Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1991 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2,0 F AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 6, 1991 QQ CITY MANAGER APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager e SUBJECT: Grant of $7,189.62 of City CDBG Rehab Funds to Emergency Housing Consortium Family Living Center Recommended Motion: Approve Transfer of $7,189.62 from the City Revolving Loan Fund for Housing Rehabilitation (SHARP)to establish an Emergency Housing Consortium Rehabilitation Project Fund. Report Summary: In recent years the City Council has approved the expenditure of Saratoga's excess Community Development Block Grant funds to address the housing needs of the larger community. The Emergency Housing Consortium has requested financial support for a renovation project at the Family Living Center, located at Agnews State Hospital. The Center is a regional shelter site which since 1983 has served Santa Clara County homeless families with a range of services. The specific request is for Saratoga to use CDBG housing rehabilitation funds to cover the cost of manufacture and installation of 67 heavy duty window screens for thefacility. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve transfer of $7,189.62 from the City's revolving loan fund for housing rehabilitation to establish the Emergency Housing Consortium Rehabilitation Project. The City loan fund balance was $105,575 as of September 30. In addition, Saratoga has $197,000 in a letter of credit for CDBG funds previously allocated to housing rehabilitation. These funds can be drawn down to replenish the revolving loan fund if it becomes necessary to meet local housing rehabilitation loan needs. Fiscal Impacts: Only restricted CDBG funds would be used Attachments: October 2, 1991, letter from Barry Del Buono, EHC, to Councilmember Clevenger Motion and Vote: M0FJIA /CLEVE'NGER '1OVED TO APPROVE TRANSFER AS RECOMMENDEO ABOVE. Passed 5 -0. City of Saratoga Emergency Housing Consortium, Inc. October 2, 1991 Councilwoman Martha Clevenger 19337 Titus Court Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Councilwoman Clevenger, This is a letter request for financial support for a renovation project at the Family Living Center, located at Agnews State Hospital. During the 1991 -92 year, the shelter will undergo a major exterior rehabilitation, and interior renovations necessary for the safe and hazard free operation of emergency housing for homeless families with children. The Family Living Center is a regional shelter site where shelter activities take place for homeless families with children in Santa Clara County. The model shelter facility is a 33- family (115 guest) shelter with existing support services and an established community support network. Nearby, the Center manages a 30- bed Transitional Housing component which extends to seven homeless families temporary housing for up to 24 months. The Center is a nationally recognized 'trend setter' with services for the homeless: the shelter has an on -site Head Start Preschool program, an elementary school (grades k through fifth) managed by Santa Clara Unified School District; a full service medical clinic and dentistry office; an after school care program managed by Santa Clara County Girl Scouts and shelter staff; a legal aide component; adult education; a special free access telephone program through Pacific Telesis; and a computerized access system for shelter, housing and employment information contributed by Apple Computer corporation. The Center also provides free transit passes, nutritional meals prepared in the commercial kitchen and dining room, and special assistance for the families to find housing and jobs. A United Way Agency P.O. Box 2346 San Jose, CA 95109 408/298 -9657 FAX 408/298 -6152 :40_ City of Saratoga The Center is leased to the Emergency Housing Consortium by the State of California, for a fee of $2,700 per month, which includes all utilities. The large two -story, 80,000 square -foot hospital facility faithfully has served the needs of the homeless family population since 1983, due to it's extensive number of usable rooms for social services, nutritional services, classrooms, and living quarters for the homeless. Support for the shelter is substantial. The Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Mt. View, Morgan Hill and the County of Santa Clara provide ongoing operational support of the shelter with Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) grants. The Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose and Mountain View, and the State of California have contributed to the rehabilitation needs of the structure. The Emergency Housing Consortium is currently working with the City of Mountain View to implement a $42,000 CDBG grant to prepare and paint the exterior of the massive historic building. Our request to the City of Saratoga is to fund an essential window screen replacement project, which would coincide with the implementation of the Mountain View CDBG grant. Recently, a small child fell out of one of the second floor windows at the building. Miraculously, the child is fine. However, by order of the County Health Department, the shelter must replace existing screens with a custom fabricated heavy duty style. The screens are also a health concern for the families. The building is located near the valley's wet lands. During spring and summer months, the mosquito population increases contributing to the children's mosquito bites resulting in sores and infections. The cost is $7,189.62 to fabricate 67 custom heavy duty screens. I have enclosed a recent bid. I appreciate your help in consideration of this request and can furnish additional information for you and the Council in regard to the project, the shelter "Family Living Center and the nonprofit parent organization "Emergency Housing Consortium If Saratoga utilizes it's CDBG fund pool to make a grant to the shelter, the City may be able to tack it's financial assistance on to the City of Mountain View CDBG Davis -Bacon project trail already at the facility, to help City staff with their portion of the paperwork. 2. City of Saratoga Thank you for taking the time to come to the shelter for the recent tour. I already have begun to feel the concern and support of the City of Saratoga by your presence at the Shelter. Sincerely, 3. Enclosure/ Window Screen Bid ,cam AA...1,er Barry Del Buono MSW Executive Director Emergency Housing Consortium FL: iCf r `-‘1 r r; nru screens with 1 frame 4V/5H 4 1 insr.allation •7 men for 1 week at wade determination ment 7 4 7C) 4 1x54 0,v1th cross bar) 24x52 (vvitn cross bar) c1cl hardware CiTY Regular creens 41x.5'7 11 40x70 (with cross bar') 3 41x44 2 4 (with c.ros bar) 7 Total L.LL) 'I 76.32 80.85 1810.13 323.40 516.75 277.09 103.35 45.20 20454 75.58 157,55 68,04 $3953,57 336.05 4289.62 $400.00 $2000,00 $500.00 TOTAL $7189.62 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 20 MEETING DATE: November 6, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: CDBG Loan to Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition Recommended Motion: Approve Reprogramming of CDBG Funds from Housing Development Funds to Sharmon Palms Project Report Summary: In August, 1991, the City Council voted to approve in concept a deferred loan of up to $100,000 of Saratoga's accumulated CDBG funds to Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition for a multi family project in the City of Campbell. Mid Peninsula now has their funding lined up and has asked Saratoga to prepare the necessary documents to make the $100,000 loan to assist in the acquisition and related costs for purchase of six buildings. These buildings will then be rehabilitated to complete this large low income housing project. Since Saratoga's funds will be used for acquisition rather than rehabilitation, staff is recommending that the $100,000 be transferred to the new project from CDBG funds that have previously been set aside for low income housing. Fiscal Impact: Project will use CDBG funds only Attachments: Transfer Control Record HCD Cash Control Record Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL 11/6: Anderson /Monia moved approve reprogramming of CDBG Funds from Housing Development Funds to Sharmon Palms Project. Passed 5 -0. Jurisdiction /Agency City of Saratoga SANTA CLARA COUNTY B. Does transfer require CAC, CC, and B/S approval Y/N 1. If yes, B/S approval (Date) 2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative rSignature) Transfer reflected on CCR and program ledger TRANSFER CONTROL RECORD til:D Revised 9/5/85 For County Staff Use Only A. Jurisdiction /agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary documentation to justify the transfer Y/N (Date) (Signature) (Date) Date November 6, 1991 Program Year 17 Transfer No. (Date) 1.- 1 FROM TO Project /Activity Name 1/ Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Project /Activity Name 1/ Current Allocation Amount of Transfer Revised Allocation Housing Dev. Low Income ;Housing Des. Low Income Sr. Sr. SA 90 -11 SA 91 -12 $97,860 $9,031 ($97,860) ($2,140) -0- $6,891 Sharmon Palms Project SA 92 -0- $100,000 $100,000 Jurisdiction /Agency City of Saratoga SANTA CLARA COUNTY B. Does transfer require CAC, CC, and B/S approval Y/N 1. If yes, B/S approval (Date) 2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative rSignature) Transfer reflected on CCR and program ledger TRANSFER CONTROL RECORD til:D Revised 9/5/85 For County Staff Use Only A. Jurisdiction /agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary documentation to justify the transfer Y/N (Date) (Signature) (Date) Date November 6, 1991 Program Year 17 Transfer No. (Date) 1.- 1 HCD CASH CONTROL RECORD PROG. YEAR: 1991 -92 EFFECT. DATE:July 1, 1991 CITY OF SARATOGA FOR PERIOD: PROJECT NAME PROJ. NO. ALLOCATION TRANSFER ADJ. ALLOC. PRIOR PAY. AMT.REQUEST TOTAL PAY. BALANCE AVAIL. PROJECTS IN PROGRESS Rehab Loans SA 00 -51 $197,855.76 Wildwood Park Access SA 87 -43 $36,742.75 Housing Dev.Low Inc. Sr.SA 88 -11 $70,830.00 Housing Dev.Low Inc. Sr.SA 90 -11 $97,860.00 Housing Dev.Low Inc.Sr. SA 91 -12 $9,031.00 Wildwood Park Access SA 91 -43 $82,000.00 Rehab Admin SA 91 -52 $15,000.00 Housing Dev.Low Inc.Sr. SA 92 -11 $62,417.00 Senior Coord. Council SA 92 -31 $45,000.00 Arch Barriers WH House SA 92 -41 $25,000.00 Second Harvest Food BankSA 92 -81 $25,000.00 Sharmon Palms Proj. SA 92- $0.00 Subtotal in Progress $666,736.51 ADMINISTRATION 17th year admin SA 92 -91 $15,000.00 TOTAL in Progress ($97,860.00) ($2,140.00) $100,000.00 $197,855.76 $36,742.75 $13,043.32 $70,830.00 $0.00 $6,891.00 $82,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,326.48 $62,417.00 $45,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $100,000.00 $681,736.51 $681,736.51 $15,369.80 $0.00 $13,043.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,326.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $666,736.51 $15,369.80 $0.00 $15,369.80 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,369.80 $197,855.76 $23,699.43 $70,830.00 $0.00 $6,891.00 $82,000.00 $12,673.52 $62,417.00 $45,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $100,000.00 $651,366.71 $15,000.00 $666,366.71 Printed on recycled paper. o g WW CDO L n i 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 November 6, 1991 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject: Encroachment Permit Procedures Recommended Actions: (,C COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman As directed, the City Engineer has issued, to the staff, a memorandum on policies and procedures to be followed in the issuing of encroachments. A copy of the memorandum is attached. Also attached are the following: 1. A letter to the City Council from Meg Caldwell dated October 23, 1991, and the referenced enclosures. 2. My memorandum to the City Engineer dated October 29, 1991, requesting response from Mr. Perlin on Ms. Caldwell's letter and the status of written procedures for encroachment permits. 3. Mr. Perlin's memorandum dated October 30, 1991, in response to my memorandum. At this point, I believe all of Ms. Caldwell's concerns have been addressed. I will follow up with the City Engineer and the City Attorney regarding recovery of costs to the City from San Jose Water Company. Finally, I would like to note that it is inappropriate for either an individual commissioner or council member to direct either staff members or city consultants to perform work. The work of staff and consultants is to be directed through the City Manager. There is a purpose behind this very sound policy. It is to assure work is coordinated and that misunderstandings and inadequate communication are avoided. It would be appreciated if the City Council would reaffirm this policy. I believe it to be consistent with, and a logical extension of, the provisions of Section 2- 20.060 of the City Code. 1. Receive and file the City Engineer's memorandum on Policies and Procedures for Encroachment Permits. 2. Receive and file Ms. Caldwell's letter and respond that measures suggested by Mr. Coate are being carried out. 3. Reaffirm the City policy on directing work of the staff and consultants through the City Manager. jm ,J iry Peacock, City Manager Page 2 Printed on recycled paper. TO: Engineering Staff MEMO FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer October 31, 1991 P RE: Policies and Procedures for Encroachment Permits Effective immediately, the following policies and procedures shall apply for Encroachment Permits issued to utility agencies or their contractors for major repairs or capital improvements: 1. All Encroachment Permit applications shall be accompanied by a plan drawn to sufficient scale which depicts in detail the proposed work. In addition, the plan shall show the location of all trees, whether or not of ordinance size, which would be impacted by the proposed work. 2. The Encroachment Permit application shall be reviewed by the Sr. Engineering Technician, the Engineering Inspector, when appropriate, and the City Horticultural Consultant if it is determined that any trees, whether or not of ordinance size, would be impacted by the proposed work. 3. Comments on the application shall be routed to the Sr. Engi- neering Technician within two weeks. The Sr. Engineering Technician shall incorporate all comments on a correction sheet which shall be returned to the permit applicant. In reviewing Encroachment Permit applications, the Department's policy shall be to avoid damage to any trees whenever possible. If damage to any trees cannot be avoided, their appropriate tree preservation measures during and after the proposed work shall be placed as conditions on the Encroachment Permit as determined by the City Horticultural Consultant. 4. When the corrected plans are returned, the Sr. Engineering Technician shall review the plans to determine if all correc- tions have been made. If necessary, the Sr. Engineering Technician shall have the corrected plans reviewed by the Engineering Inspector and /or City Horticultural Consultant as appropriate. 5. When the. Sr. Engineering Technician is satisfied that all corrections have been made, he shall prepare the Encroachment Permit with all conditions and shall compute the permit fee. The permit fee shall include the appropriate inspection fees, Printed on recycled paper the cost for the City Horticultural Consultant's review of the application, a deposit amount as determined by the City Horticultural Consultant to secure performance of all required tree preservation measures and a deposit, as determined by the City Horticultural Consultant, to secure against any damage to any trees. 6. The Sr. Engineering Technician shall notify the permit appli- cant when the permit is ready to be issued. The permit shall not be issued however until A) all permit fees are paid; B) a pre construction conference is held at the job site with the Sr. Engineering Technician, the Engineering Inspector and representatives from the Utility Agency and their contractors, and C) all tree preservation measures required as conditions of the permit are in place and have passed inspection by the City. 7. Daily inspection of the work, including a photographic record of work in the vicinity of any trees, shall be performed by the Engineering Inspector. The Engineering Inspector shall have the authority to stop work at any time he feels the conditions of the permit are being violated. 8. When all work is complete to the satisfaction of the Engineer- ing Inspector, he shall sign the completion notice at the bottom of the Encroachment Permit and return the signed copy with any inspection reports and photographs to the Sr. Engi- neering Technician for filing and permit close -out. 9. Upon receipt of the above from the Engineering Inspector, the Sr. Engineering Technician shall release any securities to the permit application as appropriate. For Encroachment Permits issued for utility service connections and routine operational and maintenance work, the Sr. Engineering Technician shall attach standard tree preservation conditions as required. The standard conditions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Route all utility service connections so as to avoid trenching within the dripline of any tree. 2. If trenching within the dripline of any tree is unavoidable, such trenching shall be done by hand to minimize root damage. No roots in excess of 1 1/2" in diameter shall be cut. 3. Trenches which expose tree roots shall be backfilled as soon as possible to minimize the amount of time the roots are exposed. Trench backfill standards shall be as required by the City Horticultural Consultant. 4. The Engineering Inspector shall have the authority to stop work at any time he feels tree preservation measures are not being carried out or damage to trees is occurring. Work shall Printed on recycled paper. not be allowed to resume until all preservation and /or cor- rective measures are implemented. 5. The City Horticultural Consultant may require additional tree preservation measures as necessary. Any such additional measures shall be deemed as conditions of the approved Encroachment Permit. October 23, 1991 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: San Jose Water Company Pipe Replacement and Oak Tree Damage Along Fruitvale Avenue Mayor Kohler and Members of the City Council: This is to forward a copy of Mr. Barrie Coate's (1) letter of October 16, 1991, addressed to me in care of the City of Saratoga and sent by facsimile to City Hall and (2) related report entitled "Suggested Tree Preservation Procedures During Construction Around Saratoga City Hall (Revised Copy) sent to city staff by facsimile on October 22, 1991. At the outset, I should note that Mr. Coate wrote the letter of October 16 of his own accord with the intent that the City Council would review the letter at its meeting the evening of October 16. As you will recall, this subject was placed on the agenda after several councilmembers expressed concern based on Ms. Monique Larsen's letter of October 10, 1991 and certain councilmembers' followup conversations with Mr. Coate. Unfortunately, although Mr. Coate's letter arrived at City Hall the afternoon of October 16 and was received by the Engineering Department then (Mr. Perlin was copied on the letter), I was never contacted by any staff member regarding the letter, and only learned of its existence during a telephone conversation with Mr. Coate on October 17, 1991. Had I known of the letter on Wednesday the 16th, the majority of my presentation to the Council that evening would have been unnecessary, since Mr. Coate squarely states the sequence of events in his own words. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Coate's consternation over how these events occurred is not reflected in the letter. Mr. Coate's report of October 22, 1991 explains that obvious damage to the absorbing root systems of the trees was significant and should be addressed immediately. The report and his letter of October 16 also state clearly that he is relying on verbal reports from city staff that hand tunnelling was accomplished beneath and through the buttress root masses to prevent severing of these roots. Saratoga City Council October 23, 1991 page 2 This is to request that the Council seek solid confirmation that (1),the detailed measures set forth in Mr. Coate's report are now being undertaken and will continue to be undertaken as long as necessary, (2) the trees' buttress roots were not severed or damaged (if buttress roots were cut and /or damaged, these trees can pose a serious public safety hazard), and (3) appropriate policies and procedures are established and implemented to avoid any similar avoidable incident from happening in the future. In addition, I believe that the City Manager's memorandum to the Council, dated October 11, 1991, and Ms. Larsen's letter of October 10 should be revisited. If a letter was sent to Ms. Larsen relaying information provided in the October 11 memo, as the postscript on Mr. Peacock's memo suggests, information and representations may have been provided to Ms. Larsen which are at variance with information provided by the City Arborist. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, cze-1.4 Meg Caldwell 13906 Ravenwood Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Enclosures cc: City Manager City Arborist a. BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 333 -1052 23335 Summit Road.. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Meg Caldwell Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Caldwell: Fa 6, 3.3 (7 1 Post -It brand fax transmittal memo 7671 In the Iasi three weeks some trenches have been installed for the San Jose Water Company along Frultvaie Avenue. Through a very unfortunate sequence of misunderstandings, I was not asked to review the plans for the trench locations before the permit was issued for the construction and I was not asked to review the site until Friday afternoon two weeks ago when 1 received an urgent telephone message from Tsvla Adar who was calling at the request of Meg Caldwell to ask If I had investigated this construction and new that.the trees were indeed safe during this construction. I told her that I had not been asked to look at the construction previously bUt had noticed in driving by that the trenching machine was digging in areas closer to the tree than I would have recommended but deckled by the time 1 had noticed the activity it was too late to prevent the damage which was being done to absorbing root tips of these trees. I went to the site immediately after receiving the request since I was In Saratoga already; and took pictures of the trenches which had been filled within 12" of the surface. I met the superintendent.of the job on site and he asked what I was taking pictures of. 1 told him 1 was from the City of Saratoga checking the construction of the trench and the affecte on the trees. He said that two Inspectors had been out the day before to Investlgate the procedure and had taken pictures of the open trench with tunneling by hand beneath the foots (I presume he meant large buttress roots) and that they pronounced the operation acceptable. October 16, 1991 Meg Caldwell City of Saratoga Re: San Jose Water Company trenches/Pruitvale Avenue 10/16/91 pg. 2 BDC:Ia cc: Larry Purlin, Engineering That evening I met Mr. Monea at a hardware store and was asked by him if 1 had been asked to review this activity In advance and when I told him 1 had not, he was quite upset. The following Monday, Mr. Bob' Alien, an engineering inspector for the City called me to ask if I could write a note saying that I had observed the trenches and could see that the roots had been tunneled beneath and that they were undamaged. 1 told that I could not do that since the trenches were filled to within 12" of the surface when I was there and that the roots that were visible in the top 12" had obviously been cut with the trenching machine. He asked me to hang on for a moment and Larry Purlin, the City Engineer, came on the phone and also asked me to write a letter about the hand digging beneath buttress roots. I told Mr. Purlin the same thing 1 had told Mr. Allen. Apparently, Mr. Purlin had misunderstood, thinking that I had seen the trenches when they were still open and that the roots which they had seen exposed were still visible when I was there. When I explained to him that they had been filled to 12" from the surface before 1 arrived, he seemed satisfied and we left the conversation at that. I was told by Mr. Allen and Mr. Purlin that they had been to the site and had observed the buttress roots which had been exposed by hand•digging and had not been cut during the procedure. They noted that they had taken pictures of these during that visit. Barrie D. Coate s c els4 TEL No .6 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road„ Los Gatos, CA 95030 Oct.22,91 12:25 F.01 SUGGESTED TREE PRESERVATION PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AROUND SARATOGA CITY HALL (Revised Copy) Prepared at the Request of: Larry Purlin, City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate October 16, 1991 Job #10 -91 -379 TEL No.6 1 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 2 3335 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 Oct.22. 91 12:26 F.02 SUGGESTED TREE PRESERVATION PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AROUND SARATOGA CITY HALL This series of suggestions will address tree preservation procedures In four sites, Number 1 will be the three large Valley Oak trees near which a water tine trench was installed on Fruitvale Avenue. Number 2 will be suggested tree preservation procedures for the tree in the middle of the parking lot, south of City Hall. Number 3 is the small Coast Live Oak tree adjacent to the present construction fence in the same parking lot. Number 4 is the Hartman Oak tree around which new construction will be done. 1. The three Valley Oak trees on Fruityaje Avenue The water line trenches which were recently installed obviously would have to be excavated to depths below that in which major buttress roots are seen. I am told that hand tunnelling was done beneath those roots and through that root mass area to prevent severing buttress roots. In the process, however, significant proportions of absorbing root tips would have been cut and indeed those root tips were visible in the upper 12" of trench before it was completely filled. Since the absorbing root tips are the only portion of the root system which are capable of absorbing water and minerals for transportation to the crown of the tree, it will be essential that the remaining absorbing root tips which were not severed during this process be kept in as good condition as possible to supply as much of the canopy as possible with adequate fluids and minerals. I suggest the following steps for care of these trees. a. Lay a porous pipe soaker hose (note enclosure) over the eastern edge of the trench to apply 300 to 500 gallons of water very slowly once per week for the next month, -1- TEL No 6 Oct 2'2 91 12:27 P.03 SUGGESTED TREE PRESERVATION PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AROUND SARATOGA CITY HALL and once per month thereafter until a solid new crown of healthy foliage produced shows evidence that the tree's root mass Is actively working. It may be necessary to supply this soaker hose watering for two years or perhaps only one year, depending on the plant's response. The trees should be checked in June to July of each year to determine whether they have produced an adequate leaf canopy of new foliage and adequate shoot tip elongation each year. These factors will help make the decision about when soaker hose watering is no longer essential. b. These trees should be sub surfaced fertilized this month to supply 400 gallons of fertilizer /water mix containing 16 pounds of Greenbelt 22 -14 -14 fertilizer in 400 gallons of water, Injected into the top 12 to 18" of soil in all areas between the roadway and the construction trench which are within 50' of the trunk of the tree. c. These trees should be sprayed this winter with 2% Dormant 011 solution to control overwintering Oak Pit Scale, to prevent their removal of fluids from twigs. d. in March or April, when Fruit Tree Leaf Rollers begin to appear (1/2" green worms hanging on silver threads), these trees should be sprayed with an appropriate pesticide to prevent the feeding by these insects on the newly emerging foliage. These trees need all the foliage they can produce to remain in good condition. 2. The Coast Live Oak Tree In the (ficIdie of the south psdj tot This tree is a very large one which is composed of two major trunks which divide at 4' above ground. A cable should be installed between these two halves 18' above grade. Construction activity should not result In excavation more than 3" of depth below the blacktop surface in any area within 12' of the trunk of this tree. That distance should be considered a minimum distance, while staying entirely beyond the dripline with excavations would be far preferable and should be done wherever possible. It should be noted that pervious paving Is certain one option beneath the canopy of this tree where parking spaces are needed, but impervious paving would prevent aeration of the root mass of these trees. If pervious paving is used, ft should not require a 95% compacted base rock beneath It, since that would result in prevention of water and air movement through the paved surface into the root zone area. It pervious paving is not an option in this case, the very minimum aeration should be -2- TEL No.6 Oct.22,91 12:28 P.04 SUGGESTED TREE PRESERVATION PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AROUND SARATOGA CITY HALL provided by the installation of vertical aeration tubes drilled through the paved surface to supply air and water. A specification is enclosed regarding each of those two procedures. It will no doubt be necessary to prune this tree to remove some end weights during or before construction is completed In this site. That paining should be done by an ISA Certified Arborist using ISA Western Chapter Pruning Standards, and not be left to the decisions of the grading crews. This tree Is In excellent health and given reasonable attention to these procedures should live for many more years without problems. 3. no 10" diameter Coast Live Oak in thLcorQer of thjs_same Vilna lot lot If pruning cuts are made at the location of the orange marks on main limbs as i have noted them, and no Construction occurs within 6' of the trunk In any one direction, this tree should survive the construction with virtually no effect. 4. The Hartman Oak tree This Coast Live Oak Is In basically good condition but not excellent. An Infestation of Phytonhthofa cacIQCUf, a fungal disease which affects tissue In the trunks of young Coast Live Oaks is seen on the south, south -west, and south-east sides of the trunk. This disease Is potentially lethal and must be treated. a. I suggest that an injection into the soil with Aliette Systemic Fungicide be made and that the foliage canopy be sprayed with the same material. Refer to the enclosed sheet for rates. These treatments should not considered positive assurance that the infection will be arrested. This translocated fungicide is the only one which is capable of treating this fungus and so It Is the only option available. The treatment should be done immediately and again three times, monthly in spring, beginning in mid April. b. No construction activity which requires the cutting of soil to more than 1 to 2" of depth should occur within 10' of the trunk on the west side, 10' on the north side, and 12' on the east side. -3- TEL 1 Oct 91 1 30 F'.r5 SUGGESTED TREE PRESERVATION PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION AROUND SARATOGA CITY HALL The absorbing root tips produced by this species are In the top 6" of soil and removal of those roots is extremely destructive to the normal growth of the species. When the existence of Phytophthora Infection is already seen In the trunk, severe root cutting of absorbing root tips would obviously be a major mistake in this case. c. I suggest that a soaker hose be layed over the surface of the soil, 6' from the trunk of this tree, and turned on overnight once per week to supply 200 gallons of water on a weekly basis for the next month, and once per month thereafter until construction Is complete. d. I suggest that in the Interim a 3" layer of organic material such as tree chips be installed over the root zone to prevent moisture loss In the root zone area. e. I suggest this tree not be fertilized since ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate fertilizers can accelerate the growth of the Phytophthora fungus and would thus do more harm than good, BDC:Ia Enclosures: Chipco Aliette Aquapore Spec Sheet cc: Mr. Monia, Saratoga City Council MPA Design -4- Respectfully submitted, Agy-ts Barrie D. Coate jm Printed on recycled paper. MEW' cle 0 2' October 29, 1991 To: Larry Perlin From: Harry Peacock 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 I expect answers by the close of business on October 30th. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Please verify the following in response to Meg Caldwell's letter to the City Council: 1. Did any staff member know of the intent of Mr. Coate sending the letter by FAX on October 16th- -that it be reviewed by the City Council? 2. Did Bob Allen request a pre -job meeting which was never held? 3. Did he stop work and require hand digging? 4. Was only one tree involved and did he require the water line to be rerouted to avoid a second oak tree as he stated to me? 5. Are Coate's recommendations being followed? 6. Has San Jose Water Co. been advised of this problem and placed on notice they will be held financially responsible for Mr. Coate's recommendations? 7. Have you prepared a written procedure for your staff to follow in issuing future encroachment permits which will- a. require a plan of the work showing that the work will not interfere with or damage existing trees; b. require a deposit sufficient to cover any subsequent damage should it occur; c. withhold issuance of the permit until there is an on- site construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to permit issuance? Printed on recycled_paper. October 30, 1991 OEU7 ©0 0 uno 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman MEMO TO: Harry Peacock, City Manager FROM: Larry Perlin, City Engineer RE: Your Memo dated October 29 The following are answers to the questions you posed to me in your memo dated October 29. 1. Neither I nor any of my staff believe it was Mr. Coate's intent that the letter he wrote to Mrs. Caldwell, and which was re- ceived at City Hall via FAX on the afternoon of October 16, was to be reviewed by the City Council that evening as Mrs. Caldwell states in her letter of October 23. In fact, Mr. Coate maintains that he wrote his letter to Mrs. Caldwell because she requested him to do so. The reason Mr. Coate copied me the letter was because he offered on October 11 and again on October 15 to write me a letter clarifying the con- versations both Mr. Allen and I had with him on October 7 about the work which San Jose Water Company had performed in the vicinity of the trees. Mr. Coate offered to write me such a letter after I spoke to him on October 11 and reiter- ated what Mr. Emslie told me what Mrs. Caldwell claimed Mr. Coate told her at the Planning Commission meeting on October 9 about the conversations between he, Mr. Allen and myself. Mr. Coate was disturbed to learn that whatever he had said to Mrs. Caldwell was being interpreted to sound as though Mr. Allen or I had requested or pressured him to prepare a report on either the performance of the work or the condition of the trees that would have been contrary to both his opinions and to what he was able to observe. I have since learned that rather than send me a separate letter, Mr. Coate felt as though he could clarify matters by simply copying me the letter which he had already written to Mrs. Caldwell. 2. San Jose Water Company had scheduled a pre- construction confer- ence at the job site with representatives from the Contractor and the City on September 25 at 1:00 P.M.. Bob Allen went to the meeting location, waited for nearly an hour, and then left when nobody else showed up. On October 1, Bob was alerted that work on the project had started. Bob immediately went to the job site and conducted what was supposed to have been the pre- construction conference at that time. Printed on recycled paper. 3. Bob did not stop work as the contractor was just getting start- ed on the job. He reviewed the requirements for working in the vicinity of the trees which, among other things, included a requirement to hand dig the water line trench where it crossed within the driplines of the large trees. 4. There are two oak trees whose roots were damaged by the pro- ject. Damage to a third tree was avoided when Bob requested that the Water Company redesign the project so as to route the water main across Fruitvale Ave. before it crossed under the dripline of the third tree. 5. Barrie Coate's recommendations, as contained in his follow -up report dated October 16, are being carried out by the Mainten- ance Department. 6. San Jose Water Company has not been advised of anything. I agree that they should be placed on notice and also held financially accountable for implementing Barrie Coate's recom- mendations as well as for the replacement costs for the trees if they should die. If it's decided that San Jose Water Company should be placed on notice and held accountable for all costs, then I would like the assistance of the City Attorney to do this. 7. Written procedures for issuing future Encroachment Permits are being drawn up as of this writing and will be placed on the November 6 City Council agenda for their review. If there is any additional information you need on this matter or clarification of the above, please let me know. City of Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 October 31, 1991 Richard A. Rivoir Laurie Rivoir 20411 Hill Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Design Review #91 -041 Halleng -en Residence Dear Members of the Council, The denial by the Planning Commission should be upheld. 1. This is not only the last undeveloped lot in a very quaint neighborhood, but one of the last visible undeveloped hilltops in Saratoga. Great care should be taken by the Planning Commission in approving any future proposal. 2. A very unusual gnarled blue oak sits in the front portion of this lot, so rare that no one seems to know of another like it. It would be nice if a future proposal does not block the view of this magnificent tree from Montalvo Oaks Place and Hill Ave. 3. Since the height and proximity of the two new homes on either side of this site are already established at a lower elevation than the knoll, the height and bulk of any new proposal must be greatly considered. 4. The distance from the garage doors to the property line on the denied proposal did not allow for sufficient turn around area due to the location of the elm tree. For safety reasons a car must be able to turn around before reentering the street. There have been at least five concerned neighbors that have sent a negative letter to the Planning Commission; Miller, Gard, Ellis, Hancock, and Hank Helbush of Design Focus. In conclusion, I feel, as they do, that there is a better solution. Sincerely ichard and Laurie Rivoir Printed on recycled paper. November 6, 1991 Harry City HRP:ss 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance Relating to Assuring Completion of Improvements in Connection with Final Map Approvals for Land Subdivision A hearing on this ordinance was originally held by the City Council in September 1991. During City Council debate on the ordinance it was concluded that the ordinance should be revised to require all conditions and improvements to be completed prior to Final Map Approval unless an exception was deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in which case the Planning Commission would grant an exception to a later date but said date could not extend past the date building permits are issued for construction on individual lots. This revision is reflected in amended Section 14- 20.060(b)(2), Section 14- 30.130(b), and Section 14- 40.020(b)(2). Recent amendments to the Subdivision Map Act limit the City's discretion in applying this new standard to subdivisions of four or fewer lots. To account for this limitation, Section 14- 30.130(c) provides for an exception to the standard unless there is a written agreement between the subdivider and the City. However, this exception still allows the City to require construction of improvements before it will issue a permit or other grant of development approval if required for reasons of public health and safety or as a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area. This means that the City could require certain improvements be completed prior to granting permits for grading or utility installation, for example if those improvements are required for the allowed enumerated reasons. The ordinance also defines "geotechnical clearance" in Section 14- 10.125 as requested by the City Council. Peacock nager Attachment: Revised Ordinance COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Printed on recycled paper. g U t� Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Any property line adjacent to a residential district 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 November 6, 1991 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject: Cellular Telephone Transmission Facilities Regulations Background: In February 1991 the City Council enacted an ordinance which regulated the construction of cellular telephone communications facilities operated by public utilities. The ordinance made such facilities permitted uses in the P -A (Professional- Administrative Office) zone and the C (Commercial) Zone Districts of the City provided the antenna did not exceed 40 feet in height. Such facilities were also allowed as conditionally permitted uses in the same zoning districts where the antenna was higher than 40 feet. Any antenna height in excess of 60 feet would also require a variance as well as a Condition Use Permit (CUP). The ordinance also established minimum setbacks as follows: 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet 40 feet Since the enactment of the ordinance, one such facility has been permitted. It is located next to Lawrence Expressway between Prospect Road and Saratoga Avenue. A second facility, located on Highway 85 between Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Creek has been denied by the Planning Commission and is currently on appeal to the City Council. Mr. Whetstone and others have petitioned the City Council to repeal the existing ordinance and replace it with an ordinance which takes into account RF radiation, potential interference with nearby electronic equipment including computers, and negative visual impact. In his memorandum to the Council of October 16, 1991, the City Attorney advised the City Council on this matter. Subsequently, the City Manager corresponded to Mr. Whetstone transmitting a copy of the memorandum. In response Mr. Whetstone has reiterated his request. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Page 2 Analysis: Obviously the City Attorney and Mr. Whetstone have differing points of view toward the importance of not repealing the existing ordinance. After reading the "interim order" of the PUC supplied by Mr. Whetstone but previously analyzed by Mr. Riback, it is clear to me that: 1. The PUC prefers to have local regulations handle facility development issues, if possible. 2. Environmental review should be undertaken regarding any application whether locally or to the PUC in the absence of local regulation. 3. At a minimum, the PUC should be notified of any application and be asked to review and comment on a) public convenience and necessity, and b) the scope of environmental review. 4. There is a strong indication that residential areas are not encouraged as facility sites. I have discussed Mr. Whetstone's letter with Mr. Riback and we agree that: 1. The current ordinance should not be repealed but should be amended to: a. make all cellular sites subject to a CUP regardless of antenna height, b. continue to limit sites to commercial and office districts, and c. require a variance for any antenna height in excess of 60 feet. This would insure that each application be considered a discretionary act requiring at least a Negative Declaration or an EIR based upon initial environmental review. The issues raised by Mr. Whetstone can, in my view, only be determined on a case -by -case basis regarding the proposed location of a site and the makeup of the surrounding environment. It also means the burden of proof as to environmental impact remains squarely on the applicant. Any added specific standards set by the City would shift that burden of proof to the City, in my view, to prove an application should not be approved as long as it meets those standards. Since the City Council will hear an appeal on November 20th, I suggest this issue be considered at your first meeting in December so as not to potentially prejudice the pending appeal. Conclusions: 1. At the appeal hearing the City Council should consider whether to require a focused EIR on the application prior to granting the appeal or denying it. 2. The current ordinance should not be repealed but the City Council should consider a revision to the zoning regulations as outlined above and to attempt, as near as possible, to be consistent with the procedures and processes of the PUC. Since these issues are bound to be raised at the appeal hearing, even though the hearing is on a specific appeal and not the ordinance itself, I thought it would be adviseable to prepare this note now so you will have time to consider the issues further. arry R Peacock, City Manager jm Attachments: 1. Whetstone letter of 10/26/91 with attachments 2. Peacock letter of 10/23/91 3. Riback memo of 10/16/91 4. Whetstone letter of 10/4/91 cc: City Attorney Page 3 EISI October 26, 1991 OCT 9 ry I City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Ordinance 71.91 (re cellular transmission antennas) Dear Council Members: I have received from Mr. Harry R. Peacock a letter dated 10/23 regarding the subject ordinance. Mr. Peacock's letter ignores the main content of the petition (dated 9/9/91) that I submitted to the city council on 9/17/91. I have attached a copy of the text of the petition. Please note that the petition does not ask solely that the ordinance be revoked, nor does it ask that a "blanket prohibition" be imposed. The petition requests that: I am well aware that under General Order 159 the PUC retains preemptive authority. But that has nothing to do with the main point. What the City of Saratoga needs to do, in the interest of fairness both to its own citizens and to the cellular utility companies, is (a) to enact a carefully thought -out ordinance, and (b) to assure that the Planning Staff is fully instructed as to their responsibilities in regard to implementa- tion of the ordinance, especially in regard to enforcement of environmental review requirements. But first the present ordinance should be revoked before GTE and /or Cellular -1 make applications for additional antennas and the situation gets completely out of hand. There is no logic in the view that a bad ordinance is better than no ordinance at all. In support of the reasoning behind our petition, I have enclosed for your information a copy of PUC General Order 159, through which the PUC delegated its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies. Please note in particular the PUC's Finding of Fact (7) on page 4: Sincerely, (1) ordinance 71.91 be revoked, then Engineering Information Systems, Inc. 14395 Saratoga Ave. Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -6611 (2) a new ordinance be enacted, after thorough research and public hearings. "The need for environmental review outweighs the need for immediate construction of additional cellular radiotelephone facilities that may be constructed without such review." c( th 2 W. D. Whetstone Attachments: (1) Copy of petition dated 9/9/91, (2) PUC General Order 159 September 9, 1991 Petition to the City Commission of the City of Saratoga to repeal Ordinance No. 71.91 regarding cellular telephone transmission antennas Ordinance 71.91 ignores vital interests of many Saratogans. We urge you to repeal it, and to reolace_it with a new ordinance on the same subject. Before you votc on any new ordinance, property owners and business tenants in the affected areas should bc given advance notice. None of us were given advance notice of your consideration of Ordinance No. 71.91. The new ordinance should be thoroughly researched in advance. It should take into account the following considerations. I- Potential health hazards due to the RF radiation emitted from radio transmitters should bc given full consideration. RF energy levels are vastly higher immediately adjacent to transmitters than they are at longer distances. A copy of Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin No. 56 on this subject is attached (sec especially page 5 of this bulletin). 2- Potential interference with nearby electronic equipment and computers should be taken into consideration. No transmitter should be permitted to threaten to inflict any malfunctions of this type, especially in computers used in business, sincc a single malfunction might cause huge financial injury. Particular attention should be given to the very low power wireless computer networks that arc expected to become commonplace in the next few years. 3- Regarding the extremely negative visual impact of some of these structures, it is not appropriate for the City to simply accept without qucstion an applicants representations about such things as present adequacy of coverage, rcquircd antenna location, hcight, power, type, etc. Independent expert opinions should be mandatory. It would be especially inappropriate and highly inconsistcnt to permit large unsightly antennas in areas where undcrground utilities arc rcquircd. Signature Address ALJ /BDP /tcg E11 mile 'AR 3 0199r Decision 90 -03 -080 March 28, 1990 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rlemaking on the Commission's own motion to develop revisions to General Orders and Rules applicable to siting and R.90 -01 -012 environmental review of cellular (filed January 9, 1990) mobile radiotelephone utility facilities. INTERIM OPINION On January 9, 1990, we instituted this rulemaking to determine the need for revisions to the Commission's General Orders applicable to siting and environmental review of cellular radiotelephone facilities. A proposed General Order (GO) prescribing Rules Relating to the Planning and Construction of Cellular Radiotelephone Cell Sites and Switches Located in California was appended to the rulemaking. The proposed rules were mailed to the cellular utilities, counties, and local planning agencies shown on Appendix B. Written comments on the proposed rules and other issues identified in the rulemaking were invited by March 2, 1990. Comments were received from several parties. Workshops to review the proposed rules- were -held in -six cities in California during March 1990. In the order instituting this rulemaking, we discussed the problems with the current procedures which prompted the need for this rulemaking. In particular, we observed that the cellular radiotelephone industry was expanding much faster than projected and the lack of environmental review and public noticing of expansion and in -fill sites had denied the opportunity for public comment and local government review in some cases. R.90 -01 -012 AL7 /BDP /tcg We are aware of at least 20 new cellular radiotelephone sites proposed for construction in the near future. There are probably many more of which we are not aware since many cellular radiotelephone utilities are not required to notify the Commission of expansions of their systems. McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. (McCaw) is required to file additional environmental information on new sites. Consequently, McCaw recently filed supplemental environmental information on approximately 19 additional antenna sites which would increase capacity and improve transmission quality on its systems. McCaw claims that these additional sites will not expand its service territory and argues that it consequently is not required to submit environmental information to the Commission prior to construction of these additional antenna sites. McCaw goes on to state that it filed this additional environmental information with the Commission for informational purposes only. In addition, two formal complaints have been filed recently with the Commission. In Case (C.) 90 -02 -019, County of Monterey vs. Salinas Cellular Telephone Company, et al., Complainant alleges violations of the California Coastal Act and local ordinances and requests the Commission order the removal of certain cellular radiotelephone related facilities. In C.90 -02 -020, Boron et al. vs Cellular-One,-Complainants allege that CEQA requirements were not followed and request that towers improperly located in their residential neighborhood be moved to more appropriate locations. It is clear that the pace radiotelephone expansion has quickened even beyond our expectations when we issued the rulemaking. Indeed, the issuance of the rulemaking may have contributed to this increased activity. In our opinion, the need for immediate action to bring order and proper environmental scrutiny to this activity outweighs the immediate need for additional cellular radiotelephone facilities which may be R.90 -01 -012 ALJ/BDP/tcg constructed without such review. We believe that there is an immediate need for some rules to be prescribed on an interim basis until we devise permanent rules. Following review of the written comments submitted on the proposed general order that was mailed to the parties, we concluded that major changes were necessary. Our concern was that the proposed rules superimposed two separate regulatory processes for approving cell sites, one before local authorities and a second repetitive one before the Commission,-.We-concluded that this was wasteful and such duplicative procedures should be avoided. Therefore, we are now adopting revised rules which have the effect of relying on local review processes in those cases where disputes over siting and design are resolved amicably at the local level. The Commission would then be required to intervene only in a minority of situations where irreconcilable differences or intolerable delays arise.. Adjacent property owners in All cases would be assured of advance notice and an opportunity to be heard. Where technically possible, we would like to encourage cellular carriers to share common sites. While the revised rules do not provide an explicit treatment for such cases, we believe there are incentives to promote site sharing. First, an expedited procedure is provided for approving construction that is minor in nature, including the addition of'new antennas to existing procedures. Some site- sharing may qualify under this procedure. Second, the revised rules' focus on local permitting authorities will allow them to encourage site sharing through their approval processes. We hope that these incentives will focus the attention of the cellular utilities on site sharing, and we will be considering this question carefully when we promulgate our final rules in a subsequent decision. Accordingly, we will adopt on an interim basis the rules attached herein as Appendix A and require immediate compliance with these rules prior to the construction of additional cellular R.90 -01 -012 ALJ/BDP/tcg radiotelephone facilities. Upon written request by any of the respondents to this proceeding, the Commission will consider reopening its Investigation R.90 01 012 to examine whether this GO has served its stated purposes and to consider whether this GO must be revised to reflect technological changes in cellular facilities. Findings of Fact 1. On January 9, 1990, the Commission instituted a rulemaking to determine the need for rules for the siting and environmental review of cellular radiotelephone facilities. 2. A problem cited in the rulemaking was the lack of environmental review and public noticing of cellular radiotelephone expansion and fill -in sites. 3. The pace of cellular radiotelephone antenna proliferation has increased dramatically recently with at least 20 additional radiotelephone cellular sites proposed for construction in the near future. 4. It is likely that few, if any, of these proposed sites will be subject to the normal environmental review process. 5. Two formal complaints have been filed recently with the Commission alleging inadequate environmental review and requesting the removal of certain inappropriately sited cellular radiotelephone facilities. 6. Immediate action is-needed. to-require proper environmental review prior to the construction of additional cellular radiotelephone facilities. 7. The need for environmental review outweighs the need for immediate construction of additional celllular radiotelephone facilities a be constructe• review. Conclusions of Law 1. The rules proposed in this proceeding should be adopted on an interim basis. R.90 -01 -012 ALJ /BDP /tcg 2. Immediate action is needed to provide proper environmental review prior to the construction of additional cellular radiotelephone facilities. 3. The adopted rules defer to local authorities wherever possible, assure notice to the public in all cases, and avoid unnecessarily duplicative approval procedures before both the Commission and local agencies. 4. This order should be made effective on the date hereof. Tf1'ERIM ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The General Order prescribing Rules Relating to the Planning and Construction of Cellular Radiotelephone Cell Sites and Switches Located in California attached to this order as Appendix A shall become effective on an interim basis as of the effective date of this order. 2. As of the effective date of this order, no cellular radiotelephone utility shall begin construction of any cell site or switch without first complying with the provisions of the General Order adopted in Paragraph 1. R.90 -01 -012 ALJ/BDP/tcg 3. Upon written request by any of the respondents to this proceeding, the Commission will consider reopening its Investigation R.90 -01 -012 to examine whether this GO has served its stated purposes and to consider whether this GO must be revised to reflect technological changes in cellular facilities. This order is effective today. Dated March 28, 1990, at San Francisco, California. G. MITCHELL WILK President FREDERICK R. DUDA STANLEY W. HULETT JOHN B. OHANIAN PATRICIA M. ECKERT Commissioners R.90 -01 -012 /AL /BDP /tCg March 28 APPENDIX A Page 1 GENERAL ORDER 159 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RULES RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA 1990: Effective March 28 Decision 90 080 R.90- 01-012. SECTION I GENERAL 1990. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 451, 701, 702, 761, 762, 762.5, and 1001 of the Public Utilities Code: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that except as specifically provided herein, no cellular radiotelephone utility, now subject, or which hereafter may become subject, to the jurisdiction of this Commission, shall begin construction in this state of any cellular facilities without this Commission's having first authorized the construction of said facilities in accordance with the provisions of this General Order. The Table of Contents and rules are set forth below. R.90 -01 -012 /AL7 /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL 1 II. PURPOSE OF THIS GENERAL ORDER 3 III. NEED FOR COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION 4 A. Generally 4 B. _Initial..System-Fae i ies -wry- 4 C. Facilities Not Included 1n the Utility's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 4 D. Exemptions 4 (1) Minor Maintenance and Repair Work 4 (2) Emergency Construction 5 (3) .Temporary Facilities 5 IV. AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES FOR POST -CPC&N 7 FACILITIES A. Standard Review (Advice Letter) 7 B. Application for Preemptive Authority 8 to Construct V. STANDARD REVIEW PROCEDURE (ADVICE LETTER) 8 A. Filing Requirements 8 B. Notice Requirements 8 C. Protest Procedure 9 D. Consideration of Advice Letters Seeking 9 Authority to Construct 19 E. Commencement of Construction VI. APPLICATIONS FOR PREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT 11 A. Filing Requirements 12 B. Notice Requirements 11 C. Review of Application for Completeness 12 D. Request for Public Hearings 12 E. Time Limits 13 F. Commencement of Construction VII. CEQA COMPLIANCE 14 VIII. PROCEDURE ON COMPLAINTS 15 IX. REVIEW OF THIS GENERAL ORDER 15 R.90 -01 -012 /AL7 /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 3 SECTION II PURPOSE OF THIS GENERAL ORDER The Commission is adopting this General Order to ensure that: the potential environmental impacts of all cellular sites are reviewed and considered in a manner consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act affected local citizens, organizations, and jurisdictions are given .reasonablete and- epport- unities- for- input into the review process, the public health and welfare, and zoning concerns of local jurisdications are addressed cellular companies are not unnecessarily delayed by site review. The Commission has found in numerous decisions authorizing specific cellular systems that construction of cellular systems generally serves the public convenience and necessity. This General Order is intended to balance this statewide interest with local concerns regarding the siting, design and construction of cellular facilities. The procedure described herein is intended to be applied uniformly on a statewide basis. The Commission recognizes that due to local concerns local agencies occasionally may seek to balance local and statewide interests in a manner that significantly impedes statewide goals of having reliable and widespread cellular telephone service. sib will not ghtly or t fo cal iur i s dictions in ei.r sermittina procesm. The Commission recognizes that the impacts orErfluiar facllitties are highly localized and that local citizens and governmental agencies are often in a better position than the Commission to measure local impact and to identify alternate sites. Accordingly, the Commission delegates its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies, except in those instances when there is a clear conflict with statwide interests. In those instances, the Commission will review the need to preempt local jurisdiction, allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions. The cellular utility will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that accomodating to local agency requirements for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's objectives. If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Commission will preempt local jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under Article XII, Section 8 of the California Constitution. R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ/BDP/tcg B. Pnitia System Facilities APPENDIX A Page 4 SECTION III NEED FOR COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION A. Generally Except as provided herein, a cellular utility must obtain authorization from the Commission prior to the construction of cellular facilities. For the purposes of this General Order, "construction" includes the construction of any new cellular facilities or the modification of, alteration of, or addition to an existing cellular facility. For the construction of cellular facilities which are part of a cellular utility's initial system configuration, the. cellular utility shall file for authority to construct in conjunction with its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity in accordance with section 1001 of the Public Utilities Code, Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and existing Commission procedures. Once the Commission issues a decision granting the cellular utility authority to construct, the cellular utility may commence construction of the facilities. C. Facilities Not Included in the Utility's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity A cellular utility seeking to construct a cellular facility not described in its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity must obtain additional authorization from the Commission in accordance with Section IV of. this General Order unless such proposed facilities is exempted under subsection D. below. D. gxemptions (1) Minor Maintenance and Repair Work For purposes of this General Order, "construction" does not include any maintenance, repair or replacement of existing facilities; any alteration of or addition to equipment within an existing structure, any installation of environmental monitoring equipment, any soil, geological or site survey investigation, any work to determine feasibility of the use of the particular site for the proposed facility; or any other like work where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the work in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The types of work described in the preceding sentence may be performed R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 5 without further Commission authorization. The utility must still comply with local permitting requirements, if any. (2) Emergency Construction This General Order does not require that cellular utilities obtain Commission authority prior to maintaining, repairing, restoring, demolishing, or replacing cellular facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster. This exemption shall be of the same scope as the exception for emergency projects in the_ CEQA .--14 Cai- £ode -Ree l -§15&269 This exemption does not extend to the construction of new cellular facilities to expand the service area or the volume of traffic that can be handled in an existing cell site absent a finding by the local permitting jurisdiction that such construction is needed to provide emergency services associated with the disaster. Whenever possible the cellular utility shall orally notify the Director of the Commission Advisory and Compliance Division "CACD of the proposed emergency construction prior to the construction thereof. In all cases of emergency construction, the utility shall, as soon as practicable, provide the CACD with a letter outlining the construction it performed and how such construction was necessitated by the emergency condition. (3) Temporary Facilities (a) For the purposes of this General Order, "temporary facilities' are defined as a cellular telephone facility which: (i) is no larger than a trailer twenty -eight (28) feet in length, twelve (12) feet in width and twelve (12) feet in height with no appurtenant structures other than a roll -up standby power generator; (ii) contains no more than the following equipment: cell site electronics, two (2) air conditioning units, a fire suppression system, a DC power plant, and a gasoline powered generator that has critical silencing of the exhaust. system and the generator itself; (iii) includes no more than six (6) antennae and one (1) microwave dish not exceeding four (4) feet in diameter. Such antennae may be placed on the temporary facilities itself, on an adjacent existing structure, or a portable, extendable, nonpermanent support structure, not exceeding 25 R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 6 feet in height, provided that the antennae shall not extend more than twelve (12) above the topmost portion of the temporary facilities cr structure; (iv) is not placed on a parcel zoned for residential uses; and (v) is deployed for the purpose of replacing existing damaged or malfunctioning facilities; meeting unanticipated, rapid increases in customer demand; or providing initial service pending the Commission's consideration of an advice letter or application filed pursuant to this General Order. However, the cellular utility must still comply with local permitting requirements, if any. (b) A cellular utility which has a CPC &N to serve the area surrounding the proposed temporary facility may deploy such a facility on a temporary basis without additional authorization from this Commission. However, the cellular utility must still comply with local permitting requirements, if any. (c) Except when deployed pending the processing of an advice letter or an application for preemptive authority to construct, temporary facilities deployed pursuant to this section may be in place for 120 days in a single location. Within 100 days from the date the temporary facilities were originally deployed, the cellular ••utility shall-send the CACD a letter either confirming that it will remove the facilities and restore the site within the next twenty (20) days or requesting that it be allowed maintain the temporary facilities in their current location for an additional 120 days. The utility shall provide a copy of this letter •any 'affected local agencies. The CACD has discretion to grant or deny the utility's request for an extension. If the utility does not receive a letter from the CACD within twenty (20) days from the date of its request granting the extension, the utility's request for extension shall be deemed denied and the utility shall immediately remove the temporary facilities. For the purposes of a temporary facilities, °a single location" is defined as the parcel of property on which it is initially deployed or any other parcel within 200 yards of that parcel. Temporary facilities deployed pending the processing of an R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ/BDP/tcg APPENDIX A Page 7 advice letter or application pursuant to this General Order may be in place for up to 120 days after the effective date of the Commission's ruling with regard to such advice letter or application or as otherwise provided in such decision. SECTION IV AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES FOR POST -CPC&N FACILITIES A cellular util fty--needtng authorization� °to 'construct or modify cellular facilities shall file for authority to construct under this section. Depending upon which criteria are applicable, a cellular utility will either file an advice letter as described in the subsection (A), or an application for preemptive authority to construct as described in the subsection (3). A. Standard Review (Advice Letter) A cellular utility may file an advice letter requesting authorization to construct in cases in which: (1) the cellular utility has received all of the permits and approvals for the proposed construction, if any, required by any local governmental agency which has jurisdiction over the proposed construction or would have jurisdiction over the proposed construction absent the Commission's preemption; or (2) no local permits are required, and the proposed construction is minor in nature. For the purposes of this General Order, construction which. .is "minor. in nature" is defined as: (a) the addition of antennas (other than a microwave antennas) or cell enhancers to existing structures, such as towers. or_buildings. provided .such additions do not rise more than twelve (12) feet above the topmost portion of the existing structures or any appurtenances thereto, and that the existing structure is located on a parcel currently zoned for nonresidential uses; or (b) the placement of cellular facilities (other than standby power sources containing a combustion engine) in existing structures, provided that such facilities are placed wholly within existing structures and are located on a parcel currently zoned for nonresidential uses. R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 8 B. Application for Preemptive Authority to Construct A cellular utility shall file an application for preemptive authority to construct a cellular facility notwithstanding the lack of one or more local permits by application when the cellular utility can demonstrate that it has provided the local agency with two or more acceptable sites, but the cellular utility is unlikely to obtain a permit for either site which will provide adequate coverage of the cell. To demonstrate that it is unlikely to obtain the needed permit, the cellular utility must show that: (1) one or more local agencies-have-denied-the-utility's. application for a permit, or (2) one or more local agencies have granted the utility a permit but with conditions as to location or configuration which the utility believes makes it infeasible to provide adequate coverage of the cell, or (3) one or more local agencies has fie, facto denied the utility's application (by zoning ordinances, resolution, unreasonable delays, etc.) SECTION V STANDARD REVIEW PROCEDURE (ADVICE LETTER) A. riling Requirements All requests for Commission authority to construct under the Standard Review. Procedure-shall-be-filed-by advice letter with the CACD in accordance with Section V of General Order Advice letters shall contain the information described in Appendix A to this General Order. B. Notice Requirements (1) On the date the advice letter is filed, the utility shall serve a copy of the advice letter and accompanying tariff pages, if any, by mail on those parties required to be served with advice letters by Section III.G of General Order No. 96 -A and on other parties having requested such notification. (2) In the case of "'minor construction° in an area where no local permits are required, the utility shall post the notice in at least three•(3) public places in the area surrounding the proposed construction site, including one public place on or near the proposed construction site. R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /EDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 9 Said notice shall be posted no later than five (5) days after the date the advice letter was filed. Said notice shall include the following information: (a) a general description of the proposed construction and its location; (b) instructions on obtaining a copy of the advice letter; .(c) the applicable yLUL.Bdure protesting the advice letter; and (d) the date the protest period expires. C. Protest Procedure (1) Any person may filed a protest to the advice letter in accordance with Section III.H of General Order No. 96 -A. The protest shall be filed with the CACD not later than twenty (20) days after the date on which the advice letter was filed. The protestant shall serve a copy of the protest on the subject utility on the same day the protest is filed with the CACD. (2) A protest may be made by letter, telegram or telefax and shall comply with Rules 8.1 -8.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (3) The utility shall respond in writing to a protest within .ten (10) business days.after its .receipt and shall serve copies of its response by mail on each protestant.and.the. Commission. D. Consideration of Advice Lgttgrs Sgeking Authority to Construct (1) If no protest has been iled,- -the ••Executive Director shall issue an order approving the advice letter no later than thirty (30) days from the date the advice letter was filed. (2) If a protest has been filed, the Commission shall issue a resolution approving the advice letter or shall reject the advice letter no later than sixty (60) days from the date the advice letter was filed. The Commission shall determine whether to approve or reject.the advice letter in accordance with the following standards: (a) if the protest does not present a prima facie showing, the advice letter shall be approved; R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ/BDP/tcg APPENDIX A Page 10 (b) if the protest presents a prima facie showing, the advice letter shall be approved only if the cellular utility demonstrates conclusively that it has all of the requisite permits and approvals or that the construction is minor in nature; otherwise the advice letter must be rejected. (3) Commission or Executive Director approval of advice letters under the Standard Review Procedure is an exercise of ministerial authority that is exempt from application of CEQA pursuant to section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code. If an order or resolution approving the advice letter is issued,•the.Commission staff shall also file a Notice of Exemption from CEQA with the Office of Planning and Research. (4) If the advice letter is rejected, the utility may file an application for preemptive authority to construct. E. Commencement of Construction (1) If the utility has received all requisite permits or approvals in accordance with this section, the utility may commence construction upon receipt of an order of the Executive Director or a Commission resolution approving the advice letter; (2) If the utility has asserted in its advice letter that its construction is minor in nature and no local permits are required, the utility may commence construction upon receipt of an order of the Executive Director or a Commission resolution-approving the advice letters. (3) A cellular utility may construct cellular facilities, at its own risk, upon filing an advice letter with the Commission under the Standard Review Procedure. If, however, the Commission or Executive Director rejects the advice letter, the -utik ty be required to •cease operation of the facilities immediately, to remove the facilities and to restore the construction site to its original status. To guarantee removal of the facilities and restoration of the construction site, the utility shall provide the CACD with an undertaking in a form specified by the Commission signed by an officer of the utility. R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ/BDP/tcg APPENDIX A Page 11 SECTION VI APPLICATIONS FOR PREEMPTIVE ADTHORITY'T0 CONSTRUCT This section describes procedures a utility may use to seek authority from the Commission to construct a cellular facility when the conditions of Section IV.B. of this General Order apply. If the Commission agrees to approve such an application, that Commission decision preempts local regulation of the facility to the extent described in the Commission's decision. A. Filing Requirements A cellular utility must file for authority to construct by application. All applications for preemptive authority to construct shall comply with this Commission's Rules of Practice and _Procedure Nos. 2 through 8, 15, and 16 and shall contain the information described in Appendix B. B. Notice Requirements (1) On the day the application is filed, Applicant shall mail notice of the filing of its application for preemptive authority to construct to the agencies with jurisdiction over the construction but for the Commission's preemption: to all owners of the real property on which the proposed facilities will be constructed; to all owners of real property, as shown on equalized assessment roll, within 300 feet of the real property on which the proposed facility will be constructed (if the number of owners of real property within 300 feet is greater than 1000, in lieu of mailing the notice may be posted in three public places in the area surrounding the proposed construction site, including one public place on or near the proposed construction site); to adjacent and competing utilities; and to other parties having requested such notification. A declaration of mailing shall be filed with the Commission no later than-the-410-days- after the day. on which notice of the application is mailed. (2) The applicant shall also post the notice in at least three (3) public places in the area surrounding the proposed construction site, including one public place on or near the proposed construction site. Such notice shall be posted no later than five (5) days after the date the application was filed. (3) The notice required by subsections (1) and (2) above shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: P.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 12 (a) a general description of the proposed construction and its location; (b) instructions on obtaining or reviewing a copy of the application; (c) the applicable procedure for protesting the application; and (d) the date the protest period expires. (4r The applicant shall provide a copy of application for authority to construct to any_person.upon. request% C. Review of Application for Completeness No later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the application, Commission staff shall review it and notify the utility in writing of any deficiencies in the submitted information and data. The utility shall correct any deficiencies within 30 days thereafter or explain in writing to the Commission why it is unable to do so. Any such explanation shall include an estimate of when the utility will be able to correct the information deficiencies. Upon correction of any deficiencies in the application, any public hearings which are necessary may be held on the application. The Commission shall issue a decision no later than eight months after the acceptance of the application as complete, or at such later time as is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Commission. D. #teauest for Public Hearings Those to whom notice has been sent as specified in Section IV and any other person entitled under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to participate in a proceeding for an authority to construct may, within thirty days after the notice was mailed and published, request that the Commission hold hearings on the application. Any such-request sh t ld -include• the reasons therefor. If the Commission, as a result of its preliminary investigation after such requests, determines that public hearings should be held, notice shall be sent to each person who is entitled to notice or who has requested a hearing. E. Time Limits (1) If the proposed facility does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"') and a hearing is not held, the Commission shall issue a final decision regarding the proposed facility within the time periods R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 13 specified in Government Code §65951 -52 (180 days from the date on which the application was accepted as complete). (2) If an EIR is prepared by the Commission, then the Commission shall issue a final decision regarding the proposed facility within the time periods specified in Government Code §65951 -52 (one year from the date on which the application was accepted as complete). (3) If the Commission uses a Negative Declaration or EIR prepared by a local agency.or.another state agency, then the Commission shall issue a final decision regarding the proposed facility within the time periods specified in Government Code §65952. (4) In addition, if the proposed construction will result in the addition or relocation of the utility's transmission facilities or an alteration of the utility's service area, the Commission's decision shall include authority for the utility to file an advice letter on five days' notice revising its tariffs in accordance with the decision. F. Commencement of Construction (1) No local permits are required as a prerequisite to construction, except as specified in the Commission order. Once the Commission issues a decision authorizing the proposed construction, the utility may commence construction; provided, however, that prior to the commencement of construction, the utility shall present its building plans for the proposed construction to the local agency which would have had jurisdiction over the proposed construction absent the Commission's preemption, for the local agency's review of compliance with local building and electrical codes ("Building Plan Check"). If the local agency refuses to perform a Building Plan Check or fails to complete the plan check within four (4) weeks of the date of the decision was issued, then the utility may commence construction of its facilities in accordance with building plans stamped by a state licensed engineer certifying that said plans comply with local building and electrical codes. The utility shall file a copy of these plans with the CACD prior to construction. (2) During the proposed construction, the utility shall either comply with applicable local inspection procedures or, if the local agency refuses to provide inspection services, shall hire an independent building inspector who shall inspect the facilities as they are being constructed and shall certify, upon completion of construction, that such R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 14 facilities were constructed in accordance with the building plans stamped by the state licensed engineer of record. The cellular utility shall file a copy of the independent building inspector's certificate with the CACD within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such certificate. (3) Telephone and electric utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission are hereby ordered to turn on utility service to cellular facilities constructed pursuant to this General Order upon presentation by the utility of a copy.. of .a..Commission. decision authorizing the proposed construction and a certificate from an independent building inspector-certifying the electrical system as installed complies with the building plans stamped by the state licensed engineer of record. SECTION VII CEQA COMPLIANCE A. For all issues relating to the siting, design, and construction of cellular facilities which are part of the initial configuration described in an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, the Commission will be the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). B. For advice letter filings under the Standard Review Procedure, the Lead Agency will be the most appropriate local or other state agency unless a different designation has been negotiated between the local agency and the Commission consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)' -(d). C. For applications for preemptive authority to construct, the Lead Agency will be: (1) the local or other state agency in those cases where one of them has issued a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR, even if this document identifies an alternate site or configuration as environmentally preferable, unless a different designation has been negotiated between the local agency and the Commission consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b) -(d). The Commission will function as a Responsible Agency. (2) the Commission when: (a) a local or other state agency has not begun the CEQA process. 3 R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ/BDP/tcg APPENDIX A Page 15 (b) a local agency has denied the applicant's permit applications without issuing a Negative Declaration or EIR. (3) negotiated between the local agency and the Commission consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b) -(d), when the local agency has started but not completed the CEQA review process, and the applicant alleges that the local agency has de facto denied its permit application. SECTION VIII PROCEDURH O IU CO L NT Complaints may be filed with the Commission for resolution of any alleged violations of this General Order pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 9 through 13.1. SECTION IX REVIEW OF THIS GENERAL ORDER Upon written request by any of the respondents to this proceeding, the Commission will consider reopening its Investigation No. R.90 -01 -012 to examine whether this General Order has served its stated purposes and to consider whether this General Order must be revised to reflect technological changes in cellular facilities. R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDI:' A Page 16 APPENDIX A INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN ADVICE LETTER FILING FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT 1. A description of the proposed construction, including the equipment to be installed; the tower design, appearance and height; the building sizes; and the lot location; 2 A street -map showing the- proposed tocati -otl'theconstruction_._ and the relationship of the proposed location to residential or scenic areas within 1,000 feet of the proposed location; 3. Tariff sheets reflecting the addition or relocation, if any, of transmitting facilities and the changes, if any, to a utility's service area map; 4. A copy of the notice of the advice letter to be provided in accordance with this General Order 5. An explanation of the Standard Review Procedure, including the grounds for protesting an advice letter filed under this procedure and the date of protest period expires; 6. A list of all governmental agencies (with the exception of the Commission) which have jurisdiction over the proposed construction or would have jurisdiction over the proposed construction absent Commission preemption; 7. A declaration,. signed by an officer of the utility, attesting either that: (1) with respect to each agency listed in subsection -6 above, all necessary permits or approvals have been obtained; or (2) none are required ..from. that....agency- and the proposed construction is minor in nature. All such declarations must state the bases for the utility's conclusion with particularity and be signed under penalty of perjury. R.90 -01 -012 /ALJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 17 APPENDIX B INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN APPLICATION FOR PREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT 1. A description of the proposed construction, including the equipment to be installed; the tower design, appearance and height; the building sizes; and the lot location; 2. A street map showing .the.proposed_location..of the construction and the relationship of the location to residential or scenic areas within 1,000 feet of the proposed location; 3. An explanation of why it is necessary for the Commission to preempt local jurisdictions in this case; 4. Copies of all denials of permit applications and correspondence with the agency denying the permit; 5. Copies of any notices or other documents issued by the applicant or any local or state agency in compliance with CEQA regarding this proposed facility; 6. A list of the owners of real property, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll, within 300 feet of the property on which the facilities will be constructed; 7. A list of all the permits which the utility understands would be required by any local agency for the proposed construction, absent the Commission's preemption of the agency's permitting authority; 8. A list of the permits which the utility understands are required by any federal, state or other non -local agency for the proposed construction; 9. The proposed schedule for the provision of notice pursuant to this General Order and for the construction, and commencement of operation of the facility; 10. a copy of the notice of the application to be provided in General Order; 11. a statement of compliance with this General Order and applicable Commission Rules; and 12. draft tariff sheets reflecting the addition or relocation, if any, of transmitting facilities and the changes, if any, to the utility's service area map. R.90 -01 -012 /AIJ /BDP /tcg APPENDIX A Page 18 13. The application must state whether: (a) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed facility may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) the proposed facility is statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA, If so, the application shall state this conclusion or cite to the exemption(s), if any, which apply..to.the proposed facility and shall include any additional explanation or information necessary to support an independent assessment by the Commission of the utility's assertion. 14. If neither of the statements in section 10 above apply, then the application shall contain the following: (a) reasons for the adoption of the selected site, including comparisons with alternative sites; and (b) a Proponent's Environmental Assessment ("PEA") or equivalent information on the environmental impact of the project in accordance with CEQA and this Commission's Rules 17.1 and 17.3. If a PEA is filed, it may include the data listed in sections 1 -10 above. 15. An application for authority to construct need not include a detailed analysis of purpose and necessity, a detailed estimate of cost and economic analysis, or a detailed description of construction methods beyond that information required for 16. A certificate of service stating that the application with attachments had been sent to all local agencies whose authority the applicant requests the Commission preempt. Approved and dated "March "at'San Francisco, California. (END OF APPENDIX A) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ST OF C LIFORNIA e l/ By N@..1 J. Shulman Executive Director Printed on recycled paper. October 23 1991 Don Whetstone Engineering Information Systems, Inc. 14395 Saratoga Avenue, Second Floor Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Whetstone: Your October 7th letter to the City Council requests a reconsideration of its discussion of October 2nd and asks the City to revoke the existing ordinance relating to cellular transmission antennas. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that the City Council not take the action you request. It is his opinion that a "blanket prohibition," would expose the City to the probability, that the CPUC would utilize its preemptive authority to review an application made directly to the Commission by a utility seeking authority to construct a cellular transmission antenna in Saratoga. Under the circumstances, it is the best course of action for the City to continue to exercise its authority under the zoning laws of the City rather than have such issues decided by a State Agency. A copy of the City Attorney's memorandum on this subject is attached for your reference. Sipcerely, Harry/ft Peacock City anager cc: City Council Attachment UMW cig 0 'MO 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS NATALIE E. WEST ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK MOLLY T. TAMI MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION FREDERICK S. ETHERIDGE WENDY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER OF COUNSEL REPLY TO: San Leandro ANOREA J. SALTZMAN TO: FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Petition to Revoke Ordinance 71.91 (Regarding Cellular Transmission Antennas) FACTS: The Council is in receipt of an October 4, 1991 letter from Mr. Don Whetstone, requesting that the Council revoke Ordinance No. 71.91, which authorizes the installation, upon receipt of a conditional use permit, of cellular transmission antennas in certain, limited zoning districts. The reasons given for the requested revocation are that there are alleged to be "serious health hazard questions remaining unresolved" with regard to cellular transmission antennas. RECOMMENDATION: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK WEST A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION PENINSULA OFFICE GATEWAY PLAZA 1220 HOWARD AVE.. SUITE 250 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 30 E c n,7 INGAME. CA 94010.6211 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 9 U I P HO NE: (415) 346.1130 TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -430 f SIMiIE: (415) 342 0888 FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 OCT 21 1991 MARINOFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA 1202 GRANT AVE.. SUITE E NOVATO. CA 94945 CITY MANAGER'S O F fe rrt, HON (415) 692 -8878 City Council DATE: October 16, 1991 City Manager It is recommended that the City Council retain in its Zoning Ordinance discretionary review authority over the installation of cellular transmission antennas within the City. Currently, that discretionary review is provided through the Conditional Use Permit process. That process, as well as the Design Review process allows the City to conduct an environmental review of the proposed installation and to consider such issues as health and safety, as well as siting and design. As discussed in more detail below, if the City establishes a "blanket prohibition" of the installation of cellular transmission antennas anywhere within the City limits, the City is exposing itself to the probability that the California Public Utilities Commission "Commission will utilize its preemptive authority to review an application made directly to the Commission by a utility seeking authority to construct a cellular transmission antenna in TO: City Council City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Petition to Revoke Ordinance 71.91 (Regarding Cellular Transmission Antennas) DATE: October 16, 1991 PAGE: 2 Saratoga. Although a utility may also file an application requesting that the Commission exercise such preemptive authority after it has been denied a conditional use permit to construct a transmission antenna within the City, at least in that situation the Commission will have before it a full record of the review and analyses conducted by the City as part of its consideration of the use permit application. If transmission antennas are sift facto prohibited within the City then it will be much more likely that the Commission will not only exercise its preemptive authority to review, as the lead agency, the request for authorization to construct an antenna within the City, but will grant such authorization. AMALX I8; The California Public Utilities Commission "Commission has been delegated authority by the State Legislature to supervise and regulate every public utility and to "do all things whether specifically designated in this part or in addition thereto, which are necessary and convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction." (Public Utilities Code 701). As a state -wide body, the decisions, rules and orders of the Commission have the status of general laws, and local ordinances are controlled by and subject to them in the same way as statutes. Accordingly, the Commission has been held to have paramount jurisdiction in cases where it has exercised its authority, and its authority is pitted against that of a local government involving a matter of state -wide concern. (Orange County Air Pollution Control District v. Public Utilities Commission (1971) 4 Cal.3d 945.) The existence of a general law (or P.U.C. regulation) on a particular topic does not, however, automatically divest the City of the power to act. It may adopt ordinances that are consistent with or supplementary to the state law. The only exception is where the state body has preempted the field of regulation. Article XII, Section 8 of the California Constitution provides that a City "may not regulate matters over which the Legislature grants regulatory authority to the Commission." TO: City Council City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Petition to Revoke Ordinance 71.91 (Regarding Cellular Transmission Antennas) DATE: October 16, 1991 PAGE: 3 On March 28, 1990, the Commission issued an "Interim Opinion and Order" concerning the siting and environmental review of cellular telephone antennas. This Interim Opinion and Order is still in effect. As part of the Interim Opinion and Order, the Commission adopted General Order 159 in which the Commission stated as follows: "Accordingly, the Commission delegates its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies, except in those instances where there is a clear conflict with statewide interests. In those instances, the Commission will review the need to preempt local iurisdiction, allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions. The cellular utility will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that accommodating to local agency requirements for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's objectives. If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Commission will preempt local iurisdiction pursuant to its authority under Article XII. Section 8 of the California Constitution." (General Order 159, p. 3, emphasis added) The General Order 159 goes on to discuss a process for the utility filing an "Application for Preemptive Authority To Construct" with the Commission. Section IV.B. of General Order 159 states that: "A cellular utility shall file an application for preemptive authority to construct a cellular facility notwithstanding the lack of one or more local permits by application when the cellular utility can demonstrate that it has provided the local agency with two or more acceptable sites, but the cellular utility is unlikely to obtain a permit for either site which will provide adequate coverage of the cell. To TO: City Council City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Petition to Revoke Ordinance 71.91 (Regarding Cellular Transmission Antennas) DATE: October 16, 1991 PAGE: 4 demonstrate that is unlikely to obtain the needed permit, the cellular utility must show that: 1. One or more local agencies have denied the utility's application for a permit, or 2. One or more local agencies have granted the utility a permit but with conditions as to location or configuration which the utility believes makes it infeasible to provide adequate coverage of the cell, or 3. One or more local agencies has de facto denied the utility's application (bv zoning ordinances. resolutions. unreasonable delays. etc.)" (General Order 159 at p. 8, emphasis added) General Order 159 goes on to touch upon the issue of CEQA compliance by stating that: "For applications for preemptive authority to construct, the lead agency will be: (1) the local or other state agency in those cases where one of them has issued a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR, even if this document identifies an alternate site or configuration as environmentally preferable, unless a different designation has been negotiated between the local agency and the Commission consistent with CEQA Guidelines S 15051(b) -(d). The Commission will function as a responsible agency. (2) the Commission when: (a) a local or other state agency has not begun the CEOA process." (Section VII.C., at p. 14, emphasis added) Accordingly, a utility clearly has the right to petition the Commission for an application for preemptive authority to construct a cellular transmission antenna within the City of Saratoga pursuant to General Order 159 adopted by Interim Opinion dated March 28, 1990. If such an application is submitted, I believe it is clearly preferable for the City to be in a position TO: City Council City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Petition to Revoke Ordinance 71.91 (Regarding Cellular Transmission Antennas) DATE: October 16, 1991 PAGE: 5 to advise the Commission that it had conducted a thorough review and analysis of an application made to the City for discretionary approval to construct the antenna. Even if the discretionary approval was denied, at least the City will be able to submit to the Commission a record of the proceedings that were undertaken in analyzing the application. If, however, the City prohibits all construction of such antenna within the city limits, there will be a greater likelihood that the Commission will grant preemptive authority to construct the proposed antenna. MSR:dsp mnrw \273\memo \cellant.msr Michael S. Riback City Attorney 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 4I3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. -o AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE:November 6 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT.:City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described= Property to be a Public Nuisance Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution declaring weeds growing on certain described property to be a public nuisance. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abatement program administered by the County The County has determined that 689 parcels in Saratoga this year have excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolu- tion setting the public hearing for weed abatement December 4 this year. The County then sends the owners of the parcels notices in- forming them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County; when County abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well. After the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the Coucil felt were invalid. The final steps take place next summer, when the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abatement bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes a resolution declaring liens on those properties. These procedures are the same as those followed for the last several years. Fiscal Impacts: None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to property owners. Attachments: 1. Resolution Motion and Vote: CITY MGR. APPROVA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 0 MEETING DATE: November 6, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Abandonment of Easements 12441 Curry Court (Silverstein) Report Summary: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 4e AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution with exhibits. Motion Vote: CITY MGR. APPROVAL��.Di/��� Recommended Action: Adopt resolution abandoning easements. Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would abandon two utility easements on property owned by Mr. Robert Silverstein at 12441 Curry Court. Mr. Silverstein has requested the abandonment of the easements to clean the title to his property. The affected utility companies have determined that the easements are no longer required for any utility purposes and no longer serve any public purposes. Consequently, the City may satisfy Mr. Silverstein's request by adopting the resolution abandoning the easements. �SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.?--- AGENDA ITEM 611 CITY MGR. APPROVAL MEETING DATE: November 6, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Q; SUBJECT: Recommendation from Public Safety Commission Saratoga Avenue /Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal Recommended Action: 1. Receive and accept recommendations from the Public Safety Commission. 2. Adopt resolution establishing no passing zone on Saratoga Avenue. 3. Adopt resolution prohibiting parking on a portion of Saratoga Avenue. Discussion: To refresh the Council's memory on this matter, the original request for a traffic control device at the intersection of Saratoga and Herriman Aves. was made via a petition presented to the Council last November. The Council forwarded the petition to the Public Safety Commission for a recommendation. After Engineering staff evaluated the request and performed the appropriate warrant studies, the Public Safety Commission deliberated the matter at their May and June meetings and recommended to the Council that a traffic signal be installed. On August 7, the Council considered the recommendation of the Public Safety Commission and deferred making a decision until additional public input could be obtained. The Council referred the matter back to the Public Safety Commission for public hearing. On September 16, the Public Safety Commission conducted a public hearing. Input from the Public hearing was combined with the results of an additional warrant study which was performed by a registered traffic engineer and a revised recommendation was formulated by the Public Safety Commission on October 7. In summary, the Public Safety Commission (and Engineering staff) no longer recommends the installation of a traffic control device at this time. Rather, the Commission endorsed the following recommendations for the intersection. 1. Relocate the existing pedestrian crosswalk across Saratoga Avenue to the intersection and add crosswalks to each of the other two legs of the intersection. All three crosswalks should be marked and considered as school crossings, i.e. painted yellow. 2. School crossing signs should be placed in advance of all three crosswalks. 3. The existing centerline along Saratoga Ave. should be changed to a double yellow centerline (no passing zone) between Douglass Lane and Crestbrook Drive. (See attached resolution.) 4. The northerly side of Saratoga Ave. between Moran Lane and Herriman Ave. should be designated a no parking zone. (See attached resolution.) 5. The School District should continue to be encouraged to find an adult crossing guard to work the intersection during those times when children are walking to and from school. 6. The Sheriff's Department should be requested to regularly perform traffic enforcement along Saratoga Ave. during those times when children are walking to and from school. 7. The City, School District and Sheriff's Department should monitor the situation for 1 -2 months after recommendations 1 -6 are implemented. If the situation does not improve or if an adult crossing guard cannot be found, then the City should consider the installation of flashing yellow lights on the School Crossing signs to be placed on Saratoga Ave. and which would operate when children are walking to and from school. Diagrams illustrating the existing and proposed intersection conditions are attached. In addition, I've attached a copy of the September 30 staff report to the Public Safety Commission which summarizes the input received from the public hearing and also, the results of the second warrant study performed by the registered traffic engineer. Fiscal Impacts: Assuming the Council endorses recommendations 1 -4, approximately $1,500 to modify the intersection and install signs. The cost of an adult crossing guard is estimated at $5,000 to $10,000 per year depending on the rate of pay and the amount of time worked. Attachments: 1. Resolution establishing no passing zone with exhibit. 2. Resolution prohibiting parking with exhibit. 3. Existing intersection conditions. 4. Proposed intersection conditions. 5. Staff report to Public Safety Commission dated September 30. 6. Letter from Donald Bernice Lykee, 14130 Woodview Lane, dated October 25. Motion Vote: 44_ N �B. o'' .Sl ef OwrcSir, ke R si "r 7y ea awedkr =30' EX/ 5 TING E e 4 4 1 v N N 60 Gbfk itr Rocer sign ff B i PROPOSED SCAL 1 =30 a t E' 1. Printed on recycled paper September 30, 1991 TO: FROM: RE: MEMO The Public Safety Commission Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer Proposed Traffic Signal at Saratoga Ave. /Herriman Ave. Discussion: I have reviewed my notes from the public hearing on the proposed traffic signal and the following are the salient comments I gleaned from the remarks of the speakers: Of 15 people who either spoke at the hearing or provided written comments, 9 were against the signal, 3 were in favor, 2 were for a pedestrian actuated signal and 1 was uncertain. 2. The most often traffic signal The problem solved with repeated reasons are: why people spoke against the is one of pedestrian safety and should not be a traffic control device. The signal would increase noise and air pollution in the vicinity of the intersection. The signal may encourage more traffic to divert onto Herriman Ave. The signal would only help to solve a problem that occurs during brief periods in the mornings and afternoons. There are interim, less expensive solutions which could be attempted before a signal is installed. 3. The location of the existing crosswalk should be moved to the intersection. Printed on recycled paper 4. The City should consider installing flashing yellow lights in advance of the intersection which would operate during those times when children are walking to and from school. 5. A separate right turn lane should be added to the Herriman Ave. approach at the intersection. 6. The speed of the traffic along Saratoga Ave. needs to be reduced. 7. The School District should make every effort to find a cross- ing guard to work the intersection when children are walking to and from school. Additionally, I have received a copy of the- Traffic Signal Warrant Study performed by Gay Pang, a registered Traffic Engineer, dated September 18. A copy of the Warrant Study and Mr. Pang's cover letter dated September 27 are also attached. Briefly, Mr. Pang concurs with the results of the previous two warrant studies performed by Engineering staff. As you will recall, the results of both studies were somewhat inconclusive as to whether or not a traffic signal is justified. The results of all three warrant studies suggest that a traffic signal can be justified on the basis of causing an interruption in traffic on Saratoga Ave. in order for traffic on Herriman Ave. to turn onto Saratoga Ave.. However, the traffic signal does not appear to be justified due to either the volume of traffic moving through the intersection, the amount of pedestrian (school children or otherwise) crossing the intersection, or the number of accidents which have occurred at the intersection. Mr. Pang goes on to conclude that although the City can justify the installation of the signal on the basis of the warrant study, such a commitment should not be made until such time as when additional warrants, i.e. those that respond to a need to control the level of activity at the intersection rather than an inconvenience, are satisfied. I might also add that the warrants which are satisfied are not indicative of the reasons why the traffic signal was requested in the first place. Recommendations: As I have previously stated, I do not recommend the installation of this traffic signal at this time. Rather, I recommend the following course of action: 1. Relocate the existing pedestrian crosswalk to the intersection and add crosswalks to each of the other two legs of the inter- section. All three crosswalks should be marked and considered as school crossings, i.e. painted yellow. Printed on recycled paper 2. School Crossing signs should be placed in advance of all three crosswalks. 3. The existing centerline along Saratoga Ave. should be changed to a double yellow centerline between Douglass Lane and Shadow Oaks Way. 4. The northerly side of Saratoga Ave. between Moran Lane and Herriman Ave. should be posted as "No Parking 5. A dedicated left turn pocket from Saratoga Ave. onto Herriman Ave. should be installed. 6. The School District should continue to be encouraged to find an adult crossing guard to work the intersection during those times when children are walking to and from school. 7. The Sheriff's Dept. should be requested to monitor the speed along Saratoga Ave. at the intersection during those times when children are walking to and from school. Diagrams illustrating the existing and proposed intersection conditions are attached. The situation should be monitored for 1 -2 months after the above recommendations are implemented. If the situation does not improve or if an adult crossing guard cannot be found, then the City may want to consider the installation of flashing yellow lights on the School Crossing signs on Saratoga Ave. which would operate when children are walking to and from school. Only as a last resort, do I recommend the installation of a traffic signal. Lastly, I have the following comments on three specific suggestions made at the public hearing: 1. Do not install any curb, berm or other divider between bicycle lanes and vehicle lanes as this is an impediment which poses safety problems for bicyclists. 2. Do not install a separate right turn lane from Herriman Ave. onto Saratoga Ave. as there is insufficient space to do so. 3. Do not install a pedestrian only actuated signal if it is ulti- mately decided to install a signal. It would simply be fool- ish and demonstrate poor planning if a traffic signal were not also vehicular actuated. A pedestrian only actuated signal would not result in significant cost savings over a fully act- uated traffic signal and would provide much less operational flexibility of the intersection. :AY LAWRENCE PANG. C.E..T.E. PO BOX 4255 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040 (415) 948 -1030 PANIq ASSOCIATES CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Mr. Larry I. Perlin City Engineer CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ATTN.: Erman Dorsey Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Saratoga Ave. Herriman Ave. Dear Larry: (I) Estimate of one half of total hourly volumes. SEP 1; 1991 Ci -Y OF SAri TOC, CITY 7NG!Nty OFFICE 9126 September 17, 1991 We have reviewed the traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Herriman Avenue that was performed by City staff. Four warrants are currently satisfied. They are Warrant 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic; Warrant 5 Progressive Movement; Warrant 7 Systems Warrant, and Warrant 9 Four Hour Volume. We requested and received updated approach volumes for Herriman Avenue dated September 11, 1991 and limited to the hours between 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. The Herriman Avenue approach volumes were previously estimated.(l) With the revised approach volumes, Warrants 2, 5, 7 and 9 remain satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. However, based upon the back up data and material presented, we concur with the City's signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Herriman Avenue. The following is a list of the warrants not currently satisfied with what it would take to meet the minimum requirements: Warrant 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume Volume on the highest approach for the minor street must increase such that the lowest critical volume is increased from 82 to 150 or an increase of 68 to satisfy this warrant; volumes during three of the eight selected hours, namely 11AM- 12 noon, 1 -2 PM, and 3 -4 PM must increase by 11 to 68 trips to satisfy this warrant. Warrant 3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume Pedestrian volume crossing the major street must increase such that the lowest critical volume is increased by 147 to satisfy this warrant; pedestrian volumes during all eight selected hours must increase to satisfy this warrant. Warrant 4 School Crossings Volume of school age pedestrians crossing to and from school must be at least 100 during each of the two critical hours or 500 during the entire day to satisfy this warrant. Warrant 6 Accident Experience The number of accidents involving injury or more than $200 property damage must increase by 4 during the selected 12 month period; also it must be determined that the signal will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow to satisfy this warrant. Warrant 8 Combination of Warrants Warrant 1 or Warrant 3 must be satisfied 80% to satisfy this warrant. Warrant 10 Peak Hour Delay Total delay experienced on minor street approach (Herriman Avenue) must equal or exceed four vehicle -hours to satisfy this warrant. AN ASSOCIATES CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume The volume on the major street (Saratoga Avenue) and /or minor street (Herriman Avenue) must increase such that the point plotted for one hour (any four consecutive 15 minute periods) for an average day, falls above the 1 lane and 1 lane curve in Figure 9 -2C of the CalTrans Traffic Manual to satisfy this warrant. The best estimate is 156 on Saratoga Avenue or 44 on Herriman Avenue. In summary, the traffic signal warrant analysis shows the satisfaction of Warrants 2, 5, 7 and 9. From a technical perspective, since four warrants are satisfied, the City of Saratoga would be justified in recommending that a traffic signal be installed. However, if there is considerable opposition to such a proposal, then the City should defer the installation of the traffic signal until such time as either Warrants 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume, Warrant 6 Accident Experience, Warrant 8 Combination of Warrants, or Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume are satisfied in addition to Warrants 2, 5, 7 and 9. Enclosures: Worksheets Very Truly Yours, Gay Pang J DIM ASSOCIATES CIVIL ANO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING WARRANT 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume Major St: Minor St: DIST CO RTE PM SAaATO GA AVE. Q a lt"1 A l i A vE Figure 9.1 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL W CALC CHK Critical Approach Speed mph Critical Approach Speed mp h y -c, r Critical speed of major street traffic 40 mph 1 In built up area of Isolated community of 10,000 pop. 181 URBAN (U) 10096 SATISFIED YES NO 8096 SATISFIED YES NO APPROACH LANES Both Apprcha. Major Street Highest App Minor Street* NOTE Heavier lett turn Itoo 14 1So• %boo .1.0 1400 1See T1 TO 30 To Tt 11W0 1100 1 se p WWII MCA fireiri Immia a movement from M 189 9410 100 TO goo 8 To (00 11 00 To 1200 a/or ncl 9 ed when LT asing is proposed WARRANT 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffi 100% 1 14 SATISFIED YES e NO 8096 SATISFIED YES NO 100 TO hoe goo TO ,00 %000 To 100 NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street 45 r�iJSi.CaaliNt�W� _b 94 Included when LT -p esip 811 4 n s proposed 1, t9 Al t% 1 50 WARRANT 3- Minimum Pedestrian Volume 10096 SATISFIED YES 0 NO 8096 SATISFIED YES NO 1000 1600) 150 120 R 420 (336) 700 (660) (S4) it�' tJSaJI GL= .aart _TO M aioo, Stant Valuate No Median 4' M eddian Ped's On Highest Volume *Wain Xing Maim Street MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Ia0t1 sNOWN IN BRACKETS) IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL Pill DISTANCE TO N/E SD 155 qw Imo 1011. 10 1 NEAREST ESTABUSHED CRWLK MIN. REQUIREMENT f t S/W __ft 0 FULFILLED Yes rid No 0 %Oo To 1lo0 NTS DATE l40o 1 5o. To To tSoo 1{.00 DATE S 9 RURAL (R) 11,00 1100 T• TO %1•o ■`300 Hour HOur The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. T111-10o mini TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND UGHTING Figure 91 B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 School Crossings WARRANT 5 Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES No Not Applicable See School Crossings Wad Sheet DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL N 3000 s 34.00' E 1�1 f, w...1 ON ONE WAY ISOLATED ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC ARE SO FAR APART TH NAY �TOONINQ 4 CONTROL AND ADJACENT SIGNALS SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2-WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT S SPEED A S T PROPO SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING A ERE SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTEA PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM WARRANT 6 Accident Experience SATISFIED YES NO ti NOTE Lett turn accidents can be included when LT- phasing is p p proposed WARRANT 7.Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES it NO Traffic Manual MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 1000 N FULFILLED YES j8[ No 0 AMINO REQUIREMENT ONE WARRANT SATISFIED 8016 WARRANT 1 MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC OR WARRANT 3 MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREQ. ACC WITHIN A 12 IKON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORK a I NSA MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NMOLVING INJURY OR $200 DAMAGE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 3 OR MORE* FULFILLED YES NO VI MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT 800 VEH/HR ENTERING VOLUMES- ALL APPROACHES DURING TYPICAL WEE r)AY PEAK HOUR 1214•_ VEH /HR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 FIRS OF A SATURDAY AND /OR SUNDAY VEH /HR CH ARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC AREAS PRIN CONNECTS A ASS OF PRINCIPLE •CiIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION RURAL H WY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY HAS SURFACE STREET FWY OR EXPWAY RAMP TERMINALS ROUTE ON AN OF APPEARS MAJOR FICUIL PLAN MAJOR ST MINOR ST FULFILLED YES NO ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. _ND YES NO No IN lb IJ O evidence of the need for right of way satisfaction of a warrant is not n ,1 eca essarily justification for a signal Delay, co y sswnment must be shown. IWestion, confusion or other *S. toe traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9..7 Figure 9-1C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES NO t REQUIREMENT WARRANT TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 80% 1 MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 3 MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME FULFILLED YES NO 14 WARRANT 9 Four Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches Malor Sim, 5A R AT 6 A A v e Highest A00roachas Minor Street 14a1Ln1rt41.4 AVE. *Refer to Fig. 9-2A (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -28 (RURAL AR lobo WARRANT 10 Peak Hour Delay 2 or One more Hour 12•188' SATISFIED* YES ofi NO EA S) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. lolls 1011. 8v3 X41 to SATISFIED YES NO 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours fora two -lane approach; and 7 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and 013G1D To OctcO 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES NO WARRANT 11 Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED' YES NO Q( TS- lOC Approach Lanes Both Avon:w wa Major Strom A rt AT OA a v 2 or One more Hour YES NO YES I NO Hiph A00rotichae Mint Street li ai 4 U it v E 'Refer to Fig. 9-2C (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2D (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. icv toot 119 ►yo The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. raffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND UGHTING Major St: Minor St: PART DIST CO TR E P.M. A i(ATCvA Ave Vehicle Volume School Age Pedestrian Crossing Street HE Rfi►MAw1 AVE Critical speed of approach traffic ?40 mph In built up area of isolated community of <10,000 pop. FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) Each of 2 hours u Each of 2 hours 200 40 R 140 40 AND AND Figure 9-1E SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC DATE 5 q CHK DATE 39.6 Critical Approach Speed i mph Critical Approach Speed O mph (tit c p Minimum Requirements PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph PART C la nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) Each of 2 hours Each of 2 hours or per day U 500 100 500 R 350 70 350 Tc T6 CD 5531o3(, 7 7 PART A Vehicle Volume School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street 4t PART B AND Minimum Requirements RURAL (R) URBAN (U) SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES NO SATISFIED YES* NO X SATISFIED YES NO 'T` Mia014E ALL Peotvramtvb Cg•5b1N(a itlitELT A 0.E 4 C‘4400 1 AyE, Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES j? NO 9-9 12.1991 71 1 472-e-aa2-1 6Lfr 1eDCAst-11 lie/144,-Yet q 3 446/ ,../4 k.erni 14-/-11 a-1- 8 6to 3 a...„ A). rrK■OLIZ (.!44)eL 0 Xie/t11. e,ee -z6z_ 7.2 73 a-n rie-S'ied-Aw U1 77 az, 9 9/ e4. 90 7c J eL.C7t_ eiae/Lit a_ e c fr6o 1 7 7 7 /f/V re-Z 1 Q c/ 777 v >eVey a-A,‘ 2 8z s Itol& 3 vto et OL Ct74-9t-c. erz- a,1. mil.- v 9 9/ 95 ?o a.,/1-a--- 61 'o-e-K1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2.4 AGENDA ITEM 13 MEETING DATE: NOV- 6, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Recommended Action: Discussion: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Route 85 Saratoga Creek to Los Gatos Creek: Clarification of Design Issues and Bonnet Way Soundwall 1. Receive as information. 2. Declare City's intention to construct Bonnet Way soundwall. This report is to clarify several design issues regarding MSA 106- 20, Saratoga Creek to Los Gatos Creek. The issues were raised at your previous meeting when you reviewed and approved the final design of the project. The issues which you asked to be clarified are as follows: 1. Soundwalls west of Saratoga Ave., between Saratoga Creek and Saratoga Ave. are 16 feet in height. These are the soundwalls along the Vineyards development on the northerly side of the corridor and Via Real Dr. on the southerly side of the corri- dor and were already approved as part of MSA 106 -21, Saratoga Ave. interchange. The 12 foot walls west of Saratoga Ave. shown on the plans for MSA 106 -20 are merely extensions of the 12 foot walls on the bridge structures which are part of MSA 106 -21. 2. Soundwall B33, the soundwall along the southerly side of the corridor between Saratoga Ave. and Bonnet Way, is 16 feet high and has already been approved as part of MSA 106 -21. 3. Tops of soundwalls and combination soundwall /berms along the southerly side of the corridor east of Quito Rd. will be 16 feet above the freeway profile. The Council has agreed to fund the additional $20 $25,000 the Traffic Authority has estimated it will cost to raise these barriers. The Traffic Authority has agreed to accommodate the City's request through execution of a change order to the construction contract. (See attached letter.) 4. The Quito Rd. overcrossing is 52 feet wide with a 40 foot curb to curb section. The overcrossing is designed to accommodate one lane of traffic in each direction along with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 5. The soundwall along the Paul Masson Winery property and the traffic signal on Saratoga Ave. at the entrance to the Divi- dend Development project (opposite Vineyard Lane) will not be constructed along with the freeway project since delay of the Dividend Development project may not facilitate reimburse- ment of the Traffic Authority for those improvements. Con- sequently, the improvements, which are also conditions of the Tentative Map approval for the Dividend project, will be built by Dividend as part of their project. In addition, I've attached a supplemental report on the Bonnet Way soundwall prepared by Mesiti Miller Engineering dated October 29. The report expands on the information presented in the previous report dated October 9 (also attached) by looking at masonry block soundwalls, sound attenuation characteristics of different soundwall materials, and maintenance issues and costs for different soundwall materials. In summary, the report concludes that: 1. Certain types of masonry block soundwalls could probably be built along Bonnet Way for less than the reimbursement amount of $288,000, although not a wall similar to what is now being built in Saratoga elsewhere along the corridor. 2. Wood, concrete and masonry walls will all mitigate freeway noise equally as well along Bonnet Way. 3. Wood and split -faced masonry block walls will muffle reflective noise from Bonnet Way on the community side of the wall better than concrete or smooth faced masonry block. 4. Maintenance issues for wood, concrete and masonry are similar. Maintenance costs for each material are nominal. Since the City has committed to building a 16 foot high soundwall along Bonnet Way and since it appears the City has several options from which to choose which will provide equivalent sound attenuation as a CALTRANS wall for no additional cost, it is recommended that the Council declare its intention to build the Bonnet Way soundwall and direct staff to notify the Traffic Authority of this decision. If the City commits to build the Bonnet Way wall, the Traffic Authority would agree to transfer funds to the City upon execution of the Co- Operative Agreement between the City and the Authority. The City would then embark on design of the wall by conducting a neighborhood meeting with the Bonnet Way residents to begin selecting wall designs. Fiscal Impacts: The Traffic Athority will reimburse the City $288,000 to build the Bonnet Way wall. An additional $12,000 could be achieved by reducing the height of soundwall B34A (east of Bonnet Way) from 16 feet to 12 feet for the approximate 220 feet of overlap with the Bonnet Way wall. The cost of the Bonnet Way wall can be expected to range from $200,000 $250,000 depending on the specific design of the wall. Any funds saved from the $288,000 reimbursement can be applied to additional freeway mitigations. Attachments: 1. Letter from Traffic Authority dated October 31. 2. Report from Mesiti- Miller Engineering dated October 29. 3. Report from Mesiti Miller Engineering dated October 9. Motion Vote: OCT 31 91 1R, 2,7 TRFFiC. AHTHORI Tv/ BECHTEL COPP F. 1•2 SANTA CLARA COUNTY TPA`ri 4 sa. A t t n tS 1754 Technology e, t-ouitt ,tIn Jose, Colliomia 95110 printed on recycJe0 paper Toe Lbfgiert (408) 453-3777 ao 0 on 0 October 29, 1991 Larry Perlin City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Bonnet Way Sound Wall Supplemental Report Our File No. 91169 Dear Mr. Perlin, MESIT1- MILLER ENGINEERING Civil and Structural Engineering gineering Pursuant to the Saratoga City Council meeting of October 16, 1991 and the associated public discussions, further examination of the noise barrier adjacent to Bonnet Way has been performed. We have proparod this letter as a follow -up to our original letter report dated October 9, 1991 and to summarize the results of our additional efforts. The following issues have been given further attention: 1, Project costs of masonry type noise barriers. 2. Soueld Attenuation characteristics of wood, concrete and masonry noise barriers. 3. Maintenance problems and costs for wood, concrete and masonry noise barriers. Wht,,t we found was: 1. A variety of masonry materials and construction techniques can be used to construct a highway noise barrier. The estimated total cost ranges from $258,000 to 9368,000, 2. There are two sources of noise associated with noise barriers: highway noise and reflected noise. Highway noi$9 attenvatipn is largely dependent pn wall height with choice of wall materials being of little consequence. Conversely, attenuation of reflected noise is largely dependent on wall material, rather than wall height. 3. Maintenance problems such as graffiti and collision damage are common to all walls. Maintenance problems specific to masonry and concrete walls include spelling and exposure /rusting of reinforcing steel. Maintenance problems specific to wood include replacement of excessively warped or checked wood members. Support of our findings follows: 224 Walnut Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95062 408 426 -3186 MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING iLiArakuriu Masonry noise barriers are available from a number of Northern California companies and can be either constructed at the site or prefabricated and shipped to the site. Masonry noise barriers are usually Constructed of individual concrete masonry units set in mortar, reinforced with steel and either partially or fully grouted. Many different textures, colors and patterns of masonry units are available, The estimated turnkey project costs of a variety of masonry barriers are as follows. 1. Prefabricated, flat -faced block 2, Prefabricated, split faced block 3. Site built, fiat -faced block 4. Site built, split faced block $268,000 $295,000 $340,000 $369,000 91169, Page 2 All cost estimates are suitable for preliminary budget consideration only and could vary up to 10 In examining noise barrier performance, one must consider two different sources of noise: highway noise and reflected noise. In this case, the highway noise is that from the proposed highway. Reflected noise is that reflected by the barrier from vehicles driving along Bonnet Way on the community side of the barrier. For a detailed comparison of highway and reflected noise attenuation for masonry, concrete and wood, see Appendix A. It should be noted that for highway noise attenuation, the height and location of the barrier is of primary importance, and for reflected noise attenuation, the barrier material is of primary importance. With respect to sound walls, the material from which the wall is constructed must have a minimum density of five pounds per square foot in order to provide effective attenuation of sound transmission through the wall. The wood noise barrier previously proposed has a density of seven and one half pounds per square foot. It should be noted that after having achieved the minimum density requirement, attenuation of highway noise Is reduced to a function of height and location. This leads to the conclusion that wood, concrete and masonry walls will all perform equally as well with respect to attenuating highway noise, Reflected noise is largely dependent on noise barrier material. Porous or textured materials such as wood or split -faced masonry tend to muffle noise, whereas smooth surfaces such as smooth faced concrete or masonry tend to reflect noise, With respect to wood, masonry and concrete surfaces, wood and split -faced masonry have similar properties and are able to muffle as much as 14 db more noise than a flat -faced masonry or smooth concrete barrier, MAINTENANCE Maintenance issues for concrete, masonry and wood have been investigated and can be summarized as follows: 1. CONCRETE Graffiti may be removed by sandblasting and /or painting. Painting may be possible on the highway side, but should be avoided on the residential side, due to its poor reflective acoustical properties. Due to numerous heating cooling cycles, and /or concrete shrinkage, spalling of concrete is possible. Spalling may be patched with non-shrink grout, although matching the existing finish and color may be difficult. MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING 2. MASONRY 91169, Paga 3 Being similar in nature to concrete, masonry is also prone to spelling under certain conditions. Graffiti may be removed by sand blasting and /or painting, similar to concrete. 3. WOOD The state of Colorado is at the forefront of wood noise barrier design. Maintenance costs contained herein are from the Colorado Department of Highways Engineering Department. Maintenance for their wood walls is 17 cents per linear foot per year. Half of this figure is spent on repairing vehicular damage, which, for the Bonnet Way sound wall, is unlikely, due to the adjacent railroad right -of -way on one side and a substantial landscaped buffer area on the other. Maintenance would therefore be reduced to replacing broken or excessively checked or warped boards and graffiti removal. Graffiti removal could be done using a pressure wash with a flat nozzle. GENOA,. Attached, as Appendix B, is a table prepared by the Federal Highway Administration which shows the lengths of noise barriers constructed in the United States by material type through 1989. As can be seen from the table, masonry block barriers constitute 38% of the barriers constructed, concrete 30%, and wood 17%. Standard practice in the state of Connecticut has been to plant shrubs just adjacent to the bottom of the wall. This not only keeps people away from the wall but also shields graffiti from view. It also decreases the apparent height of the wall. We trus'this letter report satisfies your present needs regarding this project. We look forward to working with you in the design of this wall, Should you have any questions or comments, please call. Respectfully yours, MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING ark esiti Miller Principal Engineer Encl. JRT:MMM:svv cc: Project File HIGHWAY NOISE: APPENDIX A INVESTIGATION OF SOUND WALL PERFORMANCE Sound wall performance is governed by the height of the wall and its proximity to the source of noise and not necessarily the material or density of the material being used. "With a surface density of at least five pounds per square foot, a massively thick barrier has only marginally higher attenuation than an opaque light one. Considering the case in question, the location is fixed, making the height of the wall the governing factor. A sixteen foot wall of either wood, concrete or masonry at the Iocatioh given will reduce the noise level from Highway 85 from 70 db to 50 db at the row of houses closest to the wall. Fifty decibels is the equivalent of a quiet street or the interior of a hospital or bank. The method of calculating the sound levels is shown below: MINIMUM WALL DENSITY 5 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT WALL HEIGHT 16 FEET SOUND FREQUENCY 220HZ SOUND LEVEL 70db SOURCE 01 SOUND 70db 3Dm vrn SOUND WALL 9.s 46m N 2 565 2 (31m 47m 76m) .78 NOISE REDUCTION 20Iog 211(,78) +5db 2Odb TAN9.5' 211 SOUND LEVEL 70db 20db 50db REC!EVCi, .Ur SOUND 50db LONCLUSION APPENDIX A REFLECTED NEf MB RH000 N l E, The amount of sound reflected by vehicles driving on the residential side of the sound wall will be determined by the materials used for construction. Although the sound produced by passing cars is considerable, the reflected sound from the wall is insignificant, Therefore, materials used in the construction of the sound wall will not affect the attenuation to a great degree. A typical example of a single car passing between the sound wall and a house is shown below using three different construction materials. The difference in sound levels at the typical frequency range of vehicle traffic, 220 Hz, is measured in decibels, or db. For every increase of 10 db, the apparent noise level is doubled. For comparison, the noise level of a normal conversation is 55 db, and a typewriter being used is 70 db. The method for calculating sound levels is shown below. SOUND FREQUENCY 220HZ SOUND LEVEL, SINGLE CAR 60d1.) DISTANCE 3m r 4C AeSORr TION COEFFICIENT REFLECTED SOUND 1010 1 OC 9 4Tlr SOUND LOSS DUE TO DISTANCE PROM WALL -6bd FOR EACH 2r WORST CASE 24m OR 3( -6dp) -1 odb TEXTURED WOOD SURFACE p( .19 REFLECTED SOUND 101og14R 3 g 1 13dt, TOTAL SOUND 60db 13db 18db 55db COARSE CONCRETE dt,OCK SuRrACE OC .44 REFLECTED SOUND 10 4�r 3} 4 10db TOTAL SOUND GOdb t 10db ICdb 52db CONCRETE SURFACE t) .010 REF1 rCTCO SOUND 101og 1 4 [Tfoi 515 24db TOTAL SOUND 60db 24db 18db s 66db The total sound of a single car driving past a wood surfaced barrier is 55 db, For a coarse concrete block surface it is 52 db. Both of these values are equivalent to normal conversation or the interior of a hospital. The total sound of a single car driving past a smooth concrete or standard masonry unit surface if 66 db, or equivalent to the interior of a department store. (1) Formulas and quotes are taken from Stein /Reynolds /McGuinness, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings, 7th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1986, Chanter 26. APPENDIX B 1 .4 t 3/ 4 Eie VA, buili N6N6 M uI1IIuij,uPuiIul ,!I r U .1111 )4I, v, nr-,,t 111111000110111Miligilii gala (ta in II A III II 1 11111 1 II III Ili II I 1 1 I 11 BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY NOISE AND AIR QUALITY DIVISION WASHINGTON, D.C. JULY 1990 APPENDIX B2 .3 Table 2 lists the distribution of barriers by type of material. Earth (berm), Masonry block (block), brick, concrete, metal, wood, other materials (e.g., polyurethane) and combinations of materials all have been used to construct barriers. Table 3 lists the 16 States that have constructed Type 11 barriers (i.e., barriers constructed for an existing highway). Ilatar{al Block Concrete /Precast Berm Only Wood /Unspecified Wood /Post i Plank Concrete/Unspecified Metal /Unspecified Wood /Glue Laminated Brick Other Table 2 Total Noise Barrier Length by Material Type Single material Barriers Length In Niles 229.3 147.6 50.5 o 39.2 o 36.4 29.8 27.2 o 25.0 6.9 7.2 $ateriil Total 699.1 Total Combination Barriers Berm/Wood Berm /Concrete Wood/Concrete Concrete /Brick Wood /Metal Metal /Concrete Berm /Block Concrete /Block Wood /Block Berm /Metal Berm/Wood /Block Berm/Wood /Metal Other Length In Milos 22.2 19.0 16.9 22.2 7.4 7.0 6.5 6.3 4.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 10.8 122.4 OCT 31 '31 16:37 TRAFFIC AUTHORITY/BECHTEL CORP. P.2/2 1 L.J. AG:tt PS141,01 \ag\a.gree184,.coe cc H. Haugse r AV ENGINEERING-SC1ENCE, INC. A PAS30 N3 COL4PANT Mr, Will Keraptort Santa Ciarz. County Traffic.. 0 1 ,IthWiy 1754 Tecbnology Drive, Suite 22A San Jose, CA 95110 dr Pit fl A C 'V 41.1 n N. ir)kiR OA U ANL, PASADENA, CA slit P.O. BOX 71C7. PA.SA.DENA. CA cilca 1st wi8) 440.000 gag am 4404105 Tskoc 51-541211 Ci-Ne ENGIMSCI ARIA January 31, 1991 SbjecL Woodet, A,g%tqw.,A Nc:. 184 Dear Mr. Keripton: Per your rectiest, tcwalls Trail ettlissiot). lass of :a 2 V.-I.:D.04,r .502 ),S 2 dB, where th.e Ara astaissivi:. loss :f it ,..1c/ 71 tla or trm%srassion loss Jf a woodeL o k5ai1 s s.e,e,q-„tet 14.1'.it.,(';t6 project 'Je,eacts ii a igwy o s in;.). 1 .0 to 1..5 dB. A wconen dwa vta-0" gaps, !;!,:r °the); ve:(:-.::Ti.gs Jit would proniict the :noise pf!eo:r.nrece sotiadwal lease zn„wazt me ut 818; 444 ,f y-x.1 •rjaor finat this maxter. Sincereiy, LIN '...yr.r Y_IE NCI. (NC Areg Cilaanabee Principal Engineer To Co. Dept. FAX Post .It'" brit d +ax tr1nSYLta memo 7671 r„ of page, From Co. fi•Oreitc.1 1313 u 7 11 3 RA 2 ys [31g zi 0 October 9, 1991 Larry Perlin City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 INTRODUCTION: DESIGN VALUES: OCT 10 1901 CiTy OA RA MESITI- MILLER EN c Civil and Structural Engineering Re: Highway Noise Barrier Adjacent to Bonnet Way Our File No. 91169 Dear Mr. Perlin, At your request, Mesiti Miller Engineering has prepared this letter report summarizing our efforts to date in connection with the above project. The purpose of this study was to explore the alternatives available to the City for construction of a highway noise barrier meeting the following criteria. 1. Barrier shall extend sixteen feet above existing grade for a distance of 1,560 feet. 2. Barrier shall be constructed of materials suitable for use in a residential neighborhood. 3. Barrier shall meet the highway noise attenuation requirements of the Traffic Authority. 4. Barrier shall have a useful service life of at least fifty years. 5. Total project cost, including design and construction can not exceed $288,000. What we found was that for the stated budget figure, the City of Saratoga could choose from several materials constructed in a variety of ways, providing an almost unlimited number of visual appearances. Based on discussions with you and our perceptions of the needs and desires of the neighborhood inhabitants, we believe a natural wood wall offers a warmth of character and aesthetic quality which would be most pleasing. Further details of our efforts to date follow. We have investigated numerous materials and alternative designs for a sixteen foot high highway noise barrier to be located adjacent to the southern edge of the proposed Highway 85 right -of -way, between stations 388 22 and 403 81. The following report specifically addresses costs for two precast concrete noise barriers and two wood noise barriers. Representatives from the "Permapost Products Company" were contacted for wood preservative and wall longevity information. After examining seismic and wind loads, a wind load of 22 PSF was determined to be the governing lateral design load for the wall. All topographical data was taken from sheet L -6 and L -7 of plans by Bissel Karn, Inc., Job CJ 04285 EA 437741. All soils data was taken from a materials report by "Woodward -Clyde Consultants CA 85, Vol. 2A 4- SCI -85 PM 10.2/17.7 Bascom Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard, Sections 14.8 to 14.8.2 and Table 20. From the soils report, a passive soil pressure of 500 PSF /foot, neglecting the top one (1) foot of soil, was obtained. Design strengths for building materials were taken from the 1988 UBC. 224 Walnut Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95062 408 426 -3186 MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING 91169, Page 2 COST ESTIMATES: In order to accurately estimate the range of costs for the wood noise barriers, numerous lumber and hardware suppliers were consulted. Labor costs were determined by a licensed Engineering Contractor retained by us. Material quantities for wood walls were taken from preliminary designs by this office. Prices for concrete noise barriers were obtained from numerous bay area companies specializing in precast concrete noise barriers. All costs estimates are suitable for preliminary budget considerations only. After examining a number of design options, two wood and two precast concrete noise barriers were chosen to be represented in this report. The first wood option consists of horizontal 3 x 8 boards and precast concrete posts at 24' o.c. at a cost of $201,000. The second wood option consists of a herringbone pattern of 3 x 8 planks and precast concrete posts spaced at 24' o.c. at a cost of $236,000. Two different precast concrete walls are examined in this report, ranging in price from $176,000 to $223,000. See attached drawings for all cases. Costs quoted herein are preliminary estimates suitable for budget purposes only. Costs are based on a turnkey project and as such include costs for design development, preparation of construction documents and construction of the wall. WOOD WALLS: ADVANTAGES: DISCUSSION Given the proximity to an established neighborhood, aesthetics should play a major role in the selection of building materials. The warm tones and textural quality of real wood could provide an attractive and harmonious addition to the neighborhood. A wood wall would be much easier to repair or replace when damaged. The wood wall is made primarily from a renewable resource. The quality of wood required for a soundwall would not need to come from old growth forests. In fact, glue laminated timbers produced from tree farms may be the most economical choice. DISADVANTAGES: Wood, when subjected to contact with the ground and exposed to weather, is subject to decay. However, the USDA Forest Products Laboratory has, after extensive testing, determined that preservative treated wood will have a useful service life in excess of fifty years. PRECAST CONCRETE WALL: ADVANTAGES: Precast concrete walls can be cast in a large variety of patterns and textures. Properly constructed, precast panels should have excellent durability. DISADVANTAGES: Although precast concrete walls can be a cost effective solution to situations of this nature, it should be noted that precast walls of this height may be inappropriate in an established residential setting, due to their cold impersonal nature. Precast walls are also difficult and expensive to repair when damaged, and the original texture is hard to match. The reinforcing in the panels can rust, promoting unsightly spalling of the adjacent concrete. MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING 91169, Page 3 Several other wall materials, such as masonry, steel and aluminum were investigated, but, due to their perceived poor aesthetic qualities and higher costs, were excluded from this report. We believe that the walls represented in this report offer cost effective solutions to the City of Saratoga's noise barrier requirements, and the costs and aesthetics of the wood walls make them an exceptional value. There are many similar wood walls in Colorado, the Northwestern and Eastern States that are performing well in much more demanding environments. Many aspects of our design were taken from the National Forest Products Association's "Guide Specifications for Wood Highway Noise Barriers" and incorporate accepted standards of wood noise barrier design. We trust this letter report satisfies your present needs regarding this project. We look forward to working with you in the design of this wall. Should you have any questions or comments, please call. Respectfully yours, MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING Mark Mesiti Miller Principal Engineer Encl. cc: File JRT:MMM:svv SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 6, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Special Event Permit Request for June 28, 1992, for Blossom Festival Recommended Motion: 1. Determine whether or not to approve relocation of Blossom Festival to Big Basin Way which will require closure of State Highway. 2. If council approves, then conditionally approve the Blossom Festival on June 28, 1992, authorizing the Assistant to the City Manager to issue a Special Event Permit once the conditions of the City's Special Event Ordinance have been satisfied; authorize staff to apply to CalTrans for an encroachment permit to close Big Basin Way from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on June 28, 1992. Report Summary: The Saratoga Village Association has requested a Special Event Permit to hold the 1992 Blossom Festival in the Village necessitating the closure of Big Basin Way. Since 1988 the festival has been held in Wildwood Park, but in 1985 and 1987 it was held in the Village and the state highway was closed. The activity proposed is similar to the Celebrate Saratoga street dance, but would be held during the day, on a Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Local restaurants and food merchants would be providing food, wine and beer, and there would also be entertainment and crafts vendors. For the last two years, the City has requested closure of Big Basin Way for two events each year the Street Dance and the Saratoga Parade. The Council may wish to consider at this time the policy issue of how many times a year it is feasible or desirable to ask CalTrans for closure of the state highway. If the Council wishes to grant permission to the Village Association to relocate the Festival, consideration should also be given to the extent to which the City staff would be involved. The Festival coordinators can be required to contract for all the barricades and for setting up and clean up of the area, or City staff could be used. It is estimated that the cost would be approximately $1,000.00 (which is the cost of 5 employees for 8 hours each)to use City staff to put out the barricades, warning and detour signs, and clean up debris after the event. Staff cost is also involved whenever a large event is held in Wildwood Park, as it is then necessary to have a City employee available to clean up trash before and after the event and monitor cleanliness of the restrooms. This results in a cost to the City of approximately $200.00 for a one day event in Wildwood Park. Fiscal Impact: Depends on whether or not all City expense will be reimbursed by Saratoga Village Association. Attachments: Permit Application Map Motion and Vote: 2 OCT. 18, 1991 CAROLYN KING TO CITY MANAGER CITY OF SARATOGA SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS A. "BLOSSOM FESTIVAL" (ART /WINE /FOOD /ENTERTAINMENT) B. SUNDAY JUNE 28TH 1992 FROM 11 AM TO 5 PM. C. SARATOGA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION D. BILL CARLSON (CHAIRPERSON) C/0 BELLA MIA RESTAURANT 14503 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARILYN WHITE (CO HOME 867 -9417 20811 CANYON VIEW DR. SARATOGA, CA 95070 E. $60.00 FILING FEE ENCLOSED. F. $250.00 REFUNDABLE CLEAN DEPOSIT ENCLOSED. G. APPROXIMATELY 2,000 TO 5.000 AT ANY ONE TIME. H. ITEMS; (1) (2) (3), SEE ENCLOSED MAP #1. I. SANITATION (SEE ENCLOSED MAP #2). J. FOOD /BEER PROVIDED BY LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND FOOD MERCHANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS FOR HANDLING AND SERVING FOOD AND BEVERAGE. (SEE ENCLOSED MAILING LIST OF FOOD VENDORS). K. LOCATION OF VENDORS (SEE MAP #1). DESCRIPTION OF SALES ARE; FOOD /WINE BEER /ART CRAFTS. IDENTIFICATION OF VENDORS ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL MAY OF 1992 WHEN ENTRY FORMS ARE RETURNED. L. WORK 741- 5115 /HOME 378 -3538 ENTERTAINMENT (SEE MAP #1) NOTIFICATION OF VENDORS (SEE MAILING LIST FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE llhS�•F �q INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (SIGNED AND ENCLOSED). REIMBURSEMENT OF COST TO THE CITY. BILL TO: SARATOGA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION" C/0 BELLA MIA RESTAURANT 14503 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CA 95070 ATTN. BILL CARLSON Q. EVENT MAP (ENCLOSED) M. N. 0. P. #J ABOVE). SARATOGA BLOSSOM FESTIVAL R. HIGHWAY 9 (BIG BASIN WAY) FROM SAR /SUNV'L RD. TO 5TH ST. WE REQUEST AN APPLICATION FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM CALTRANS, TO CLOSE BIG BASIN WAY ON JUNE 28TH 1992 FROM 10 AM TO 6 PM FOR THIS EVENT. PLEASE SEND TO; BILL CARLSON C/0 BELLA MIA RESTAURANT 14503 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA; CA 95070 741 -5115 IF ANY OTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED PLEASE CONTACT THE ABOVE PERSON. THANK YOU. BILL CARLSON CHAIRPERSON cc: S.V.A. PRES. BOARD MEMBERS M. WHITE SHERIFF (WESTSIDE STATION) 1LA6OS4OM FESTIVAL 7 4 s a 99 101 E 09 s; t MAP #1 BIG BASIN WAY xxx Street Closed Parking Festival Area Oak Street b p x A 65 inn! 49 Hvft--- FRS SAg• 145. 11-5 pm, Traffic Detour N .1 Emergency Right of way E Entertainment SARATOGA BLOSSOM FESTIVAL Printed on recycled paper. TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: November 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Design Review and Residential Development Standards Ordinance Revision Background The City Council held a public hearing on September 18, 1991 on revisions to the design review and residential development standards recommended by the Planning Commission. Following the hearing, the ordinance was amended in several places and resubmitted for first reading and introduction on October 2, 1991. At that meeting, the City Council concluded that several further modifications were desirable, some of which would modify or reverse positions taken by the City Council on September 18th. Because of these changes, the City Council decided to readvertise and rehear the ordinance in its amended form on November 6, 1991, to allow interested parties to present testimony on the revised ordinance. Analysis The revisions made by the City Council on September 28th were summarized in the Planning Director's report of September 27, 1991 (attached). These revisions: 1. Deleted the proposed two -story height penalty. 2. Created an asymptotic curve to determine maximum house size on large lots, removing the proposed 7,200 sq. ft. cap. 3. Increased the minimum lot size for new corner lots. M E M O R A N D U M lea.e.•7,4 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman 4. Revised setback standards which would apply to newly created corner lots. 5. Revised the allowable coverage in hillside districts by allowing up to 20,000 sq. ft. of coverage excluding driveways. On October 2nd, the City Council agreed to revise the following standards: 1. Reinstitute the two -story height limit penalty in the R -1 zones on a modified basis (1.5% rather than 2 and provide for exceptions. 2. Cap house size at 8,000 sq. ft. in the non -R -1 districts. 3. Revise the allowable coverage in non -R -1 districts to a maximum of 25% or 15,000 sq. ft. exclusive of driveways. The revised ordinance makes these changes as follows: S15- 11.080 allowable coverage A zone. S15- 13.080 allowable coverage HC -RD zone. S15- 14.090 allowable coverage NHR zone. S15- 45.030(d), (e) cap on house size in non -R -1 zone district. S15- 45.030(f) height limit penalty with exceptions in the R -1 districts. Recommended Actions: 1. Open the public hearing and take testimony. 2. Close the hearing. 3. Determine if further modifications are in order. 4. Introduce the ordinance as revised. Attachments: 1. Planning Director Report 9/27/91 2. Revised Ordinance 3. Minute excerpts from 10/2/91 HRP /dsc Printed on recycled paper. Recommended Motion: Summary of Revisions: Discussion of Revisions: M E M O R A N D U M 1. Delete the two -story height penalty. 3. Increase minimum lot size for corner lots. 1. The two story height limit has been deleted. 13777 FRI.'ITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (4081867-3438 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director DATE: September 27, 1991 SUBJECT: Revisions to Draft Design and Residential Development Standards COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monza Francis Stutzman Staff recommends that the City Council review the changes prepared in response to previous Council direction, adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce the ordinance. At its September 18, 1991 hearing, the City Council directed the following changes to the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission: 2. Delete the 7,200 sq. ft. cap and consider an asymptotic curve to determine house size for larger lots. 4. Revised corner setback standards should apply to new subdivisions only. 5. Consider a sliding scale for coverage for hillside zone districts. 2. The 7,200 sq. ft. ceiling for the hillside zones, NHR and HC- RD has been deleted. House size maximums for the R -1 zones (R -1- 10,000 through R -1- 40,000) are retained as prescribed in the current ordinance. 7,200 sq. ft. is the maximum size home in the R-1-40,000 zone district found in the current ordinance and is in the recommended ordinance. Staff revised the house size formula to increase the allowable square footage per 1,000 from 5 sq. ft. to 10 sq. ft. for large parcels over two acres. Lots with a net site area of 80,000 sq. ft. or greater would add 10 sq. ft. of house size per 1,000 up to 20 acres. At 20 acres, square footage would increase by 5 square feet per 1,000 sq. ft. of net lot area. This formula would allow a 14,000 sq. ft. home on a 20 acre parcel. 3. Lot sizes required for corner lots has been increased as shown in the following table: District Lot (Exist) Lot (Exist) Lot (Proposed) R -1- 10,000 10,000 11,500 12,000 R -1- 12,000 12,500 14,000 15,000 R -1- 15,000 15,000 15,000 18,000 R -1- 20,000 20,000 20,000 24,000 R -1- 40,000 40,000 40,000 48,000 *Corner lots are 20% greater in size than Interior lots. 4. The revised corner lot standards recommended by the Planning Commission have been revised to apply only to lots created after the effective date of this ordinance. Existing infill lots would retain the same setbacks as found in the current ordinance. 5. Staff has developed a sliding scale to increase the allowable impervious coverage for hillside lots. Essentially lots larger than two acres are provided with an additional 50 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. Staff points out that the downward adjustment in coverage was recommended to compensate for the deletion of driveways from coverage calculations. The purpose was to retain the same allowable coverage as presently permitted. The additional coverage allowed for lots greater than 2 acres would liberalize the current standard by allowing more of the lot to cover an is allowed in the current ordinance. Steph n Emilie Planning Director Attachments: 1. Revised Ordinance 2. Negative Declaration Interior Corner Corner ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISION OF SITES, DESIGN REVIEW, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, SETBACKS AND GRADING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined that the pro- liferation of new construction in the City's hillside districts has the potential to undermine the City's objective to preserve the unique Saratoga character; and WHEREAS, the trend to reconstruct homes in developed neigh- borhoods poses distinct problems of compatibility, privacy and preservation of the existing neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, the City periodically reviews the effectiveness of its design review regulations and the last review occurred in 1987; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City's General Plan is to preserve the community's unique residential character by promoting con- struction that is compatible with the City's sensitive terrain and established neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the existing regula- tions pertaining to the house size, setbacks, coverage and grad- ing require revision to advance the City's General Plan goals. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 06.340 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 06.340 Height "Height" means the vertical distance from the highest point of a structure to the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by a fill; provided, however, that for the purposes of measuring height, chimneys, flagpoles and radio and television aerials shall not be considered a part of the structure. In the case of fences, walls and hedges, the height thereof shall be that side having the greatest distance as measured by a vertical line from the highest point of the fence, wall or hedge to a point directly below at either the natural grade or the finished grade, whichever such grade is lower. Where a fence is con- structed upon, or approximately parallel to and within two feet 1 r from, a retaining wall, the height thereof shall be the combined height of the fence and the retaining wall, as measured from the top of the fence to the bottom of the retaining wall in the manner prescribed herein. SECTION 2: Section 15- 06.655 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 06.655 Story; multi -story (a) Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling or roof next above. Basements which are located entirely below grade are excluded from being considered a story. SECTION 3: Section 15- 11.050 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 11.050 Subdivision of sites (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provid- ed in Paragraph (b) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within an A district shall contain a minimum net site area based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Net Site Average Net Site Slope Area Slope Area 10 or less 5.00 24 10.40 11 5.20 25 11.00 12 5.40 26 11.80 13 5.60 27 12.60 14 5.80 28 13.40 15 6.00 29 14.20 16 6.40 30 15.00 17 6.80 31 16.00 18 7.20 32 17.00 19 7.60 33 18.00 20 8.00 34 19.00 21 8.60 35 or more 20.00 22 9.20 23 9.80 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.030 of this Chapter. (b) Increase in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City deter- mines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions or geologic hazards. 2 SECTION 4: Section 15- 11.080 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 11.080 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in an A district shall be as follows: (a) The maximum coverage shall be twenty -five percent (25 or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 5: Section 15- 11.090 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 11.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) feet or twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet or ten percent (10 of the lot width, whichever is greater; (c) 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 (25 percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater. SECTION 6: A new Section 15- 11.160 is added to Article 15 -11 of the City Code, to read as follows: 815- 11.160 Grading on hillside lots The combined cut and fill of any grading on a hillside lot shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following findings: (a) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve reasonable vehicular access to the proposed development, and (b) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected, and 3 (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain, and (d) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography, and (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the promi- nence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. SECTION 7: Section 15- 12.050 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 12.050 Site Area The minimum net site area in each R -1 district shall be as follows: District R- 1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Interior Lot 10,000 sf. 12,500 sf. 15,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Corner Lot 12,000 sf. 15,000 sf. 18,000 sf. 24,000 sf. 48,000 sf. 815- 12.080 Site coverage District Coverage 4 45% 45% 40% 35% 30% Flag Lot 20,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 40,000 sf. Hillside Lot 40,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 40,000 sf. 40,000 sf. SECTION 8: Section 15- 12.080 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: The maximum site coverage in each R -1 district shall be as set forth in the following table. In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turn around area for such spaces or required for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 9: Section 15- 12.090 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 12.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) 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 Front Yard R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 (b) 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 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. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 30 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 width, or the dis- tance 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. (d) Side 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 ten 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 District R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Interior Exterior Side Yard Side Yard 10 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 12 ft. 25 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. (e) Rear 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 of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story Multi -story District Rear Yard Rear Yard 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 Rear Yard Rear Yard 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: Single -story Multi -story District Rear Yard Rear Yard 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 6 dimension may 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. SECTION 10: A new paragraph (h) has been added to Section 15- 13.020 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code to read as follows: (h) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open spaces. SECTION 11: A new paragraph (1) has been added to Section 15- 13.030 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code to read as follows: (1) Cluster developments in accordance with Section 15- 13.060(c). SECTION 12: A new Paragraph (e) is added to Section 15- 13.040 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code, to read as follows: (e) Quantity of grading. The combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excava- tion for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following find- ings: (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected; and (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and (4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and (5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the promi- nence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. SECTION 13. Section 15- 13.050 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 14. Section 15- 13.060 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 7 S15- 13.060 Subdivision of sites (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provid- ed in paragraph (b) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within an HC -RD district shall con- tain a minimum net site area based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Net Site Average Net Site Slope Area Slope Area 0 or less 2.00 26 3.42 1 2.03 27 3.52 2 2.07 28 3.62 3 2.10 29 3.73 4 2.14 30 3.85 5 2.17 31 3.96 6 2.21 32 4.09 7 2.25 33 4.24 8 2.29 34 4.39 9 2.34 35 4.55 10 2.38 36 4.72 11 2.43 37 4.90 12 2.48 38 5.10 13 2.53 39 5.32 14 2.58 40 5.56 15 2.63 41 5.82 16 2.69 42 6.10 17 2.75 43 6.41 18 2.81 44 6.96 19 2.87 45 7.14 20 2.94 46 7.58 21 3.01 47 8.06 22 3.09 48 8.62 23 3.16 49 9.25 24 3.25 50 10.00 25 3.33 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of this Chapter. (b) Increase in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City deter mines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions'or geologic hazards. (c) Clustering of lots. The Planning Commission may ap- prove a use permit for a subdivision having lots smaller than the size required under Paragraph (a) of this Section, if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The reduction in lot size is for the purpose of clus- tering building sites in order to dedicate, in fee, open 8 space accessible by the public which may contain recreation- al facilities, including but not limited to, equestrian and hiking trails, as permitted in Section 15- 13.020(h). (2) The reduction in lot size is offset by an equal or greater area of land which is dedicated to the public as permanent open space. (3) The cluster development reduces the gross development area which shall include but not be limited to grading, streets, driveways, main structures, accessory structures and impervious coverage so as to minimize, to the extent possible, views of such area from public lands, streets and highways. (4) No single lot has a net site area of less than 20,000 square feet. (5) The total number of lots into which the property is being subdivided shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: A= S= 9 1 0.5 .008S Where: A the net site area per dwelling unit. The average slope of a lot or parcel shall be determined according to the following formula: 0.00229 IL A Where: S the average slope of the lot in percent I the contour interval in feet L the combined length of contour lines in feet A the net site area of the parcel in acres (6) The size of each unit shall be determined in relation to the lot on which it is located and the average slope of the site, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Design Review Ordinance Section 15- 45.030. In no case shall a single unit exceed 7,200 square feet in area. (7) The clustering of building sites will result in greater preservation of the natural terrain. (8) The use permit approved by the Planning Commission in- cludes specified standards which may deviate from those contained in this Article as follows: i) length of driveway; ii) reduction in building height, iii) reduction in allowa- ble floor area, iv) reduction in site coverage, v) increase in site dimensions, and vi) increase in setbacks. (9) The clustered development shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system. (10) No further subdivision shall be permitted for any land for which a use permit has been granted for a cluster devel- opment by the Planning Commission. SECTION 15. Section 15- 13.080 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 13.080 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in an HC -RD district shall be as follows: (a) The maximum coverage shall be twenty -five percent (25 or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 16. Section 15- 13.090 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815 13.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (3 0) feet or twenty (20%) percent 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 thirty -five (3 5) 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) 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 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. 10 e SECTION 17: A new paragraph (h) has been added to Section 15- 14.030 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code to read as follows: (h) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open spaces. SECTION 18: A new paragraph (k) has been added to Section 15- 14.040 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code to read as follows: (k) Cluster developments in accordance with Section 15- 14.070(c). SECTION 19: Paragraph (g) of Section 15- 14.050 in Article 15- 14 of the City Code is amended as follows: (g) Grading. The combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following findings: (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected; and (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and (4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and (5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the promi- nence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. SECTION 20: Section 15- 14.060 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 21: Section 15-14.070 in Article 15-14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 14.070 Subdivision of sites (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provid- ed in Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within the NHR district shall contain a minimum net site area based upon the average 11 slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Net Site Average Net Site Slope Area Slope Area 0 or less 2.00 26 3.42 1 2.03 27 3.52 2 2.07 28 3.62 3 2.10 29 3.73 4 2.14 30 3.85 5 2.17 31 3.96 6 2.21 32 4.09 7 2.25 33 4.24 8 2.29 34 4.39 9 2.34 35 4.55 10 2.38 36 4.72 11 2.43 37 4.90 12 2.48 38 5.10 13 2.53 39 5.32 14 2.58 40 5.56 15 2.63 41 5.82 16 2.69 42 6.10 17 2.75 43 6.41 18 2.81 44 6.96 19 2.87 45 7.14 20 2.94 46 7.58 21 3.01 47 8.06 22 3.09 48 8.62 23 3.16 49 9.25 24 3.25 50 10.00 25 3.33 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of this Chapter. (b) Increase in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City deter- mines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions of geologic hazards. (c) Clustering of lots. The Planning Commission may ap- prove a use permit for a subdivision having lots smaller than the size required under Paragraph (a) of this Section, if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The reduction in lot size is for the purpose of clus- tering building sites in order to create dedicated open space accessible by the public which may contain recreation- al facilities, including but not limited to, equestrian and hiking trails, as permitted in Section 15- 13.020(h). (2) The reduction in lot size is offset by an equal or 12 greater area of land which is dedicated to the public as permanent open space. (3) The cluster development reduces the gross development area which shall include but not be limited to grading, streets, driveways, main structures, accessory structures and impervious coverage so as to minimize, to the extent possible, views of such area from public lands, streets and highways. (4) No single lot has a net site area of less than 20,000 square feet. (5) The total number of lots into which the property is being subdivided shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: A= 0.5 .008S Where: A the net site area per dwelling unit. The average slope of a lot or parcel shall be determined according to the following formula: 0.00229 IL S= 13 A Where: S the average slope of the lot in percent I the contour interval in feet L the combined length of contour lines in feet A the net site area of the parcel in acres (6) The size of each unit shall be determined in relation to the lot on which it is located and the average slope of the site, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Design Review Ordinance Section 15- 45.030. In no case shall a single unit exceed 7,200 square feet in area. (7) The clustering of building sites will result in greater preservation of the natural terrain. (8) The use permit approved by the Planning Commission in- cludes 'specified standards which may deviate from those contained in this Article as follows: i) length of driveway; ii) reduction in building height, iii) reduction in allowa- ble floor area, iv) reduction in site coverage, v) increase in site dimensions, and vi) increase in setbacks. (9) The clustered development shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system. SECTION 22: Section 15- 14.090 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 815- 14.090 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in the NHR district shall be as follows: (a) The maximum coverage shall be twenty -five percent (25 or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded. SECTION 23: Section 15- 14.100 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: S15- 14.100 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) 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 (60) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, 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 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. SECTION 24. Section 15- 45.030 in Article 14 -45 of the City Code is amended to read-as follows: 815- 45.030 Allowable floor area (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "allowa- ble floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof), plus any accessory structures. For purposes of calculating allowable floor area, any space with an interior height of fif- 14 teen (15) feet or greater shall be doubled. The allowable floor area is based upon the size and slope of the lot and the height of the main structure to be constructed or existing thereon as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (b) Maximum standards. The standards set forth in this Section are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is neces- sary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (c) Slope adjustment. If the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent (10 the net site area of the lot shall be reduced by a percentage amount based upon the average slope and calculated as follows: Average slope Percentage of Net Site of the lot Area to be Deducted 10.01 20% 20.01 30% Over 30% *Where the average slope is a fractional number it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (d) Floor area standards. After reducing the net site area by the amount required for the slope adjustment under Paragraph (c) above, if any, the floor area standard for the lot shall be determined in accordance with the table set forth below: Size of Lot (net site area) 5,000 10,000 sq. ft. 10,001 15,000 sq. ft. 15,001 40,000 sq. ft. 15 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent of slope over 10 30% plus 3% for each 1 percent of slope over 20 60% Floor area Standard 2,400 sq. ft. plus 160 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq. ft.* 3,200 sq. ft. plus 170 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq. ft.* 4,050 sq. ft. plus 78 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq. ft.* 40,001 80,000 sq. ft. 80,001 200,000 sq. ft. 200,000 6,000 sq. ft. plus 20 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq. ft.* 8,000 sq. ft. is the max mum allowable square footage.* *Where division of the net site area by 1000 results in a frac- tional number the product shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Zone District R- 1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 HC -RD, NHR A 6,800 sq. ft. plus 10 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 80,000 sq. ft.* (e) Maximum floor area allowed for R -1, NHR, HCRD A Zone districts. The maximum allowable floor area shall be as pre- scribed in the following table: Maximum floor area 4,400 4,830 5,220 6,000 7,200 8,000 (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 maximum building height exceeding 18 feet 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 15- 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. 16 SECTION 25. Section 15- 45.030(d) of the City Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 26. Section 15- 45.040 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 45.040 Setbacks (a) Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure, located within an R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500 or R -1- 15,000 district will exceed eighteen (18) feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of height in excess of eight- een (18) feet. SECTION 27. Section 15- 45.080 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 45.080 Design Review Findings The Planning Commission shall not grant design review ap- proval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural envi- ronment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. 17 (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design Policies and Techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. SECTION 28. Section 15- 70.020 is amended to read as follows: 815- 70.020 Authority to grant variances (a) The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the approving authority under this Article with power to grant vari- ances from the regulations prescribed in this Chapter with re- spect to site area, site frontage, width and depth, and coverage, setbacks for front yards, side yards and rear yards, allowable floor area, height of structures, distance between structures, signs, off street parking and loading facilities, fences, walls and hedges, and alteration or expansion of non conforming struc- tures, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in this Article. (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: (1) The pads were graded pursuant to an approved tentative map, recorded final map and approved grading plan, consist- ent with the final map; and (2) The location of the building site was an important factor in approving the subdivision, as demonstrated by such evidence as supplemental site plans, discussion in staff reports, or public hearing minutes, applicable environmental documents, adopted findings and a resolution approving the project and in adopted conditions of approval. The Planning Director shall determine the applicability of this subsection. The Director's decision shall be subject to appeal pursuant to Section 2- 05.030. Relief granted under this subsection does not relieve the project from other applicable requirements of this chapter. SECTION 29. Section 16- 15.210 in Article 16 -15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 816- 15.210 Section 7018 added to Appendix Chapter 70 concerning general provisions Section 7018 is added to Appendix Chapter 70 of the Building 18 Code, to read as follows: Sec. 7018: General Provisions (a) Restricted hours. Unless specifically exempted, grad- ing will be restricted to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The building official may grant an exemption upon his determination of an emergency. (b) Dust and dirt control. Graded surfaces shall be wetted or suitably contained to prevent public nuisance from dust or spillage on City streets or adjacent properties. Equip- ment, materials and roadways on the site shall be used in a manner or treated to prevent excessive dust conditions. (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. (f) Special precautions. If the building official deter- mines by inspection that the nature of the formation is such that further —work as authorized by the existing permit is likely to endanger any property or public way, the building official may, as a condition of work, require reasonable safety precautions to avoid the likelihood of danger. Such measures as flatter exposed slopes, additional drainage facilities, berms, terracing, compaction, cribbing or in- stallation of plant materials for erosion control may be required. If storm damage is anticipated, work may be stopped until temporary planting, structures or other tempo- 19 rary measures have been taken to control erosion and protect adjoining property. (g) Damaging graded lands. No person shall directly or indirectly damage or destroy any ground cover, planting, berms, drains, drainage terraces, ditches, swales, riprap or other drainage structures and erosion controls which are planted or constructed pursuant to this Code, or in accord with any of the regulations or requirements of the building official or the Planning Commission, or pursuant to any site development plan filed in accord with the Subdivision Ordi- nance of the City. (h) Compliance with other ordinances. The building offi- cial shall not issue a grading permit for any grading as a building lot or site unless all proposed uses shown on the grading plans for the lot or site will comply with all applicable provisions of both the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City, and with all other provi- sions of this Code, or unless such grading and the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan. Any grading permit issued in violation of this Section shall be void and of no force and effect. SECTION 30. A new Section 16- 15.220 is added to Article 16 -15 of the City Code, to read as follows: S16- 15.220 General requirement for grading permit Notwithstanding any provision of the Building Code to the contrary, a grading permit shall be required for any cut or fill exceeding a quantity of ten cubic yards, or any increase or decrease in the elevation of any portion of a lot by more than one foot, except for changes in elevation for the construction or installation of 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. SECTION 31. 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 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 32. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. 20 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 1991, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 21 City Council Minutes 7 October 2, 1991 F. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising Design and Residential Development Standards (with the associated Negative Declaration) (first reading and introduction) (continued from 9/18) City Manager Peacock stated staff was directed to make changes to the Ordinance and the changes are included in the amendment to the draft. Planning Director Emslie noted technical changes to the Ordinance. Councilmember Monia noted he has several reconsiderations regarding the Ordinance after receiving input from the Planning Commission. He suggested when there is a major zoning change they should have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Councilmember Stutzman stated he had problems with deleting the cap, he feels the house size should not exceed 9,000 s.f. regardless of the size of the lot. He noted the community does not want these huge homes. Utilities must also be taken into consideration and feels the city does need to establish a cap. Councilmember Clevenger stated she is not in favor of a cap. She feels one large house is better than two small houses on a piece of property. Councilmember Anderson stated she does not support the cap. She stated if a property owner has enough land then a large home should be allowed rather than subdividing. Councilmember Monia stated that each zoning district has a cap which seems to work. He noted the cap has been reduced as a result of complaints. He stated the cap should be consistent with other ordinances. He noted 7200 s.f. is acceptable, but'would also accept a higher cap. If prominence becomes an issue there are ordinances to deal with these problems. Mayor Kohler agreed with Councilmember Anderson regarding the asymptotic curve describing the relatioship betwen size of house and size of lot. He suggested reducing the number of square feet for every 1000 s.f. over 80,000 s.f. or have a cap. Councilmember Clevenger stated, given the two choices, she would prefer a cap, although she feels a cap is too restrictive and will be changed by a future Council. Councilmember Anderson spoke in favor of working with Mayor Kohler regarding the asymptotic curve. Councilmember Stutzman stated most of the restrictions will apply to the hillside areas and the issue is protecting the environment. He stated large houses will be visible and the amount of excavation must be taken into consideration. Councilmember Monia stated the first priority is the environment, then the development of the property and feels the cap will address both issues. Councilmember Anderson suggested tightening up the asymptotic curve rather than an absolute cap. MONIA /STUTZMAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENT OF 8000 S.F. Councilmember Clevenger stated she would vote against the cap. Mayor Kohler stated he would be willing to go to 8380 s.f. asymptotically and then have a cap. Councilmember Anderson stated she is opposed to this and suggested that property owners with large lots should be allowed large homes. City Attorney Riback informed the Council as this is not a public hearing changes should be directed to staff and then come back for a City Council Minutes 8 October 2, 1991 public hearing with the modifications. Councilmember Clevenger stated there are areas in the hills which would accommodate large homes. She feels precluding the option for large homes is too restrictive, flexibility is needed. -*The above motion was carried 3 -2 (Clevenger, Anderson opposed) Councilmember Stutzman stated that the revised corner setback standards should apply to existing lots as well as newly created lots. Mr. Peacock explained if the setback requirements are changed on existing lots, non- conforming lots are created, a practice which should be avoided. Planning Director Emslie stated that if this is applied to existing lots they will be penalized. Mayor Kohler stated the impervious surface limit is too high. Councilmember Anderson suggested that Item G be heard at this time, because of school children present for this particular hearing. The Council agreed. G. Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety Improvements in and around Saratoga Avenue /Fruitvale Avenue intersection, including letter from Angus Huang. City Manager Peacock reiterated comments from the staff report. Councilmember Clevenger agreed with the staff report, she felt the staff report addressed the needs of the safety improvements. Ms. Madeline Chiavetta, Chardonnay Ct., presented photos to the Council. She stated it is important to get the bike path maintained. She requested that the City talk to the people who disk the field, to do it at times when children are not going to and from school. She suggested city activities be scheduled at times when children are not going to and from school. She noted they have talked to parents regarding car pooling. Councilmember Anderson stated the Congestion Management Plan will mandate the cotlhge to institute car pooling and noted the Council will work with her. Ms. Chiavetta requested the police be at the intersection for the next two weeks. Mark Chiavetta thanked the Council for the crossing guard as now it is safer to ride his bike to and from school. Douglas Leverich noted that last year when riding his bike he had to dodge traffic. This year is much better now that the crossing guard is there. He thanked the Council. Scott Simms noted he rides his bike to school and feels safer now. He noted he had observed 500 cars turning right from Fruitvale onto Saratoga Ave. between 3 -3:30 p.m. Scott Peterson noted that he had observed 200 cars turning from Scotland onto Saratoga Ave. between 3 -3:30 p.m. He stated the crossing guard is an improvement for the safety of the bikers and hopes improvements will continue. Jeff Randese thanked Council for the crossing guard. He stated he observed 490 cars going east on Fruitvale between 3 3:30 p.m. Sergio Severo talked about the dangers of bike riding to school. He stated the bike path on the east side should be widened for satety. He observed 86 cars coming into Scotland Drive between 3 3:30 p.m. Peter Fabricius noted he observed 440 cars from Fruitvale onto Saratoga City Council Minutes 9 October 2, 1991 Councilmember Monia noted Ms. Dowdy was not present, so this item should be placed on the next agenda as the first item under Old Business. The Council returned to Item 6F. F. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising Design and Residential Development Standards (with the associated Negative Declaration) (first reading and introduction) (continued from 9/18) (CONTINUED FROM EARLIER PORTION OF MEETING) Councilmember Monia stated he would like to reconsider the 2% height penalty. He noted this is a tool for a one story alternative. Mayor Kohler directed staff to reconsider this and noted a compromise may be possible. Councilmember Clevenger stated the penalty limits people from adding a second story. Planning Director Emslie stated the intent of the penalty is to have the property owners make a choice when adding to their homes, to go up or out. Councilmember Clevenger feels this will prohibit many people, especially in mixed neighborhoods, from building two story. She noted this will solve few problems, but create more. Planning Director Emslie stated this applies only to R1 districts and in reality the reduction required would be less. Councilmember Anderson felt this should be dealt with on a case by case basis. In response to Councilmember Monia's question Mr. Emslie stated the exception process was not considered. Councilmember Anderson suggested inviting the Planning Commission to the next Council public hearing. MONIA /STUTZMAN MOVED TO LOOK AT EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FOR PREDOMINANTLY TWO -STORY NEIGHBORHOODS. Passed 3 -2 (Anderson, Clevenger opposed). Mayor Kohler stated that 20,000 s.f. of impervious coverage allowance is too much. Councilmember Monia concurred. He stated 12,000 s.f. is acceptable. Planning Director Emslie stated the amount of square feet has been used over the years to gauge the impact on the environment. This is not a hard and fast rule but does require a variance when exceeded. Councilmember Anderson stated it is difficult to place a number on the impervious coverage. She does not want to preclude applicants, who have large lots to have a tennis court or swimming pool etc. City Manager Peacock suggested staying within the 15,000 s.f. excluding the driveway. Regarding the site coverage as written in the Ordinance City Manager Peacock suggested (a) 15,000 s.f., delete (b) and (c) becomes (b). Councilmember Stutzman stated that if lots are subdivided they should be prohibited against further subdivision once approved. City Manager Peacock stated this is covered in the Ordinance. Councilmember Monia stated it should be clearly stated. City Attorney Riback stated he would research this. City Council Minutes 10 October 2, 1991 There was consensus to revise the ordinance and re advertise the hearing. The Mayor proceeded to Item 6I. I. Proposed Program Enhancements; Traffic Safety Enforcement and Traffic Engineering Analysis (continued from 9/18) It was agreed by the Council to continue this item to a study session. J. Review recommendations of Tract 7770 Committee if necessary from discussion at the adjourned regular meeting of September 17, 1991. (continued from 9/18) It was agreed by the Council to continue this item to a study session. 7 NEW BUSINESS A. Hakone Gardens Irrigation System Plans and Specifications, with associated budget resolution CLEVENGER /ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE GOING TO BID. PASSED 5 -0. ANDERSON /STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91 -46.3 AMENDING THE BUDGET. PASSED 5 -0 B. Development of City Irrigation System Master Plan for Parks, Medians, Parkways and Landscape Facilities CLEVENGER /ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FROM RUSSELL D. MITCHELL AND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,750. PASSED 5 -0. C. Discussion of Policy on Football at West Valley College Councilmember Monia stated he requested this item be on the agenda. Mr. Monia reviewed the background of this issue regarding lawsuits. He stated the games are inappropriate and in violation of the use permit. He suggested the City Manager draft a letter for the Councilmembers signature explaining the Council's position on football games. Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Ave., stated there should be a joint meeting with the College and the Council at the Council Chambers. He stated he wou] Tike the minutes corrected to reflect that he did not request this item be placed on the agenda. He urged the college and City Attorney to research the court decisions. Ms. Patty Browder stated she enjoyed the games at the college. She noted she has heard no complaints. In response to Councilmember Clevenger's question Ms. Browder stated there were under 500 people at the game. Councilmember Monia stated there was an agreement between the Athletic Department and the residents as to what would be allowed to take place on the field. He noted a football stadium was prohibited. The field was to serve minimum needs for the Athletic Department and now additional uses are being requested. He stated the Status Quo allows seven uses of the practice field. Councilmember Clevenger stated the football games may not be a problem with so few in attendance. Councilmember Monia stated the City Ordinance does not prohibit the use of the practice field, it specifically prohibits loudspeakers, permanent seating, etc. He feels the position of the Chancellor of the College is, not to bring this issue up again. Councilmember Anderson stated she was willing to support football football games b still are healthy activities for the youth seating •the B City. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Rd., stated the neighbors surrounding the Printed on recycled paper. OEUIT ©0 0 Lf No C� M E M O R A N D U M 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council FROM: Tsvia Adar, Interim Planning Director DATE: November 1, 1991 SUBJECT: DR -91 -022 SD -89- 011.2; Orosz, 14113 Pike Road Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the project O ©S 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman This is a request for design review approval to construct a new, 5,217 s.f. residence within the NHR zone district. The applicant also requested modification to condition #27 of SD -89 -011 to allow the structure to exceed the 200 ft. contour elevation. The Planning Commission first reviewed these applications at the 9/11/91 meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the application review to 10/9/91 meeting to allow the applicant to revise the plans per staff recommendations. At the 10/9/91 meeting the Commission reviewed the revised plans and denied the application based on the following findings: 1. This site is more prominent and a significant percentage of the roofline exceeds the 200 ft. contour. 2. The applicant did not accomplish a meaningful second story relief. 3. The proposed color is too white. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision. In the attached letter of appeal, the appellants describe the reasons for their appeal. They feel that they followed and met the original Planning_ Commission recommendations, were willing to meet any new requirement but were not given the chance to do so by the Planning Commission. The applicants also feel that they meet all the City's regulations and standards. The only exception is their request to exceed the 200 ft. elevation which was placed as a condition on the building site map approved on the lot. The appellants indicated in their letter. -that a similar.exception was granted to the other lot of the same building- site map, and only about 30% of their roofline will exceed by 3 feet the 200 ft. contour elevation. Attached to the letter of appeal are the resolutions for Building Site and Design Review of the home on the adjacent lot. The related conditions are highlighted. The staff reports from 9/11/91 and 10/9/91 are attached. The reports indicate that the revised plans submitted to the Commission on 10/9/91 satisfied staff's previous concerns. Staff recommendation to the Commission was to approve the revised project. Letters and petition of support from neighbors in the immediate neighborhood were submitted and attached to this report. Respectfully submitted, M ci‘Ar TSVIA ADAR, Interim Planning Director TA:cw Attachments: 1. Appellant letters from 10/15/91, 10/12/91 and 10/30/91 2. Resolution for Denial dated 10/9/91 3. Staff reports dated 10/4/91 and 9/11/91 including the City Horticulturist report from 4/23/91 4. Correspondence Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: 7 9 y s Address: /97 Z 6 S 7)r. Telephone: 1/4,5 7 7i Project File No.: D,Q 9 O 2- v Project Address: Y //3 D/2 9/- O Appellan Sign ;ture Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee: oNci 1075/ Decision Being Appealed: eA/ /,PL 0A 47�O /G ,q- 1 �dA/ 7a i5/ N et ce- 0 A) u)e met +he or.A'Cj;'faL Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be attached) impOSeci r� l-he eom15s,un b uT were de on4hr atSi C vAJ G(/ 6- Tp v.v uA/ I-: fri (/.4 Z1. S7 g Y 7 ,c6/A✓;,J 6 Co Aerc/i s_ c/ e o ti oe 9 9 9 i evil *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the' City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. CA October 12, 1991 TO: City Council, Saratoga, Ca. Judy and I, with the presence of our architect, Michael Helm, request a study session with the planning commissioners to have a better understanding of what precisely needs to be changed on the plans for our proposed residence. Since approval of this project was recommended by the planning department during the October llth public hearing, (except for one 3 ft. elevation discrepancy), we are still unclear as to the exact changes the planning commission wishes us to make. This misunderstanding, I believe, has led us to this point. Since we have waited an inordinately long time for planning commission approval, (Submitted plans 8 months ago), the thought of having to re -apply with new plans is very undesirable to us. Make no mistake we are prepared to comply with the necessary changes worked out during this study session. Thank you, 1 41, SL-P David Judy Orosz 19726 St. Ann Ct. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 October 30, 1991 To: City Council, Saratoga, California Nearly a year ago we began the design and approval process for our long awaited "dream home in Saratoga. We submitted our design plans to city planners in March 1991 and had our first public hearing six months later on September 11. During that initial meeting we were asked to make several changes, with which we complied. Before our next meeting on Oct 9, we were in full. compliance of all city building ordinances and asked for no variances. As a result of those changes the city planning depart- ment' staff report stated "that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed each of the concerns raised at the September llth public hearing. The applicant has worked with staff in an attempt to bring the structure down to the 200 ft. contour, but feels that the 203 ft. effort was the extent the building could be reasonably lowered. Given the fact that it is only a small per- centage of the roof area which encroaches into the 200 ft. limit, staff feels that the project can be supported as submitted." It's this 3 ft. difference we would like address in this letter. During the June Planning Commission meeting regarding tentative map approval for our lot and the adjacent lot to our west, a 200 ft. and 190 ft. maximum elevation condition was imposed respec- tively. The elevations were established as a result of the plan- ning commissions desire to limit the proposed structure heights to correspond to the highest elevation contour indicated along the southern property lines of the two lots. A more accurate topographical map produced for the design review application shows that the highest contour lines are actually 205 ft. and 198 ft. respectively. During a July planning commission meeting the adjacent lot owners submitted their modified plans and were approved for construction of their residence at the revised elevation of 198 ft. Since the commission approved the adjacent home at its revised maximum southern elevation height of 198', we are asking that you grant us the same right to build to our maximum elevation height of 205'. This would affect only the small portion of the roof which exceeds the 200' contour as more than 70% of the roof is between the 195 and 199 elevation. We believe that the previous action of the planning commission and the revisions which have been made to the design led the staff to recommend approval of our application. We ask that you approve the design which is before you with a maximum height of 205' for the portion now at 203'. k you your c +nsideration avid Judy Orosz 19726 St. Ann Ct. Saratoga, Ca RESOLUTION NO. DR -90 -077 SD -89 -011.1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Tager; 14105 Pike Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a new 4,851 sq. ft. two -story residence. Modification to Condition #27 of Resolution SD -89 -011 limiting construction to a 190 ft. contour elevation is also requested to allow the structure to exceed this limit 1 rr com®issi `he]:d'.:'a'du noticed public :interestid, parties.: were given a full and t0 present evidence J and oak w oak: xas. a amigos& driveway applicant burden of proof required 14cation,:: and. thel following;. findings have bee# :�wwd ,placiaent of tlaikif project. on the site tertfere.=.',with views of the _surrounding >',gearest neighbors mo ors _are at a much lower atilt by maturii vegetation so that existing this_.development. to support determihed� -The heig does not residences elevation. views, ,0121( s apt -The proj the Burro and 'wall. i i.:..... tress ;;are.:; adverisS prk -The nature landscapa. is being :.preserved: by minimizing tree tartars with the privacy of home. is to be located above .numberof young and mature .hichlwil1 also prevent removal, so 4r noMal, and grads :changes in that only one 8 inch accommodate this development. This s Raaolut 4 j j jjjj, o n; �S -89 -011. Grade tcilc nstruct." the .home,., -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that due to the topog- raphy and existing vegetation, few of the neighboring homes are 1 visible from this site. The portion of the roofline which extends to the 198 ft. contour is a relatively small area and does not 1 increase the perception of excessive bulk. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that there are existing two -story homes of similar size, scale and design throughout the northwestern hills. These homes are par- ticularly evident in the Teerlink and DeMartini subdivisions to the west. DR -90 -077 8D- 89- 011.1; 14105 Pike Road -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the nearest neighbors are at a much lower elevation and are separated by mature vegetation so that light, air and solar access would not be affected by this development. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that the preliminary grading and drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Tager for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3./ Height of structure shall not exceed the 198 ft. contour elevation. 4. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not 'exceed 5 ft. 5. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. No fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and 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 (3) feet in height. In addition, any future fencing shall comply with the hillside fencing regulations per section 15- 29.020 of the City Code. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit, excluding the 8 inch oak approved to be removed per Resolution SD -89 -011. 8. No recreational courts are permitted. 9. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope. 10. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. DR -90 -077 8 BD- 89- 011.1; 14105 Pike Road Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 24th day of July, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, FAVERO, MORAN NOES: DURKET ABSENT: FORBES, TUCKER ATTEST: Signature of Applicant Date Chairpe ecreta Pia.. ing Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. SD -89. 41 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Building site approval for two lots at 14105 Pike Road 'TAGER WHEREAS, application has been under the Subdivision Map Act of under the Subdivision Ordinance of the map approval of two (2) lots, all as File No. SD -89 -011 of this City, and made to the Advisory Agency the State of California and City of Saratoga, for tentative more particularly set forth in WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed building sites, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed building sites and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 6/13/90 being hereby made for further particu- lars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exempt project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government. Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said building sites, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described building sites, which map is dated the 2nd day of May, 1990 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The condi- tions of said approval are as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, archi- tectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Tager for design review approval, be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation for all' three (3) lots and pay required checking and recordation fees. 2. Provide easements as required and show on parcel map. 3. Construct access road 18 feet wide plus 1 foot shoulders 100 feet from proposed dwellings prior to occupancy of either residence. 4. Design review approval by the Planning Commission is required for homes on Lots A and B. 5. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. and no retaining wall within the required front yards of Lot A or B shall exceed 3' in height. SD -90 -011 TAGER, 1. )5 Pike Road 41 E127. The home on Lot B shall not exceed elevation 190' above sea level. The home on Lot A shall not exceed elevation 200'. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condi- tions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, Coun- ty, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of June, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: BURGER, CALDWELL, KOLSTAD, MORAN, SIEGFRIED, TAPPAN, TUCKER NOES: none ABSENT: none ATTEST: ary,yfarming Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of Applicant Date: TA \SD- 011:cw C airman, lanning C mmission RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -022 SD -89 -011.2 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Orosz; 14113 Pike Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a new, 5,217 sq. ft. two -story residence. Modification to condition #27 of Resolution SD -89 -011 limiting construction to a 200 ft. contour elevation is also requested to allow the structure to exceed this limit by 3 ft; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residenc- es in that views towards this hillside will be adversely affected by the development of this large two -story structure, which exceeds the 200 ft. contour elevation limit previously established by the Planning Commission. The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that this large two -story structure will be situated on a highly prominent hillside parcel and exceeds the 200 ft. contour elevation limit established by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Orosz for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. DR -91 -022 and SD -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, FAVERO, FORBES, MORAN, TUCKER NOES: none ABSENT: none ATTEST: Secretary, a'ning Commission Chairperson, Planning;Commission UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 10 /9/91 continue to allow Barrie Coate, Arborist, to recommend additional conditions to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival of the tree. 7. DR -91 -022 Orosz, 14113 Pike Rd., request for design SD -89 -011.2 review approval to construct a new 5,217 sq. ft. two -story residence on a one acre site within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Modification to condition #27 of SD -89 -011 is also requested to allow the structure to exceed the 200 ft. contour elevation. Planner Walgren presented the staff report and project history. Commissioner Bogosian questioned staff's objective to lowering the house to conform with the 200' contour elevation. Planner Walgren described staff's concerns related to the prominence of the site and that the proposed design should be lowered in order to reduce visual impact to the wider region. Commissioner Caldwell asked about tree #3 which was not shown on the site plan, and Planner Walgren responded that the tree would have to be removed due to construction. Mr. Orosz, the applicant, addressed the application and asked questions about how the height limits were established by the Planning Commission at the building site approval phase of this project. He further stated he would like to build the turret and noted there are other homes in Saratoga with turrets. Mike Helms, 200 Seventh Ave., Santa Cruz, architect, addressed the Planning Commission primarily regarding the height of the lot. He indicated his client would like to raise the elevat :.on of the house, but they are trying to stay within the intent of the ordinance and keeping it as low as possible. He further stated that it is possible they can reduce the mass of the front element. MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:58 p.m. M/S Caldwell /Forbes All ayes Commissioner Caldwell stated she is concerned with the proposed removal of the two 13" oaks and would like to add to the list staff has prepared that preservation of those two oaks be included in any revisiting of this application. Commissioner Bogosian stated he would like to see the 200' height limitation adhered to. He further indicated support for the preservation of the two oak trees. 8 cli,) 9 MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:14 p.m M/S Favero /Forbes All ayes Commissioner Forbes expressed concern with the amount of glass in the northwest elevation and the potential reflection of the sun. Commissioner Favero indicated he would support this application if it were to be kept as rural as possible. He would also request that the applicants consider a one store alternative. MOTION to continue DR -91 -022 and SD -89 -011.2 to October 9, 1991. M/S Tucker /Bogosian All ayes 8. UP -91 -007 Rodriguez, 12308 Crayside Ln., request for use permit approval to construct a pool house within a required rear yard setback on a 37,462 sq. ft. parcel within the Beauchamps subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the staff report, indicating that staff feels the necessary findings can be made to recommend approval with the conditions made in the resolution including #3 which requires submittal of revised plans showing the pool cabana being lowered to a maximum of 12' prior to the issuance of zone clearance. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. David Fox, 100 N. Third St., Campbell, landscape architect, explained the reason for the increased height of 13' to match the roof pitch of the main house. MOTION to approve UP -91 -007 per the applicants request of a 13' height limitation, amending the resolution to state that the Planning Commission finds that the 13' exception can be supported and that it provides architectural compatibility with the residence. M/S Bogosian /Favero All ayes 9. DR -91 -046 Vaudagna, 19695 Glen Una Dr., request for design review approval for a 183 sq. ft. one story and a 51 sq. ft. two -story addition to an existing two -story home which exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. of floor are in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Riggs presented the staff report, indicating that staff recommends approval of this application. Printed on recycled paper. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: October 4, 1991 SUBJECT: DR -91 -022 and SD -89 -011.2 Gross, 14113 Pike Road 3. The vertical tower entry element has been eliminated. 13777 FRLITV. -\LE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867.3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor -Mona Francis Stutzman This proposal for a new, two -story home at the end of Pike Road was presented to the Planning Commission at the September llth public hearing. Based on the prominence of this hillside parcel, the Commissioners continued the item to allow the applicant to revise the plans per the staff report recommendations. These modified plans include the following changes: 1. The structure has been set approximately 4 feet lower into the grade. The resulting excavation increases from 1,150 cu. yds. previously to 1,725 cu. yds. Earth fill is reduced from 490 to 145 cu. yds. 2. The main entry element roofline has been lowered 5 ft. The home originally encroached 8 feet into the 200 foot contour elevation; the highest point of this revised proposal does not exceed 203 ft. 4. The south wing of the residence has been proportionately lowered with the front elevation. 5. A second story level horizontal articulation has been provided along the main entry element elevation. 6. The front elevation building height has been reduced, elimi- nating the need for the increased setbacks requested in the original staff report. Staff feels that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed each of the concerns raised at the September llth public hearing. The 0000' applicant has worked with staff in an attempt to bring the structure down to the 200 foot contour, but feels that the 203 foot effort was the extent the building could be reasonably lowered. Given the fact that it is only a small percentage of the roof area which encroaches into the 200 ft. limit, staff feels that the project can be supported as submitted. Tree #2 as plotted in the attached Arborist Report has been accurately plotted since the last meeting and is outside of the proposed construction. This is consistent with staff's original assessment of the tree's location. Tree #3 is still proposed to be removed. Since this tree was shown to be removed on the Building Site Approval tentative map, and the preservation of this tree would require a complete redesign of the home, staff recommends approving its removal with a condition requiring an equal trunk diameter replacement. Respectfully submitted, VACS Goal Ct516, ES WALGREN Associate Planner JW: Attachments: 1. Resolutions DR -91 -022 and SD -89 -011.2 2. Staff report dated 9/11/91 3. Revised Plans, Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -022 8D -89 -011.2 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OP CALIFORNIA Grose; 14113 Pike Road WHEREAS, the.City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a new, 5,217 sq. ft. two -story residence. Modification to condition #27 of Resolution SD -89 -011 limiting construction to a 200 ft. contour elevation is also requested to allow the structure to exceed this limit by 3 ft.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the nearest neighbors are at a much lower elevation and are separated by mature vegetation. The views of the home recently approved to the west will be oriented towards the Mt. Eden Valley, away from this residence. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the south wing of the home, which faces the recently approved but not yet built home to the west, is one -story and will have minimal affect on future neigh- bor's privacy. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that only one 13 inch oak and three fruit trees will be removed and the oak was approved to be removed by Resolution SD -89 -011. Grade changes are limited to those necessary to construct the home, driveway and pool. -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that due to the topogra- phy and existing vegetation, few of the neighboring homes are visible from this site. The portion of the roofline which extends to the 203 ft. contour is a relatively small area and does not increase the home's perception of excessive bulk. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that there are existing two -story homes of similar size, scale and design throughout the northwestern hills. These homes are particularly evident in the Teerlink and DeMartini subdivisions to the west. 000017 File No. DR -91 -022 SD -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the nearest neighbors are at a much lower elevation and are separated by mature vegetation. The south wing of the home, which faces the recently approved but not yet built home to the west, is one -story and will have minimal affect on future neighbor's light, air and solar access. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Orosz for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of structure shall not exceed the 203 ft. contour elevation. 4. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not exceed 5 ft. 5. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and 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 (3) feet in height. In addition, all future fencing shall comply with the hillside fencing regulations per Section 15- 29.020 of the City Code. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain- ing a Tree Removal Permit, with the exception of those approved to be removed per Exhibit "A 8. No recreational courts are permitted. 9. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope. 10. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. 11. Exterior colors shall be medium to dark earthtone and approved by the Planning Commission. as reviewed 0000`'8 File No. DR -91 -022 8D -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road 12. Landscaping for screening along the west property line shall be installed prior to final occupancy, as indicated on the approved site plan. In addition to these six trees, an equal trunk diameter replacement shall be provided for the 13 inch oak removed. 13. Prior to zone clearance approval, applicant shall submit landscape plans for the Planning Director's review and approval indicating the additional replacement trees. All landscaping shall consist of native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's xeriscape guidelines. 14. All tree preservation measures recommended in the Arborist Report dated April 23, 1991 shall apply. 15. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance: a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). c. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher. d. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. e. Erosion control measures. f. Standard information to include title block, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 16. Prior to the pre grading meeting, 6' chain link or welded wire mesh protective fencing shall be placed around the trees under the dripline as indicated in the Arborist Report dated April 23, 1991. 17. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofing, less than 10 shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and main- tained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 000O^) File No. DR -91 -022 8D -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road 19. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60). 20. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. (City of Saratoga Code 16- 15:110). 21. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0 S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of A.C. or better on U' aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. c. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PPC concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. d. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32 ft. e. Turnouts: construct a passing turnout 10 ft. wide and 40 ft. long as required by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. 22. Parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire Dis- trict. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 23. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and development plans (i.e. site preparation and grading drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that the consultant's recommen- dations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 24. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test, (as needed,) and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construc- tion. The inspections should include, but not be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations, (':00 File No. DR -91 -022 i SD -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road retaining walls, and keyways prior to the placement of concrete and steel. 25. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 26. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire.. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairperson, Planning Commission Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote: File No. DR -91 -022 i SD- 89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date OOO9'?2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -91 -022 and SD 89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road Applicant /Owner: Oros z Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: September 11, 1991 APN: 503 -30 -052 Director Approval: 14113 Pike Road 000.973 Pile No. DR -91 -022 and SD -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road CASE HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 3/26/91 Application complete: 5/20/91 Notice published: 8/28/91 Mailing completed: 8/29/91 Posting completed: 8/22/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to construct a new 5,217 sq. ft., two -story residence on a one acre parcel within the NHR zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Modification to condition #27 of SD -89 -011 is also requested to allow the structure to exceed the 200 ft. contour elevation. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed development is in conformance with all applicable City Code development regulations, and the City Arborist has reviewed the plans and prepared a tree preservation plan. The project does not comply, however, with the conditions of tentative building site approval in that the structure's proposed ridge height extends approximately 8 ft. above the 200 ft. contour elevation. Staff is unable to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the application as submitted and is requesting that the Planning Commission direct the applicant regarding the attached analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing to take testimony and direct the applicant regarding the staff analysis. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Correspondence 3. Arborist Report 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" 5. Cross section of hill, Exhibit nB" CO Yfl, =1 Pile No. DR -91 -022 and 8D -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PARCEL SIZE: 1 acre (43,560 ft.) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 21% GRADING REQUIRED: Cu t House: 564 cu. yds. 200 cu. yds. Driveway: 60 cu. yds. 240 cu. yds. Pool: 526 cu. yds. -0- cu. yds. TOTAL: 1,150 cu. yds. 490 cu. yds. Excess 660 cu. yds. to be removed MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior finish painted "smoke rose" with "charcoal grey" textured concrete tile roofing. LENGTH OP STRUCTURE: 110 ft. PROPOSAL 25% (10,890 s.f) 26 ft. LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OP STRUCTURE: SETBACKS: Garage: 817 sq. 1st Floor: 3,568 sq. 2nd Floor: 832 sq. TOTAL: 5,217 sq. Front: 65 ft. Rear: 80 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 65 ft. from site. ft. ft. ft. ft. Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: Fill Residential CODE REOUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 25% (maximum of 15,000 s.f.) 26 ft. 5,220 sq. ft. 30 ft. 50/60 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to construct a new 5,217 sq. ft., two -story residence on a one acre parcel within the NHR zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Modification to condition #27 of SD -89 -011 is also requested to allow the structure to exceed the 200 ft. contour elevation. 000075 File No. DR -91 -022 and SD -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to construct a new, split level two story residence on a parcel which was granted building site approval by the City in June of 1990. The request was for two adjacent legal lots of record located at the end of a private driveway easement off Pike Road. The road, driveway and building pad locations were all incorporated into the site development plan and approved a part of the tentative improvement plan. A specific condition of approval was that no construction on this lot exceed the 200 ft. contour interval. Included in this application is a request to amend condition #27 of Resolution SD -89 -011 to allow the structure to extend to an elevation of approximately 208 feet. Site Characteristics The parcel is located on a north, east and west sloping ridgeline. Pursuant to Section 15- 14.020 of the City Code and staff's subsequent ridgeline analysis, however, the site does not qualify as a minor ridge. The lot contains a handful of Coast Live Oak, Pine and fruit trees which will be affected by the proposed construction. The majority of the building site is covered with wild grasses and shrubs. The Mt. Eden Valley, DeMartini residen- tial subdivision, Paul Masson Mountain Winery, Garrod Ranch and MROSD properties beyond are all clearly visible from this site. The property also enjoys views of the Santa Clara Valley to the northeast. The City Arborist has reviewed the plans and his tree preservation measures will be included in any resolution to approve the project. Two 13 inch Coast Live Oaks and three smaller Apricot trees would need to be removed to accommodate this development. The three fruit trees and one of the oaks were shown to be removed on the approved site development plan. The additional oak tree removal is a result of the home being located lower on the ridge than tentatively indicated. A condition of approval would also require a replacement value for these removed trees. Modification to BD 89 011 As the Commissioners are aware, the Planning Commission limited the height of construction on this lot, and the adjacent parcel to the west, based on the highest elevation contour indicated along their southern property lines; 200 and 190 ft. respectively. As indicated on the site cross section marked Exhibit "B the top of the hill is actually at a much higher elevation. Partially as a result of this more detailed topographical information, the Commission approved house plans on the adjacent parcel which exceeded the 190 ft. contour by 8 ft. Staff does not find that this proposal can be supported as submitted, however, based on the concerns discussed below. X009 File -No. DR -91 -022 and 8D -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road Design Review The east wing of this split -level structure meets the 200 ft. contour limit. Staff finds that this element of the building also follows the policies outlined in the Residential Design Guidelines by stepping the structure down the hill and setting back the taller portions of the structure from the first floor level. Staff cannot make these same findings with the front elevation entry element, and recommends the following modifications to the proposal: 1. Eliminate the vertical tower entry element which adds to the building's perceived height. 2. Reduce the master bedroom and living room /library interior heights and /or place the entry element lower into the grade to bring the structure closer to the 200 ft. contour. A combina- tion of these changes could possibly lower the building 4 to 6 feet. 3. Lower the south wing of the residence proportionately with the front elevation. 4. Provide a second story level horizontal articulation at the front elevation to reduce the structure's vertical wall expanse. 5. Pursuant to Section 15- 45.040, the front elevation's 20 ft. west side yard setback will need to be increased by one foot for each foot of ridge height in excess of 22 ft. The applicant has indicated that by the September 7th weekend, the building footprint will be staked, and height poles constructed. A material board will also be available at the public hearing. Pool and Grading The Northwestern Hillside Residential zone district grading standards require that no site be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residence. Due to the location and elevation of the proposed pool pad at the back of the resi- dence, staff does not feel that this restriction would apply. When standing at the proposed pool site, staff did not feel that the level pad would be visible from off -site. Staff also feels that the proposed grading quantities are accept- able, in that most of it is earth removal to set the home and pool pad into the site (see Grading Required). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be continued to an October 9th public hearing to allow the applicant to revise the plans per the staff report discussion. Any additional modifica- 000 r? File No. DR -91 -022 and SD -89- 011.2; 14113 Pike Road tions the Commission feels are appropriate should also be requested for that meeting. Staff would then prepare a resolution to approve the application at the October 9th hearing. MICHAEL S. HELM, AIA ARCHITECT 200 SEVENTH AVENUE, #110 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 408.476.5386 May 3, 1991 Mr. James Walgren, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Re: Orosz Residence 14113 Pike Road, Saratoga, APN 530-30-52 Design Review #91.022 Dear James, This letter is in response to your letter to the Owner dated April 26th, 1991 asking for clarification of the following items: 1) The average slope within the pool and pool terrace is 16 2) The site plan has been revised to show that the maximum height of any retaining wall in the 30' front yard setback is 3 feet maximum. Attached are two copies of the revised site plan and roadway sections. 3) The owner will file application for a modification of the 200' elevation contour height limit established as a condition of approval of the tentative map. Arguments in favor of our request are as follows; a. The lower level finish floor is currently at the lowest contour possible at the front yard setback (174.0). b. The current proposal requires the least amount of grading and is located in the area of least slope. c. It does not impact any neighbor's view or privacy. d. Only the roof projects beyond the height limit a maximum of 9'. e. The project complies with the height limit ordinance of 26' maximum, and conforms to the City of Saratoga Design Guidelines. f. The building setbacks exceed the requirements in the NHR Zone, 6TFront, 65'Side, 21' Side, 80' Rear. g. The highest contour of the site is 205.0, it seems arbitrary to establish the 200' contour as maximum height. I hope these responses satisfactorily address the items in your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me personally if you have any questions. Sincerely, ,fal.,/smwmwm Michael S. Helm, AIA 0009 "79 Lrsnnic 1/. '11 C and ASSOCIA ES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23533 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 93030 SURVEY OF THE TREES AT THE OROSZ PROPERTY 14113 PIKE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Terence Welch April 23, 1991 Job #4-91 -112 RECEf `dED APR v 19�J1 0000 :f0 Diu C V. '11t and ASSOCIA ES Horticultural Consultants 408 -333 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 SURVEY OF THE TREES AT THE OROSZ PROPERTY 14113 PIKE ROAD SARATOGA On April 23, 1991, our firm inspected the trees which will be affected by construction at a proposed building site at 14112 Pico Road. This ridge top site is mostly covered with brush and meadow, with ancient declining Apricot trees, indicating that this at one time was a cultivated farm. Young native species of Oaks are recolonizing the edges of the open areas. The proposed home site is surrounded by 2 to 5" Coast Uve Oaks, but there are only 3 trees in good condition over 6" DBH which will be affected by construction. General Comments All trees on site over 6" D.B.H. (diameter at breast height) which will be affected by construction activities were numbered and tagged. Trunk locations which had not been located on the plot plan provided to us were roughly locate. The species of each was identified, and D.B.H., height and spread were estimated. Health and condition were rated. All of this information was recorded on the enclosed map and charts. In addition, text was used for further clarification. There are many seedling Coast Uve Oaks, Qum& =lfa, and several seeding Black Oak, Ouercya }celloaai(, which surround the proposed home site site. Any young Oaks which will need to be removed in order to construct the proposed residence should be transplanted, if possible. Only the trees with good health and excellent structure should be transplanted. These could be used on site, or given to a transplanting company. Please call our office for recommendations of companies which might do this work. There are two very fine 3" D.B.H. (diameter at breast height) Black Oak seedlings which will need to be removed to allow for construction of the house.. One is at the "164" mark in the driveway, the other is immediately south of tree #2. If it is not possible to transplant all of the fine seedlings which are going to need to be removed for construction, at least these two should be boxed and transplanted. TRANSPLANT PRECAUTION& Only companies with excellent reputations and adequate experience should be employed to perform transplanting of trees. Please contact our office for recommendations. SURVEY OF THE TREES AT THE OROSZ PROPERTY 14113 PIKE ROAD SARATOGA Any tree to be transplanted should be irrigated with a soaker hose once each week for four weeks prior to transplant. They should be sprayed with an anti- transpirant immediately before the digging of the trench around the rootball. A box must be constructed around an adequately sized rootball. Any tree which is not re- planted in the ground within two weeks should be placed on drip irrigation, and monitored at least once a week. If possible, these trees should be stored in a shaded area, and protected from prevaiUng winds. No rogation water should come in contact with the trunk of these trees. Any tree which has been recently dug should be presumed to be under stress. Maintenance of proper soil moisture, and monitoring of pests and disease should occur at least weekly. When replanted, irrigation utilizing "ooze" -type soaker hoses should occur once a week during the first dry season. These hoses must be placed on the ground at the perimeter of the formerly boxed rootball. FENCING ROOTZONES DURING CONSTRUCTION A heavy black line has been drawn on the enclosed map, indicting where temporary construction period fences should be erected. Before clearing occurs, a paint line, or survey tape line should show where these fences are to be located. No Bearing should occur beyond these fences, and no machinery wheels or treads should go beyond these fences. A temporary won period fence should be erected around each tree which is to be retained in the final landscape. This fence should be erected at the dripline of each tree. If groves of trees are to be protected, one common fence can be erected around the entire grove. The groves of seedlings on the east and south sides of the residence should be protected in this manner. If construction will intrude into rootzones, this fence should be erected 24" from the limits of that construction. It should consist of portable cyclone fencing, or wire mesh securely -2- SURVEY OF THE TREES AT THE OROSZ PROPERTY 14113 PIKE ROAD SARATOGA attached to metal posts driven into the ground. It should not be easy for construction workers to move, or take down. This fencing should be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and should not be removed until final landscape grading is completed. If for any reason it becomes necessary for any machinery to enter the fenced -in rootzone of a tree, an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist should be consulted first. It cannot be emphasized enough how important these fences are. From our experience, soil compaction and trenching through rootzones are the number one ,causes of tree stress in the post construction period. The fences are the silent guards around the trees. It should be explained clearly to all contractors and workers on site that these fences are sacred. Trenching of any sort must be planned to avoid traveling beneath tree canopies. This must include planning for P.G.E, _sewer lines, electrical power, cable T.V., and irrigation. The "10 inch Pine" shown on the plot plant to the south, and uphill of the proposed house, is no longer there. Specific Trees Tree #1, Aleppo Pine, pinua balapensia This mature Pine has experienced some die -bads but is basically still healthy. The dead leader in the upper canopy should be pruned out The driveway is designed to enter into the rootzone and come within 8' of the trunk. The tree should tolerate this as long as it receives the following treatment: 1. Irrigation before, during and after root destruction. Any tree which has had excavation ocar within its dripline should be assumed to be stressed. This stress can be reduced by providing supplemental irrigation to the rootzone which is.stili intact. -3- ®00`4"3 Irrigation is best provided using "ooze" -type soaker hoses. They are easily available at hardware suppliers such as Orchard Supply Hardware, and Home Depot. These hoses dabble water into the ground, providing deep watering wherever they are laid down. Where the rootzone is intact, the soaker hose should be placed at the dripline. Where root destruction has occurred, it should be placed over the cut ends of the roots. If left on over night, enough water should easily be provided to penetrate 24" deep. Depth of penetration should be checked with a soil probe or shovel. Starting four weeks before any grading will occur near the tree, it should be irrigated to a depth of 240, as described in the previous paragraph. Obviously, if the ground is moist to a depth of 24" from recent rains, these weekly irrigations will not be necessary. Monthly irrigations during the dry season should occur until one year after construction is completed. 2. Sub surface fertilize in May 1991. A solution of 2 Ibs of Romeo Fertilizer's Greenbelt 22-14-14 per 100 gallons of water should be injected at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of diameter at breast height (DBH). This fertilizer provides slow release nitrogen fertilization, as.well as trace elements such as iron, zinc, etc. 3. Protect rootzone with a temporary fence in the location shown on the enclosed plot plan. Trees #2 and 3, Coast Live Oak, Ouercua agrifolla These two young trees are healthy, but are larger than the size we normally recommend for transplant. Since they are located within the area where construction will be occurring, it is assumed that they will be removed. SURVEY OF THE TREES AT THE OROSZ PROPERTY 14113 PIKE ROAD SARATOGA -4- ©©O'`?Ie SURVEY OF THE TREES AT THE OROSZ PROPERTY 14113 PIKE ROAD SARATOGA Trees #4, 5, 6, Fruiting Apricot, Prunus armeniaca These three, old, declining trees are in poor health and should be removed. Their trunks are riddled with decay, and fungal diseases have killed many of the branches and twigs. TW:Ia Enclosures: Map Chart Chart Definitions Respectfully submitted, Terence Welch, Associate Barrie D. Coate and Associates 000.,7; BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultant (408) 353 -103: 1 (inches) W31S-I1lnIN 1 DBH (inches) I I (904 00 HBO HEIGHT SPREAD HEALTH (1 -5) I STRUCTURE i1 -5) 1 NEEDS THINNING 1 (REMOVE ENDWEIGH11 ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1 -5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1 -5) 1 TRUNK DECAY 1 INSECTS (1 -5) I TREE CROWN DISEASES(1 -5) DEADWOOD (1 -5) DAMAGE TO PAVING (1 -5) 'CABLES NEEDED #1 (NEEDS FERTILIZER( NEEDS WATER I RECOMMEND REMOVAL REMOVAL PRIORITY I PRUNING PRIORITY I PAGE 1 OP 1 COMMENTS eY Plant Name 1 24 X 12 50 45 2 2 3 X X 2 enact 1 IvR Oak 13 X 6 20 25 1 2 f], iarri Kt agrifnlia 3 (mast 1 Iva flak 13 X 7 20 30 2 2 4 Aprirmt, Fruiting 6 10 12 4 3 4 4 X Old, declining orchard trees Pninua armaniara 5 Aprirnt, Fruiting 5 8 8 4 3 4 4 X Old, declining orchard trees 6 Aprinnt, Fniiting 8 10 15 4 3 4 4 X Old, declining orchard trees FNtI JOB TITLE: 14113 Pike Road, Saratoga JOB 4 -91 -112 DATE 4/22/91 1 =best 5 =worst \A16 14. Mr and ASSOC" ZS Horticultural Consultants 408 353.1052 23535 Summit Ra d.. Los Gatos. CA 95030 TRUNK DECAY DEFINITION OF TERMS ON TREE EVALUATION CHARTS DBH 1 Diameter at breast height, or 4.1 /2 feet Possible numbers In that column could be from 2' to 50'. MULTI -STEM TREE Self evident in the definition. Numbers that could be listed In that column would be 1 for yes, or 2 for no. DBH 2 AND DBH 3 Diameter at breast height for the multi -stem trunks, if any. HEIGHT As explained, listed by feet. SPREAD Canopy spread listed by feet HEALTH A Judgment of relative health for the species in the subject area and soil. Number 1 signifies excellent health. A rating of number 5 represents specimens which are dead or actively dying. STRUCTURE Judgment of relative structure: 1 perfect structure; 2 good to average struc- ture; 3 potentially hazardous and repairable; 4 a actively hazardous, but repair able; 5 actively hazardous and not repairable, NEEDS THINNING Defined as requiring removal of pieces to reduce the canopy mass to allow wind to travel through It. This can be accomplished by thinning of interior branches, as well as removal of end of branches by Miming, not by stub-cutting. Possible entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning little is needed, 5 meaning attendon Is badly needed. REMOVE Defined as requiring the removal of the ends of major limbs or major branches in END WEIGHT sufficient quantity to prevent the breakage of the limb in question. This Is done by thinning. Different species will require different amounts of end weight removal depending on the inherent structure Lure of the tree. As an sample, Elm trees must not be allowed to develop heavy end weights, where the same amount of end weight on a Magnolia may not be dangerous. Possible entries In that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 mean ig no afendon is needed, 5 meaning immediate attention Is needed. ROOT COLLAR When the root collar of many species Is covered. IiimBada.010111. erdgjatgliore COVERED Aram, or other diseases, may kW vascular tissue, ROOT COLLAR This column defines the amount of distress activity discovered When more than DISEASES 50 percent of the trunk clrcumhrence has been Idled, the tree would be rated number 5. and a removal recommendation made. Trunk decay would signify the proportionate amount of decay In the trunk of the tree. This is usually a result of removal of large limes or branches from which decay travels and is a far more serious problem in some species than In others. Significant amounts of trunk decay in Elms would be a wry serious potential problem, where the same amount of trunk decay in a Magnolia night not be nearly so dangerous. Potential entries ki that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no decay, 5 signifying so much decay that the tree should be immediately removed. farad �.x OOOO" ry 1 INSECTS TREE CROWN DISEASES DEAD .WOOD PAVEMENT DAMAGE NEEDS CABLES NEEDS FER'TIUZER NEEDS WATER REMOVE MISTELTOE REMOVAL PRIORITY PRUNING PRIORITY This would define the proportion of insect presence and damage to a tree. A separate list might accompany this to show what Insects might be found in each different species of tree. The potential numbers listed under this column would be 1 through 5 showing the proportionate severity of the infestation of Insects. Number 1 being no presence visible at the time the survey was taken, 5 being a very severe case that should be treated immediately. Defined as the proportion of diseases present in the spedmen at the time the survey was taken. Potential entries in this cdumn would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no presence of diseases at all, 5 signifying very severe disease presence that should be treated. In many cases, lt jthaki Iwo been treated since diseases often must be treated in advance of their presence. For this column a high rating may only serve to provide warning for the following year that treatment for the diseases in question should be planned on in advance. Examples are Anthracnose disease on Modesto Ash. They would have to be sprayed before foliage is developed far enough for the disease to damage the foliage, usually In early March Self explanatory. Defines the proportion of dead wood that Is in the crown cf a tree. Entries possible in that cdumn would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning none present, 5 meaning a significant quantity of deed parts present, This would usually be reflected in the health rating for this tree, but not always If the species typically accumulates dead twigs in the tree, as does fitaigejalletn. This relates to the amount of damage, usually by raising of sidewalks or move- ment of curbs caused by tree roots or tree trunk mass, and reflects the propor- tionate danger of pedestrians tripping over raised portions of paving. Possible entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying a level pave- ment and no affect by the tree on the pavement surface, 5 signifying a very severe pavement Interruption that should be repaired immediately. If support cables are needed, the quantity needed wound be noted here. This column wand signify the need of the tree in question to be fertilized The entries possible in this cdumn are 1 through 5. Number 1 sigMfying no need for fertilizer, 5 signifying a severe need for fertilizer. Many spades used here would requlrs wry We fertlizing in these sotk but in a specks such as Magnolia, It will often not be in good health ur+less It is fertilized. Def the need for water of a given tree. The possible entries are 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no water is necessary, 5 signifying the lack of available water is creating a severe impact on the health of the g vsn spedmet. Watering may be difficult on old specimens unless a water Duck is used or homeowners are encouraged to do their own watering. The implication is not meant that wesidy meeting is necessary, nor should sheaow wearing for a lawn be suggested. It Is meant to imply that deep oc asionel watering, as once a month during the summer to supply several hundred gallons of wear elovly, world be the require- ment Mistletoe Is often seen in Oaks, Ash, Maples, Walnuts, and other species. This parasitic plant must be removed by branch removal or removal of the hostoria (base) of the duster before the peat spreads throughout the tree. The level of importance of the danger the tree presents. The relative importance of the recommended pruning based on the danger created by the unpruned portions. 000917-8 14113 PIKE ROAD PREPARED FOR JAMES WALGREN CITY OF SARATOGA JOS1 4.91.112 DATE: 4-2241 SCALE:NONE ANALYSIS OF TREES OROSz E D. CO.%TE SSOCIATES 13 Summit ltd Gem. Ca 95030 0353 -1052 J Cansullants Arborists r• *strong Aro Aemr'SrsNm a 13D Are spender swum oio.ad to Dow. Aomori. are Provos OF Gook.* d Coro EC.20 Heads of i i I .t 1� R•� r 0 0 CORRESPONDENCE I, the undersigned have seen the plans for the proposed Orosz residence on 14113 Pike Rd. I support the applicant in their des to et his project approved.(Reference: DR -91 -022) _6 S)/ /39,/ F %w /442189 r -AtA). 547 Pjc /3g'ef /4_ ,2 ye,) AO- if Ryze_ fee( I, the undersigned have seen the plans for the proposed Orosz residence on 14113 Pike Rd. I support the applicant in their desires to get this project approved.(Reference: DR-91-022) NAME ADDRESS Jim Prendergast 14093 Pike Road Margaret L. Noonan 14123 Pike Road Karen Ceppos 14550 Pike Road Lou Bergna 14420 Pike Road Eloise F. Hansen 1d168 Perata Court Donald_Head 14684 Pike Road at_Emard 1198_1_ Road DavidWilson 13991 Pike_Raad _David Thomas__ John Wiechman 13981 Pike Road DonRussell 13987 Pike Road Madeline Russell 13987 Pike Road Marsha Wilkin Katherine Bohn 14124 Pike Road John Zavoshy 14081 Pike Road 14020 Pike Road I, the undersigned have seen the plans for the proposed Orosz residence on 14113 Pike Rd. I support the applicant in their desires to get this project approved.(Reference: DR-91-022) NAME 1 /(1‘t/tC 4-60 ADDRESS -jam t v si-c0 Adk< ).Si9C( P 4) 4-A-1 A 1 EDe LL (--c) ^Y/Loy ,1 (Xtlit(y Ki/N 0 %2- ))6y gc,r. 66, I 4 /3-1c 5A ICC/2Ft q -s e 7 e e /1 Z '0 f SC) 7 7525 7 a N7) C>. 7c. -d i 79c 74, ri/z/z17?-^fi' e» (it I!! 1 I lj I i I ■Araays 9/, El'iN,Til T -I C I 1 1 t 4' 'KIL11.ii 321 E. WASHINGTON AVE. 1 c o e p SUNNYVALE, CALIF. 94086 S.L. NO. 356040 .1 11 ir eek...p DAVID R. THOMAS PRESIDENT 736-3050 Al i .97 .Are /e_1/ Ar/ I II Ai AV el i t:.....- id III 1 lif 3---- 1 KA f f .4::..7 c :7 1 Z0 0 1 1 i i 11 I i -et.- Le/Le Ij !;I 4 H y 1 I Z qv Ili3O P Ii ill :1 II; 71. 111 Ili ill ff !II ii! •11 !II —(710,-,/( CENTER FOR NEW BEGINNINGS, INC. A COUNSELING AND MEDIATION CENTER Gu-luv .2 e.41_,esArtv kadoz nurL,04 d2 Oct.(ra CtA,ot `d-1 a,6 3 ,Ah g&a_, d U' a/tee- -C s'a 3-3a-3 V, 4-ea-e-ed 940 SARATOGA AVE, SUITE 200, SAN JOSE, CA 95129 PHONE: (408) 247 -7012 7/1 ,tdee g-Omd cA)-16A1 C&Lo &t4 vJ-ece AokAz.acfi wiu-0 alrucv-W atalgit-ie a/t5 (zAtzt 445 SHERMAN AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 PHONE: (415) 856 -4088 October 27, 1991 To: Whom it may ooncern: Reference: Proposed oonstruotion of residence at 14113 PIKE Rd. Both my wife and I are very familiar with the proposed building site and have seen the plans of the above reference residenoe. We have absolutely no objections to its oonstruction. Steven Tager .5.----- 13983 Pike Rd. Saratoga, Ca. 95070