadership styles. Build and enhance high performance teams. Business Ethics Define ethical issues. Develop decision making process. Commit to professional ethics and integrity. Customer Relations Increase customer satisfaction. Communicate and listen effectively. Develop service oriented attitudes. "Organizational and personal power come from having a purpose and a vision. Clearly defined goals lead us toward our vision." Marilyn Manning MARILYN MANNING LISTENS... to you interacts with you, and asks for your involvement. with an ear trained not only by her background in psychology but also by her wn varied life experiences. MARILYN MANNING DEVELOPS YOUR COMPANY'S POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS. "Her work here has done more to bring our group together than anything else we've ever done." Greg Delozier Manager, General Electric "Her positive attitude radiates..and inspires and encourages one to 'go for it' just one more time." Rob Berube, President, South Bay Institute of Financial Education "...a most dynamic and influential teacher and motivational speaker." Dr. Richard Henning, Dean Community Services, Foothill College "Your presentations have had nothing but praise and the highest ratings." Kurt M. Beier, First Vice President Security Pacific National Bank MARILYN MANNING'S CLIENTS INCLUDE: American Electronics Association American institute of Banking Dow Chemical Ford Aerospace The Clorox Company General Electric General Motors Lockheed Corporation Kaiser Electronics Motorola Professional Insurance Agents National Semiconductor Pacific Bell Syntex University of California Berkeley Visa I MARILYN MANNING. Ph.D. OB'll'Wo4 e o ,U o01 e 876 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Commission via Staff SUBJECT: AZO 92 -001, Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance DATE: 3/4/92 This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at two regular Planning Commission hearings and one regular adjourned meeting. On February 28, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Resolution AZO -92 -001 (attached), recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Additionally, the Commission adopted the associated Negative Declaration in accord- ance with the California Environmental Quality Act. These amendments are an outgrowth of the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Ordinance 71.99. During the implementation period following the adoption of Ordinance 71.99, staff has experienced a number of technical difficulties. The newly amended code sections inadvertently created nonconforming situations, primarily in regard to existing residential structures. The new standards create practical difficulties and physical hardships which could serve as the grounds for Variance approval in many cases. As a result of the aforementioned, staff worked with the Planning Commission to draft the attached amendments and clarifications. In addition, a limited number of wording and technical adjust- ments were made to the various sections of the Zoning Ordinance not covered by Ordinance 71.99. The clarifications contained in the attached Draft Zoning Ordinance amendments are intended to resolve technical difficulties while maintaining the purpose of the original ordinance amendments. Staff has adjusted the Draft Ordinance to include the comments and suggestions made by the Planning Commission during the public hearing process. The Commission recommendations are as follows: 1 .1 1. Section 4: 15- 14.060(g) -The Planning Commission suggested reconciling the proposed language of this section with the exist- ing language of General Provisions section of the Building Code governing grading (Section 13- 16- 15.210(c). Staff reviewed and compared both code sections and concluded that the sentence No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat, visible pad surrounding the main residential structure." should be omitted from the Building Code section. This language originated in the text of the NHR specific plan and pertains only to the NHR zoning District. The specificity of this sentence makes it incompatible with the general nature of the Building Code regulations that govern grading throughout the City. By removing this sentence the internal consistency of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code is maintained. The Draft Ordinance had been amended to remove this sentence. 2. Section 7: 15- 45.030(f)- The Commission asked that the 1.5% deduction in floor area pertain to "new main residences, addi- tions thereto and new additions to existing structures Section 15- 45.030(f) of the Draft Ordinance has been amended accordingly. 3. Section 13: 16- 15.210(d)- The Commission requested that the slopes of 2:1 be allowed only if the City Engineer can make required findings. Findings to ensure integration with the exist- ing topography, minimization of visual impacts and maintenance of soil stability have been added to the Draft Ordinance. 4. Sections 14: 16- 15.220- The Commission felt that all grading projects that required the movement of 10 cubic yards of earth or more should be reviewed by the Planning Director and approved only if required findings can be made. Appropriate findings were added to the Draft Ordinance. Staff has attached the proposed ordinance along with a compila- tion of the existing code sections that are proposed to be amend- ed. The compilation is organized and numbered in accordance with the Draft Ordinance for comparison purposes. Attachments: Respectfully Submitted, Tsvia Adar Associate Planner 1. Draft Ordinance Amendments 2. Negative Declaration 3. Planning Commission Resolution AZO 92 -001 4. Memo to the Planning Commission dated 2/26/92 5. Compilation of Existing Code Sections to be Amended 6. Draft Study Session Minutes dated 1/28/92 7. Correspondence received. 2 D R A F T and ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending various sections of the zoning regulations of the Saratoga City Code, concerning Design Review, Setbacks, Minor Grading, Fences and Definitions in the Residential Districts. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has recently implemented zoning amendments by Ordinance 71.99; and WHEREAS, the City has applied the aforementioned amendments; WHEREAS, the City has determined the existing regulations pertaining to Design Review, Setbacks, Minor Grading and Fencing require further revision; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Code of the City of Saratoga is amended to read as follows: Section 1: A new section is added to Article 15 -06 of the City Code to read as follows: Geotechnical Clearance. Geotechnical Clearance means a written acknowledgement from the City Engineer indicating that: (a) The applicant has identified all geological and geotechnical hazards and constraints present on the site. (b) The applicant has evaluated those hazards and constraints identified in (a) which would affect the proposed development of the site or impact adjacent properties, as required by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant. (c) The applicant has developed appropriate measures to avoid and /or mitigate those hazards and constraints evaluated in (b) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant. (d) The applicant has paid all fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the application. Geotechnical Clearance does not and shall not be construed as constituting an approval or entitlement of any form or type. Section 2: Section 15- 12.090 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 815- 12.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yards. A. The minimum yard requirements for all lots in the R -1 district, with the exception of vacant lots and lots created after (adoption date) 1992, are as follows: (1) Front Yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in each R- 1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table: District R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12.500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 District R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Interior Side Yard 10 ft. 10 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. Single -story District Rear yard R -1- 10,000 10 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. Front Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard: Individual District Side Yards R -1- 10,000 10 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R -1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards: Exterior Side Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. (4) Rear yards of corner lots. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 district shall be the distance indicated in the following table: Multi -story Rear yard 10 ft. 10 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. (5) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be the applicable distance indicated in the following table: Single -story District Rear yard R -1- 10,000 25 ft. R -1- 12,500 25 ft. R- 1- 15,000 30 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. B. The minimum yard requirements for structures and additions thereto on vacant lots and lots created after (adoption date) 1992, are as follows: (1) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in each R- 1 district shall be twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: District R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 District R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Front Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. (2) Side yards of interior lots. The minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be ten percent (10 of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: Individual Side Yards 10 ft. 10 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. (3) Side yards of corner lots. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R -1 district shall be ten percent (10 of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater: Interior Exterior District Side Yard Side Yard R -1- 10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. Multi -story Rear yard 35 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft. 45 ft. 60 ft. (4) Rear yards of corner lots. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story District Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 25 ft. R -1- 12,500 25 ft. R -1- 15,000 30 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. Multi -story Rear Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 60 ft. (5) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty -five (25 of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: 515- 13.090 feet. Single -story District Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 25 ft. R -1- 12,500 25 ft. R- 1- 15,000 30 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. Multi -story Rear Yard 35 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft. 45 ft. 60 ft. C. For the purpose of this article, "vacant lot" shall mean a parcel with no existing single family dwelling. D. Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would adversely affect the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. Section 3: Section 15- 13.090 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Front yard, side yards and rear yard. A. The minimum yard requirements for all lots in the HC -RD zoning district, with the exception of vacant lots and lots created after (adoption date) 1992, are as follows: (1) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) (2) Side yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard. (3) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty -five (35) feet in the case of a single -story structure and forty -five (45) feet in the case of a multi -story structure. B. The minimum yard requirements for structures and additions thereto on vacant lots and lots created after (adoption date) 1992, are as follows: (1) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) feet or twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (2) Side yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or ten percent (10 of the lot width, whichever is greater. (3) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty -five (35) feet in the case of a single -story structure and forty -five (45) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. C. For the purpose of this article, "vacant lot" shall mean a parcel with no existing single family dwelling. D. Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would adversely affect the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. Section 4: Section 15- 14.050(g)(3) in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat, visible pad. Section 5: Section 15- 14.100 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 815- 14.100 Front yard, side yards and rear yard A. The minimum yard requirements for all lots in the NHR zoning district, with the exception of vacant lots and lots created after (adoption date) 1992, are as follows: feet. (1) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) (2) Side yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard. (3) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty (50) feet in the case of a multi -story structure. B. The minimum yard requirements for structures and additions thereto on vacant lots and lots created after (adoption date) 1992, are as follows: (1) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) feet or twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (2) Side yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or ten percent (10 of the lot width, whichever is greater. (3) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty (60) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. C. For the purpose of this article, "vacant lot" shall mean a parcel with no existing single family dwelling. D. Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would adversely affect the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. Section 6: Section 15- 29.010(b) in Article 15 -29 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 815- 29.010 Height Restrictions (3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this section. Section 7: Section 15- 45.030(f) in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Floor area reduction for certain zone districts. After the allowable floor area is calculated in paragraphs (d) (e) above, the maximum allowable floor area for all structures shall be reduced by 1.5% for each one (1) foot of height in excess of 18 feet in height. This deduction shall apply only to new residences constructed after (adoption date), including new main structures, additions thereto, and new additions to existing structures, for all lots located in any R -1 zone district. Section 8: Section 15-45.050 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: S15- 45.050 Underfloor clearance All new single- family main structures and accessory structures, or additions thereto, shall be designed to follow the slope of the site so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and natural or finish grade, whichever measurement is greater, to not more than five feet. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to this requirement if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. Section 9: Section 15- 45.070(a) in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 515- 45.070(a) Application requirements (11) A "Geotechnical Clearance" as defined in Section 15 -06 of the City Code, if required by the City Engineer. Section 10: Section 15- 50.120 in Article 15 -50 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 815 50.120 Violations; penalties The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. In addition thereto, any person unlawfully removing or destroying any ordinance protected tree, as described in Section 15- 50.050, without a permit shall be penalized as follows: Section 11: Section 15- 65.160(c) is hereby added to Article 15 -65 of the City Code: (c) In the event the setbacks in (a) or (b) of this Section are determined to be greater than those in the applicable zoning standard, then the zoning standard shall apply. Section 12: Section 15- 70.020(b) in Article 15 -70 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: S15- 70.020 Authority to grant variances (b) No variance for setbacks, distance between structures, fences, walls and hedges shall be required, however, for new main and accessory structures proposed to be built on existing graded pads where: Section 13: Section 16- 15.210 in Article 16 -15 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 816- 15.210 Section 7018 added to Appendix Chapter 70 concerning general provisions (c) Restrictions. Portions of a site exceeding thirty percent (30 slope shall not be graded without prior specific approval by the Planning Commission. Grading shall be minimized in areas classified in the City's ground movement potential maps as Ps or Pd. Grading which would unreasonably affect the natural character of the area shall not be permitted. (d) Cut and fill slopes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary, visible cut or fill slopes shall not exceed three horizontal to one vertical, except if the City Engineer can make the following findings: 1. That the proposed grading will result in a reduction of total grading amounts. 2. That the proposed grading will result in better integration with the existing terrain and naturally steep slopes. 3. That the resultant slopes are determined to be stable. (e) Corrective grading. Corrective grading for existing or proposed developments may be permitted with prior specific approval by the Planning Commission based upon findings that the corrective grading: (i) is consistent with the objectives of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code and with the Saratoga General Plan; (ii) is necessary to minimize risks from geologic hazards; (iii) will not result in irrevocable damage to the City's scenic resources; (iv) will produce a benefit to the general public greater than the environmental impact of the corrective grading; and (v) will not result in the removal of any ordinance protected tree, as described in Section 15- 50.050. Section 14: Section 16- 15.220 in Article 16 -15 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: S16- 15.220 General requirement for grading approval Any cut or fill exceeding a quantity of ten (10) cubic yards, or any increase or decrease in the elevation of any portion of a lot by more than one (1) foot, except for any building foundation, basement, pool or other structure for which a building permit has been issued by the City and the excavated material is removed from the site, shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and approved if all of the following findings can be made: a. That the proposed grading will preserve the natural landscape and follow the natural contours of the site. b. That the grading will not require the removal of any ordinance protected tree. c. The proposed grade changes will not result in adverse impacts to the privacy and views of the neighboring properties. The Planning Director has the authority to refer any grading proposal in excess of ten (10) cubic yards to the Planning Commission for review. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 16: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga, held on the day of 1992, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor RES -NO Saratoga PROJECT DESCRIPTION NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending various sections of the zoning regulations of the Saratoga City Code, concerning design review setbacks, minor grading, fences and definitions in the residential districts. To allow amendment of the City Code concerning design review, setbacks, minor grading, fences and definitions in the residential districts. Executed at Saratoga, California this ajkday of DIR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S File No. Zoning Amendments 1991. THORIZED STAFF MEMBER RESOLUTION NO. AZO -92 -001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 15 -06, 15 -12, 15 -13, 15 -14, 15 -29, 15 -45, 15 -50, 15 -65, 15 -70 AND 16 -15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO THE REVISIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA, AND GRADING SECTIONS FOR R -1 AND HILLSIDE ZONE DISTRICTS The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 26, 1992, to consider draft amendments to the City Code at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Section 2: That the Planning Commission determined that changes to the development standards, including setbacks, house size as a factor of building height, and the design review criteria are necessary to protect the City's scenic resources and to advance the City's progress in meeting General Plan goals; and Section 3: That the Planning Commission has reviewed a draft Negative Declaration which concludes that the proposed amendments to the City Code will not have a significant environmental impact, and recommends that the City Council adopt this Negative Declaration; and Section 4: That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the zone amendments attached as Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, MORAN, TUCKER NOES: none ABSENT: FAVERO, FORBES Planning Commission Chir, Planning Commission 'of TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Printed on recycled paper. CM_MW 2 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Planning Commission M E M O R A N D U M Planning Staff February 26, 1992 Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance This item was originally scheduled Commission meeting and was continued to At this meeting, the Commission asked further at the 1/28/92 study session. Commission accepted all of the changes following: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 11 J 'i©Ce? Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman on the 1/8/92 Planning the 1/22/92 public hearing. that the item be discussed Subsequently, the Planning as proposed, except for the 1. It was suggested that the application of the residential setback standards as proposed by staff, should exclude flag lots. 2. Clarification was desired in relation to the City grading standard allowing a maximum slope ratio of 3:1;or 2:1. 3. Staff was asked to provide any existing policies or criteria for minor grading projects between 10 and 49 cubic yards. The minutes from the 1/28/92 study session are attached. Flag Lots Construction on flag lots has typically raised more privacy and visual impacts than other lots. The configuration of flag lots, surrounded by lots at all sides, has the potential of greater impact on adjacent properties than standard lots. Flexibility in the setback requirements for additions to existing structures can be beneficial in minimizing these impacts without the necessity of variance approval. The more restrictive regulations are proposed to be applied to vacant lots in general, including flag lots. Grading standards and policies The question concerning the proposal to amend the Building Code to allow a maximum of 2:1 graded slopes was referred to the City Engineer. The City Engineer recommends allowing 2:1 graded slopes. In many site conditions, such a slope ratio has the advantage of reducing the total amount of grading and better integration with the existing terrain and naturally steep slopes. In addition, 2:1 graded slopes are considered to be stable and are permitted by the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical consultant when found appropriate. Staff is recommending amendment of the Building Code to allow 2:1 slopes when found appropriate and advantageous. It should be noted that the NHR section of the Zoning Ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for 2:1 graded slopes. This will still apply to all hillside parcels. The second issue was related to minor grading projects. A copy of the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission pertaining to review of grading projects between 10 and 49 cubic yards, is attached. The criteria described in the memorandum has been successfully applied since 1990 and allowed adequate review and control. Staff recommends the continuance of this policy. For comparison purposes, staff has prepared a compilation of existing code sections that are proposed to be changed or clarified by this ordinance. The code sections are numbered to correspond with the section numbers of the Draft Ordinance. This compilation is attached for reference. Staff has also prepared a Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA regulations. It is attached for review. Since the adoption of the recent amendments to the zoning ordinance, staff has experienced many technical difficulties, 'o s for additions to existing with applications g structures and occupied lots. The new standards create practical difficulties and physical hardships which can serve as grounds for variance approval in a large number of cases. As a result, compliance with the ordinance becomes difficult and the purpose of the amendment cannot be achieved. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission remit the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the Associated Negative Declaration to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. TA:cw Attachments: 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments 2. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 3. Existing Code Section Compilation 4. Memo from Associate Planner, dated 8/18/90 5. Draft Minutes from the 1/28/92 Planning Commission Study Session 6. Correspondence EXISTING CODE SECTION COMPILATION CORRESPONDS TO .815-12.090 front yard, side pasds: sad rear yard y� The minimum front yard of any lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: District runt La= R-1-10,000 25 ft: R-1-12,500 25 ft. 111-15, 000 25 ft. R- 1- 20,000 30 ft. R-1-40,000 30 tt.. (b) Side yards of interior lots. The:minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall: be- ton percent (10%) of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: Individual. Diatriat Aida Y�Lda. R- 1- 10,000 10 ft. R- 1- 12,500 10 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. (c) Side yards of corner lots created after January 1, 1992. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R -1 dis- trict shall be ten percent (10%) of the. lot or the dis- tance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater. Interior Exterior iii s tri ct Aida Yard Yard R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 15_ ft-. R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. R- 1- 40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. (d) aide yards of corner lots Created= prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R -1 dis- trict shall be tan percent (10%) of the lot width, or the dis- tance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater: 5 Iidariar Digs Yard t Exterior pi cri rte- Aida Y� �.s R.1 -10, 000 10 ft. 25 ft. R -1 -12, 500 10 ft. 25 ft. R- 1- 15,000 12 ft. 25 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. 25 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. (e) $ear yards of corner lots created after January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any corner' lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty -five percent (25 ot.tha lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: District Single-story Multi -story Ba= Larsi R- 1- 10,000 25 ft. 25 ft. R- 1- 12,500 25 ft. 25 ft. R- 1- 15,000 30 ft. 30 ft. R- 1- 20,000 35 ft. 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (f) Rear yards of corner lots created prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single story Multi -story District Ban Yard Baas Ural R -1- 10,000 10 ft. 10 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. 10 ft. R -1- 15,000 12 ft. 12 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 20 ft. (g) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty five (25 percent of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: District ur $lea ry Multi -story R- 1- 10,000 25 ft. 35 ft. R- 1- 12,500 25 ft. 35 ft. R- 1- 15,000 30 ft. 40 ft. R- 1- 20,000 35 ft. 45 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (h) Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for purpose of measur- ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lot 's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SEC.3 815- 13.0s0 Front yard, aids yards: and rear yard (a) Trout yard. The minimum front yard -shall be thirty (3o) feet or twenty (20%) percent of the. lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) Sidi yards. The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or ten percent (l0 of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard-shall be thirty -five (35) feet in the case of a single -story structure and forty -five (45) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five (25%) percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (d) Determimation of yards for flag. lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension any be considered the depth for the. purpose of measur ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SEC.4 (3) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. SEC. 5 815- 14.100 Front yard, side yards and. rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (3 0) feet or twenty percent (20%) of the-lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) Side yards. The minimum side yard_ shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard. and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior side yard, or. ten percent (10%) of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard_ shall be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty the case of a multi-story i�Y (60) feet in the of the lot depth, ry structure, or twenty -five percent pth, whichever is greater. (d) Determination of yards for flag lots.. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the: ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to purpose wouldmimpact the lots normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SEC. 6 Sections: 15- 29.010 15- 29.020 15- 29.030 15- 29.040 15- 29.050 SEC. 7 ARTICLE 15-29 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES Height restrictions Fencing within hillside districts Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets Fencing adjacent to scenic highways Barbed wire prohibited mss 915-29.010 Height restrictions (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall located within any required yard shall exceed -six feet in height. (b) Front yards and exterior side yards of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height, except as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet, if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided, however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height. (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. (f) Floor area reduction for aertaia•sone districts. After .he'allowable floor area is calculated in paragraphs (d) (e) above, the maximum allowable floor area for. all structures shall be reduced by 1.5% for each one (1) foot of_ maximum building height exceeding 18 feat for all lots located in any R -1 zone district. The maximum building height shall be- determined to mean the height of any existing or proposed main structure located on the site. The maximum building height for any main structure shall be determined in the manner prescribed in Section 1 06.340. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor area up to the maximum prescribed in paragraphs (d) (e) above, provided that all of the! following findings are made: 1. There is a predominance of two story structures in the neighborhood; and 2. All the findings in Section 15- 45.080(a -f) are present. SEC. 8 S15- 45.050 Underfloor clearance All new single family main structures and accessory structures, or additions thereto, shall be designed to follow the slope of the site so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and finish grade to not more than five feet. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to this requirement if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. SEC. 9 S15- 45.070 Application requirements (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing property lines, easements and dimensions, structure setbacks, building envelloW topography, location of all trees over twelve inches in diam ter as measured two feet above grade, and areas of dense vegetation and creeks. (2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Planning Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if requested by the Planning Director. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Landscape plans. (9) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encumbrances and restrictions which benefit or burden the property. (10) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Planning Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets SEC. 10 "S15- 50.120 Violations; penalties The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. In addition thereto, any person unlawfully removing or destroying any tree without a permit shall be penalized as follows: SEC. 11 S15- 65.160 Nonconforming sites A lawfully created site having an area, frontage, width or depth less than the minimums prescribed for the district in which the site is located may be used for a permitted or conditional use, but shall be subject to all other regulations for the district in which the site is located, except the following: (a) Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall be not less than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard of a corner lot shall be not less than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater: (b) Where the depth of the site is less than the standard for the district, the rear yard shall be twenty percent of the depth of the site or' twenty feet, whichever is greater. SEC. 12 (b) No variance for setbacks, distance between structures, fences, walls and hedges shall be required, however, for new main structures proposed to be built on existing grading pads where: SEC. 13 (c) Restrictions. Portions of a' site exceeding thirty (30 percent slope shall not be graded without prior spe- cific approval by the Planning Commission. Grading shall be minimized in areas classified in the City's geologic maps as Ps or Pd. Grading which would unreasonably affect the natural character of the area shall not be permitted. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. (d) Cut and fill slopes. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of this code to the contrary, visible cut or fill slopes shall not exceed three horizontal to one. vertical. (e) Corrective grading. Corrective grading for existing or proposed developments may be permitted with prior specific approval by the Planning Commission based upon findings that the corrective grading: (i) is consistent with the objec- tives of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga. City Code and with the Saratoga General Plan; (ii) is necessary to minimize risks from geologic hazards; (iii) will not result in irrevocable damage to the City's scenic resources; (iv) will produce a benefit to the general public greater than the environmental impact of the corrective grading; and (v) will not result in the removal of any protected tree, as described in Section 15- 50.050. SEC. 14 816- 13.220 General requirement fox gma iaq pewit Notwithstanding any provision of the8uildinq Code to the contrary, a grading permit shall be required for any cut or fill exceeding a quantity of tan cubic yards or any increase or decrease in the elevation of any portion of a. lot by more than one foot, except for changes. its elevation for the construction or installation of any building foundation, basement, pool or other structure for which a building permit hasrbeen issued by the City and the excavated material is removed fromthe: site. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 6:30 p.m. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesday, January 28, 1991 PLACE: Senior Adult Day Care Center 6:30 p.m. 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting Present: Commissioners Hogosian, Forbes, Moran, Interim Planning Director Eisner, Planner Walgren, Asst. City Attorney Faubion, and ES Consultants Turrell and Halsey. Absent: Commissioners Caldwell, Durket, Favero Tucker 1. City of Saratoga Miscellaneous amendments to Ordinance 72- 99, an ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending various sections of the zoning regulations concerning subdivisions of sites, design review, impervious coverage, setbacks and grading in the Residential and Agricultural districts. Administrative amendments and clarifications to the Design Standards. Commissioner Moran opened the Study Session at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Bogosian wanted to clarify that no decisions would be made at the session, only direction to staff. Commissioner Moran suggested that staff comment on each items of the list of Ordinance changes. A discussion ensured regarding the various items on the change list. The Commissioners were amenable to all the proposed changes except: The staff proposal regarding the application of the recently adopted residential setback standards should not apply to flag lots. They wanted clarification on whether the City grading ordinance allowed 2:1 or 3:1 graded slopes at maximum. The wanted criteria for minor grading to be prepared for the next public hearing. 7:30 2. SD -009 Wong, Chiquita Court This is the last five Planning Commissioner the DEIR prepared for complete review of C Planning Commission Minutes Regular Adjourned Meeting 1/22/92 Page 2 Commissioner Moran indicated that all of the requested changes were acceptable, subject to the aforementioned comments and that the Draft Ordinance could be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting. Planner White and Walgren agreed that the item could be scheduled on the February 26th Planning Commission agenda. A discussion ensued regarding slope density, clustering and the recently adopted Lot Determination table. Planning Director Eisner felt that the lot determination forced clustering and did not provide a clear alternative to potential subdividers. he also felt that issues of bulk and mass were not addressed by the clustering provision. Commissioner Bogosian felt clustering was the direction that Saratoga was headed and that the lot determination table was not an unreasonable constraint to potential subdividers. Commissioner Moran concluded the discussion of Item #1 at 7:30 p .m. Reques or tentative map approval to subd' a 26.4 acre site int• ive new parcels ranging from to 10.7 acres in size. The ubject property is locate Chiquita Way and Chiquita ourt, within the NH one district, and is proposed to be cessed by a cul -r_ -sac off Chiquita Court. ourned meetings to allow the e public to review and comment on subdivision. Staff is hoping to 7, 8 and 9. Attorney Faubio presented overview of the recent legislation r- >'iring Cities to •opt mitigation monitoring programs whf, CEQA review is invol Commis ner Bogosian reiterated his cern that the soils inve- gations and erosion impacts and tigation measures ha not been adequately addressed in the IR to consider ther or not the document is adequate. Sta, again stated hat much of the questions raised during the DEI view would be addressed at the tentative map and /or building grading permit stage. CITY OF SARATOGA Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca., 95070 Re: Recent Ordinance Changes in Property Setback Requirements Dear Sirs: Upon submitting blueprints of the proposed remodelling of our main bathroom for preliminary review, January 2, 1992, I was shocked to learn that the property side yard setback code had been changed suddenly from 10 to 12 feet, effective Dec 20, 1991. Our remodelling was planned two years ago after dry rot was discovered while removing the linoleum. The tub was removed and bad flooring replaced so that only the toilet and sinks are functional. Further activities were put on hold pending the outcome of divorce action taken by my wife in May 1990. I was finally given title to 'the family home in late Oct 1991. In mid -1991, I rechecked with the Building and Planning Departments and was given verbal assurance and codes that a 2 foot bay window was permitted for expansion of the small main bathroom. A set of blueprints was prepared accordingly. We just completed pouring a large reinforced concrete retaining wall required to comply with a recent Saratoga ordinance prohibiting visible garbage cans in the driveway. Now that that project is finally completed and we have our home, my sons and I were hoping to complete the bathroom. The original bathtub was sold in anticipation of getting a new one. The previously planned and sanctioned remodelling does not appear to be possible now due to the new ordinance. I was told by Planning personnel that a variance request would cost $980 with little hope given for success. I don't have any money left to spend on speculative issues. Rather, I am asking that the new ordinance be reviewed for its effectiveness in achieving the real purpose intended, i.e. limit large hillside developments. Your personnel were surprised by the quick action taken and expect much hardship in cases such as mine. They were most sympathetic and eager to help, but could not achieve compliance with the new rules in our case. We are located in a cul -de -sac with an odd shaped 1/3 acre lot having five sides. Our side yard faces the neighbor's side /back yard, with their house located more than 40 feet from our bathroom. Also, our bathroom is at the second story level since the' lot slopes down from the front yard on that side. It was planned to cantilever the 2 X 8 foot bay window floor plan area so that ground level is unobstructed. In this situation, the new ordinance does not accomplish anything, especially since there could never be a neighboring building in close proximity to the second story bay window. Forcing us to cram everything into the existing 8 X 8 feet room will require loss of existing cabinets or return to the less desirable shower- over the -tub design. Internal expansion is not practicable as can be ascertained by examining the original house plans. To avoid being too rigid, it is proposed that some provision be added in the new ordinance to include the total (adjacent) environment in considering new setback changes. The new code might state that the previous code additions are acceptable when overall distance to adjacent buildings, excluding bay windows, is 24 feet or more (Sum of code side yards). Second -level cantilevered bay windows, per previous code, should be considered in waiver requests. We have been in this home for 20 years, and hope that reasonably high Saratoga standards will be maintained without being overly restrictive and counterproductive to real improvements and rightful enjoyment of our homes and community. (No more Palo Altos, Please!) Thank you for your attention and careful consideration in this matter. Very Truly Yours, Jan. 8, 1992 20617 Debbie Lane Printed on recycled paper: March 4,- 1 To: CityCouncil City Manager Subject: Management Employee Compensation and Benefits From: Og 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Recommended- Actions: q� 1. Adopt Resolution A Resolution to Revise Comprehensive Management Compensation System. 2. Adopt Resolution A Resolution Revising Fringe Benefits for the Management Employees Background: :For several meetings the City :Council has been negotiating -with the management employees' group regarding proposals for modification of compensation and benefits. The above -named resolutions represent the final determinations made by the City Council in closed session on February 12 1992. Discussion: The first resolution revises the method of calculating the salary ranges of the management- positions by changing the market survey jurisdictions_ and increasing the top of the salary range to 15% above the control point (the-current top of the:range is 10$ above the control This act -ion does not automatically adjust any current salary,` salaries are adjusted solely =on- merit after a written performance appraisal. The second: resolution changes the current $360 per -year development fund benefit and t annual budget process. for meetings, education and training to an overall plan which would_ be submitted by.management employees through the City Manager for inclusion in the budget. Funds would be authorized when the activity is set forth in the plan. If there is not participation, then the funds would not be expended for other purposes without a formal plan amendment being by the City :.Council The other_ provision in the second•resolution relates to options available to long term management employees who retire from City service while working for Saratoga. In their final- year of employment, such an employee could choose to pay for-` certain benefits now -paid by the City_so as to increase.final- compensation_ for- retirement purposes •The_tw-o_ specific benefits _which could be Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman To: City Council Subject: Management Employee Compensation and Benefits March 4, 1992 Page -2- specifically converted are contribution to the retirement system and current year accrued leave time. These two factors would have the effect of boosting final year compensation by 10 -20 A management employee, to be eligible, must have at least 15 years service as a management employee and be at least 55 years of age, or be older and have fewer years of service as long as the total of both numbers adds up to at least 70, i.e. 58 years old and 12 years service. In order to get the maximum benefit under this provision, the age and time of service must total 75, i.e. 60 years old and 15 years of service. Implementation of this benefit must be consistent with both State statute and Retirement System regulations. Harry peacock, City Manager jm Attachments: 1. Resolution 92- A resolution to Revise Comprehensive Management Compensation System 2. Resolution 92- A Resolution Revising Fringe Benefits for the Management Employee.