Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-02-1986 City Council Agenda packet
CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. )0(Y3 AGENDA ITEM DATE: 6 -23 -86 (7-2-86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 (ANNEXATION) Su¢mary At the May 7, 1986 meeting, the City Council,adopted Resolution No. 2331B, a Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer.'s Report, and at their June 4, 1986 meeting they adopted Resolu- tion No. 2331E, a Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Light- ing Act of 1972. Resolution No. 2331E also set the time and date for the Public Hearing on July 2, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting cost are charged to the various zones within the District, based on benefit received. The Santa Clara Assessor's office will collect the amount through the taxes and, in turn, send to the' City. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 2331F 2. Engineer's Report (available in the City Clerk's office) 3. Agenda for Public Hearing 4. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open._ 5. Statement of the Clerk of the City Verifying Affidavit of Pub- lication and Certification of Posting Resolution of Intention are Recommended Action: on file. Utilize the agenda provided by Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott for Public Hearing. Upon closing the Protest Hearing, order improve- ments and confirm the diagram and assessments. Council Action Approved. 017 -36 WMAM:JEB:ciw 05/16/86 12c RESOLUTION NO. 2331F A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1986 -1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 1987 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 16th day of April, 1986, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 2331, Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1" Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer (herein the "Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2331; WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to this Council for its consideration; WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution No. 2331, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing improvements and the proposed improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed to the existing assessment district, which is also the area proposed to be assessed; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 2nd day of July, 1986, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. of said day in the regular meeting place of said Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and to said proposed improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and directing said City Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were 'duly and regularly published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by said .Act, as evidenced by' the Affidavits and Certificates on file with -said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; and WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district, or of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the proposed assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of. said City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the annexation of territory to said existing assessment district and said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said Council; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as follows: 1. That protests against the annexation of territory to said existing assessment district or of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate' of costs thereof, were not signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of assessable lands within said territory proposed to be annexed and assessed herein, and that said protests be, and each of them are hereby, overruled. 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto, which annexation is hereby ordered. 3. That the annexed territory and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in the City of Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the annexed territory included in said assessment district, and of any zone thereof and the general location thereof. 4. That said annexed territory be, and it is hereby, designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation 1986 -1" by which name it may hereafter be referred to. 5. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within said assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved. 6. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, he, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved. 7. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements. 8. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the annexed territory referred to and described in said Resolution No. 2331, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said annexed territory as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed. 9. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said annexed territory in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed. 10. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole. 11. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof. 12. That the order ordering the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram, the assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of 19, by the following vote of the members thereof: APPROVED: AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members: NOES, Council Members: ABSENT, Council Members: Mayor City Clerk of the City of Saratoga 018 -36 AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA PUBLIC HEARING JULY 2, 1986 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1986 -1 A. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing is open. 2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing the Resolution of Intention are on file. 3. Statement of City Engineer as to the nature of the Project. 4. Reading of written protests. 5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments. 6. Closing of Public Hearing. B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION 1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District, Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment. Fiscal Year 1986 1987 019 -36 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA JULY 2, 1986 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1986 -1 This is the time and place set for hearing on the annexation of territory to the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment. These proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. This hearing is a hearing on the Engineer's Report prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act. The Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer consists of the proposed improvements, the boundaries of the territory to be annexed and any zones therein, the proposed diagram, the estimate of cost thereof and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the area proposed .to be annexed to the District. Any one of these items may be the subject of protests or endorsements. All written protests to be computed in the protest percentage in relation to the annexation of territory to the District including the Engineer's Report should be filed with the City Clerk at or before the conclusion of this hearing. Protests or endorsements may be made by any person interested, but only written protests filed by property owners of assessable lands in the territory proposed to be annexed may be considered in determining the percentage of protests. You are asked to clearly identify yourself and the property owned by you so that your statements may be correctly recorded. The hearing is declared open and I will ask the City Clerk to report on the various notices given in connection with the hearing. CLERK'S STATEMENT JULY 2, 1986 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1986 -1 Notices have been published and mailed as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of publishing and mailing are on file in my office. A copy of the Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office on May 7, 1986, and has been open to public inspection since that time. AGENDA BILL NO. /OFF DATE: 6/23/86 (7/2/86) DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Summary: On May 28, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the above request..: The Commission was reminded that on April 10, 1985, they completed Design Review approval of a 2420 sq. ft. home on a 5276 sq. ft. (net) lot in the R -1- 20,000 zone. At that meeting, they reduced the size of the house in order to reduce the impervious coverage and make the width of the house more compatible with the adjacent homes. The Commission felt that the home that was approved in 1985: and recently completed was a proper size for the small lot and that approval of the new addition would reverse that decision; furthermore, the addition would not meet the purpose of the zoning ordinance "to ensure adequate open space for each single family dwelling unit" because the patio area will be reduced by 52.5 The only remaining open space would be the front lawn and the small lawn at the rear. Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: Administrative record (Planning Commission minutes dated 5/28/86, Staff_Report to Planning Commission dated 5/19/86) Appeal information filed by applicant: Exhibits Recommended Action: Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Council Action Denied appeal. A -1198 Rosa; Appeal of Planning Commission denial of 247 sq, ft. sunroom addition to the rear of a home on a substandard lot at 14035 Saratoga Ave. None CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM Eh Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS Minutes 5/28/86 Page 3 8. A -1198 Zicovich, request for design review approval to construct 247 sq. ft. rear addition to existing single family home at 14035 Saratoga Ave., in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented staff report recommending denial of a 247 sq. ft. sunroom addition to the existing single family home on substandard lot. Commissioner Guch reported on her land use report, stating the apricot tree would have to come down if the sunroom is constructed. There are homes built in close proximity to the property lines. The home to the east may be impacted as the addition may block the winter sun. Michael Rosa is the owner and applicant. He stated it was never intended that the apricot tree come down. He summarized that the main problem is one apricot tree which he would try to save. He would be willing to replace it with another apricot tree. Commissioners Guch /Peterson closed public hearing. Commissioner Harris agrees with staff. The City worked long and hard for square footage given the substandard size of the lot and felt it would be overbuilding to build further. Commissioner Siegfried agreed with Commissioner Harris. Chairman Burger stated we went through a lot of trouble before we approved the size of the home that we did. Commissioner Pines didn't have a problem with design but didn't want to reverse the decision made just months ago. He didn't understand why this addition wasn't discussed several months ago. He states as soon as the Construction was finished, the applicant to add 200 sq. ft. Commissioners Siegfried /Harris moved to deny per the staff report. Commissioner Siegfried stated the project was not rejected because of the apricot tree but because of the substandard lot. Passed 6 -0. Chairman Burger advised applicant has 10 calendar days to appeal decision to the City Council. 9. A -12 -1 Fremont Union High School District, request for design review approval for the grading, landscape, erosion control and emergency access road barrier plans for Tract 7763, Prospect and Stelling Roads, in the NHR zoning district as per a condition of the subdivision approval. Staff report was presented by Planning Director Hsia. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Kathryn Caldwell, Planner 164-" DATE: 5/19/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: A -1198; 14035 Saratoga Avenue APPLICANT: Joe Waller and David Zicovich APN: 397 -25 -64 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design review approval to allow 247 sq. ft. sunroom addition to existing single family home on substandard lot. ISSUES: Addition to single family dwelling does not meet the purpose of the zoning ordinance "to ensure adequate.... open space for each single family dwelling unit." (Section 15- 12.0.0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request per the findings of Exhibit A -1 ATTACHMENTS: OTLVW cDO 11' 1. Exhibit A -1: Findings 2. Technical Information 3. Administrative record of A -1064 two stories on infill lot) and V -691 (variance to front and sideyard and impervious coverage) A -1198 :EXHIBIT A -1 FINDINGS: 1. Unreasonable interference with views or •rivac (and compatible infill project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the lots in the area are flat with no viewshed and the adjacent lots are small with similar locations on the lot as is proposed with subject resolution. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that a 6 ft. fence already exists on the eastern property line where the expansion is proposed. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape The natural landscape is not being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that additional paving is required, and the existing apricot tree between the residence and the property to the east will be removed. 3. Perception of excessive bulk The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that with the addition to the house over 50% of an open space area of the patio will be replaced with structure. 4. Compatible bulk and height The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that the home to the east has full use of the open space area of the rear,yard. -The project will /will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the extension of the home 20 ft. towards the rear will block the rays of the sun during the winter months to the adjacent home to the east. 5. Grading and erosion control standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. 6. The proposal does not meet the purpose of the zoning ordinance to ensure adequate open space for each single family dwelling unit in that the only remaining usable outdoor space will be the small lawn beside the garage. DATE: 5/19/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 5/28/86 APN: 397 -25 -64 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: A -1198; 14035 Saratoga Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval of 247 sq. ft. addition to home. APPLICANT: Joe Waller and David Zicovich PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt ZONING: R- 1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential EXISTING LAND USE: Single family dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 7937 sq. ft. gross 5276 sq. ft. net NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Flat lot with little significant vegetation Adjacent parcel to the rear slopes down hill so that the homes behind the lot are about 15 feet lower in elevation. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 0 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: Ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 6 Ft. HEIGHT: 25 ft. TECHNICAL INFORMATION Rear: 32 Ft. Left Side: 6 Ft. Right Site: 6 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 42.857. (existing) 43.7% (proposed) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (including garage): 1020 +400 1420 +247 add. Second Floor: 1020 TOTAL: 2440 2687 w /add. A --1198 BACKGROUND: MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Match existing house. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance i.e., ensure open space area for each single family residence. On April 10, 1985, the Planning Commission approved construction of a 2420 sq. ft. single family dwelling (including garage) on a substandard lot. At that time the Commission reduced the size of the house and required turfstone in the driveway in order to reduce the impervious coverage and make the width of the house more compatible with the adjacent homes. Applicant now wishes to construct a 247 sq. ft. sunroom addition by expanding the existing concrete patio approximately 3 ft. towards the side property line, addition 47 sq. ft. to the impervious area. Although this addition will increase the impervious area by only .85 the open space area of the patio will be reduced by 52.5 Virtually the only remaining open space will be the front yard and the small lawn at the rear. Staff feels this addition is overbuilding this small lot and not meeting the purpose of the single family residential zone district as stated in the City Code, Section 15- 12.010 "to ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each single family dwelling unit." More access to the sUn will be preserved by not constructing the addition and building walls which will block the rays that travel between the house and garage to the patio area and the home at the east. Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: De cision Being Appealed: C /O APPEAL APPLICATION Ig o /S 4-7711CI-FeD 0 .3 e 7- e U Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Date Received: 6-2 -b Hearing Date: 7 Fee 5 CITY USE ONLY d c?.k- �.J 1 ppellant's Signature *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 WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. I would like to make an appeal as to the descision reached by the Planning Commision on May 28, 1986 on Agenda Item 8, Number Al 198. Firstly the application was filed in the name of the current owner, Michael G. and Andrea T. Rosa and should not have been listed as Zicovich. This fact, although seemingly a small error, did seem to confuse the current request with respect to the original variance request granted on 4/10/85. To explain, At a public hearing on 4/10/85 Case 1064 V691 the following was heard and decided. Joesph Waller and David Zicovich, Request for Design Review Aprroval to construct a new two story, single family residence and Variance Approval to allow construction of this new structure within 6 ft. of the rear property line and 11 ft. from the front property line, and to exceed 45% _impervious coverage at 14035 Saratoga Avenue, in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval on the Design Review and Variance for the setback. They indicated that they were undable to make the findings for the Variance for the impervious coverage and recommended denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the design. The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m. David Zicovich, the applicant, addressed the height, indicating that he could reduce the building 1 1/2 ft. to 24 1/2 ft. He stated that he could reduce the width 2 ft. Relative to the impervious coverage, Zicovich commented that they could have a gravel driveway and be within the standard. Staff commented that it was not Staff's intention to restrict the driveway to gravel, adding that they feel there are alternatives that can be used. Ted Farone, 1401 Saratoga Avenue, asked about the floor plan, and the item was continued to a later time in the meeting to allow him to review it. After review he approved of the plans. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commission McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion of the modifications Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -1064 and V -691 for the setbacks, per the Staff Report and Exhibits B -2, C and D, with the modification that the height be no more than 25 ft. and that the width be reduced 2 feet, and denial of the variance to exceed the 45% impervious coverage. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. This lot (subdivision) dates back to 1904 and with the assistance of the Planning Commission a workable plan was agreed to and a home con- structed that not only added to the tax base but greatly enhances the area. On April 8, 1986 only one year later, we appeared to be asking that the home be enlarged beyond what had been agreed to be reduced as of the April 10, 1985 hearing. As I understand the original concern, as to the size of house on the original request, it was basically for two reasons 1. The bulk in height and width as viewed from the street, 2. Not to exceed 45% impervious coverage, all with respect, of course, to an undersized lot. My application and plan for review did seem to build out the site beyond what was considered and rejected in the past with the exception that I was requesting to enlarge the home in the back not viewed by the street nor presenting any obstruction to the neighbors on either side of the property. In a conversation Diana Lewis, Planner and after explaining my flexibility as to the size, location and purpose of the addition I was lead to believe that my enlarging of the kitchen into a "sun room" or "family kitchen" should not present a problem other than I may have to down size the square footage, which I stated I would be willing to do and as per the letter attached would require Planning Commission review. At the hearing on April 28, 1986, I presented for consideration that I would consider reducing my request from 247 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. that the impervious coverage would not be altered and maintained to 45% and that the apricot tree would be preserved. In summary, it does not appear that my request was presented in the best interest to the decisions that were carefully agreed to in 1985 nor explained with an understanding that I was asking for an extension to the kitchen of 240 sq. ft. which I would be willing to reduce down in size and hopefully satisfying all concerns. I am submitting for your consideration the foregoing in hope that you will grant my application through this appeal process. Sincerely yours, r FOR: PLAN CHECK FEES CONSTRUCTION TAX BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BUILDING PERMITS PLUMBING PERMITS ELECTRIC PERMITS MECHANICAL PERMITS GRADING PERMITS c RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS PUBLIC NEARING /EIRS/ GED /CONSULTING DEPOSITS REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEES BUILDING SITE REVIEW FEES VARIANCE APPLICA- TION FEES COND. USE PERMITS APPLICATION FEES ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES APPLICATION NO. OR ADDRESS OF PROJECT: No. 09419 UARCO Business Forms 21 -3510 21 -3030 21 -3040 0E g2 sARA2�i, OO C 21 -3500 21 -3501 21 -3502 21 -3503 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 PHONE: (408) 867 -3438 DATE 21 -3504 21 -2110 21 -2100 21 -3511 21 -3520 21 -3530 21 -3512 21 -3521 A 1 OFFICIAL RECEIPT AMOUNT: FOR: RECEIVED BY EIR REVIEW FEES CENTRAL PLAN/ REZONING FEE c 21 -3547 TOTAL: 21 -3548 FINAL MAP REVIEW 21 -3513 SUBDIVISION PARK DEDICATION FEES 55 -3550 STORM DRAIN FEE 87 -3551 CALABAZAS IMPROVEMENT FEE 21 -3560 CALABAZAS FIRE PROTECTION FEE 21 -3561 SPECIFIC PLAN FEE 21 -3562 SALE OF MAPS/ PUBLICATIONS 21 -3700 XEROXING 214800 250 -20 1946 AMOUNT: APPEALS 21 -3565 OTHER DEVEL- OPMENT FEES 21 -3549 $•v7� DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FEES 21 -3540 PZ. av D E P T AGENDA BILL NO. 0 DATE: 6/76/86 (7/2/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: SDR -1620, Hwang; Appeal of Planning Commission approval of negative declara- tion, tentative building site, variance and design review for single family dwelling over 6200 sq. ft. in area on a slope exceeding 10% and grading in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. at 19288 Bainter Avenue Summary: On May 23, 1986, after two public hearings and a study session, the Planning Commission approved a 6664 sq. ft. single family dwelling on 29.4% slope with grading at 1810 cu. yds. The HC -RD zone allows 6200 sq. ft. home. Subject residence included 343 sq. ft. for interior garden and 115 sq. ft. for open area between the master suite and living room. During the study of the proposal, the residence was relocated and plans revised to avoid the necessity for a variance to construct on a slope of 30% and the variance request was withdrawn. The Commission found that the location of the home would not interfere with privacy of surrounding homes, minimized the perception of bulk in its design and was compatible with height of homes in the area. They approved the project subject to conditions listed on the attached resolutions. Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: None Appeal Application Exhibit A Negative Declaration Exhibit B Resolution No. SDR-1620-1 Council Action Denied appeal of approval with conditions. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM g CITY MGR. APPROVAL Exhibit E Staff report to Planning Commission dated 5/28/86 Exhibit F Plans Exhibit C Resolution No. A- 1176 -1 Exhibit G Correspondence received Exhibit D Planning Commission Minutes 5/28/86 Recomended Action: Support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. c) YU► ic., V- TP�I/i�raI J cZ 1 Q 1� tax x✓y-R. Decision Being Appealed: 6)o C r.t r r Ld o-lo 0 o.eSZ 1 I� APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: ,/7/7 v-e Address: s Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee 4 SOX CITY USE ONL' Telephone: y 52 Name of Applicant: ��n'!' v ILA/1//r Project File No.: S.b /4 Z Project Address: 9 cR/jF 72 Project Description: /lQ I!e iZ/fi for,/ -f4► VeJiJ r4.4/71, I leq 6c'fA 4SS ..2Qo l 7 ,e A/I 1 (m e4h n Cal 114 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): n _CpriWicAi ..eue..1445/14,w4.0 L4k, D C- c e ll Jict -er 24- erne,• c `ice ota cdo Uzt !.t_Cie *Please do not sign this application t' it i' nt'e a the City offices. If you wish specific pe to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate s THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OP THE DATE OF THE DECISION. EIA -4 Saratoga NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File Nos. SDR 1620, V -730 A -1176 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is a request to construct anew two -story single family residence over 6,200 sq. ft. in size on a slope that exceeds 20% and where the grading will exceed 1,000 cu. yds. at 19 8ainter Ave., Saratoga, CA. There are presently three dwelling units on the site. These units are to be removed after approval of the project. George Hwang 17283 Eaton Lane Monte Sereno, CA. 95030 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project will not have a significant effect on the environment in that the City Geologist has reviewed the project and his recommendations will be included as conditions of approval. Other conditions placed on the project approval such as a possible reduction in size, reduction in height, etc., will serve to mitigate the impacts of the project. Executed at Saratoga, California this 31st day of March 1986. YUCHUEK HSIA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ANO ENVIRONMENTAL CON Oh THE QTY OF ARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER Ex h ib;t ft RESOLUTION NO, SDR 1620 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF George Hwang, 19288 Bainter Avenue WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga/for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 1 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -1620 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im- provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in suoh General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated May 28, 1986 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (C,at eiL/ entltiikir0 (Et71) (Negative Declaration) prepared for this 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 subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 8th day of May 19 86 and is marked Exhibit B In the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby con- ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 2Rth day of May 19 86 at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Burger, Guch, Harris, Peterson, Pines, Siegfried NOES: None ADVISORY. AGENCY. ABSENT: None By l r,L_ L'"2 Chairman, Planning Commission ATT ST: SecrJtary, Planning Commission Fh;b;t 13 C SDR -1620 EXHIBIT "A" I. GENERAL CONOITtONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu- lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ENGINEERING DIVISION A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. D. Underground existing overhead. utilities. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse. F. Construct access road 16 ft. wide (including 1 ft. shoulders) using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from private cul -de- sac to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Road may be reduced in width to avoid the adobe building as approved by the City Engineer. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 12 -1/2% and 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6" aggregate base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of IS% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. s SDR -1620 Exhibit "A" (cont.) Page 2 3. Access roads having a slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not permitted. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. G. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. K. Engineered Improvements required for: 1. Access Road Construction L. Pay Plan Check. and Inspection Fees as determined from "Improvement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. 1. Soils 2. Foundation Investigation /Design B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork. quantities) 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 4. Erosion control measures SDR -1620 Exhibit "A" (cont.) Page 3 5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record date, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service, to be provided and fees paid in accor- dance with requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. Provide one (1) fire hydrant, so located that no part of any residential structure shall be farther than 500' from at least one (1) hydrant and the fire protection shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gallons per minute of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1,000 gpm shall be sustained for a period of two (2) hours. B. The required fire hydrant installation shall be tested and accepted by the Central Fire Protection District prior to issuance of a buliding permit. Any required fees shall be paid. C. The property is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" and the building(s) shall be provided with fire retardant' roof covering(s). An early warning fire reporting system is to be "Installed throughout the residence (Section 15- 80.090) and connected to the Saratoga Fire-Department central monitoring station. Location of the detectors to be approved by the Saratoga Fire Chief. D. Provide an improved access road for fire protection vehicles to a width of 16 ft., (shoulders of one -foot (1') on each side.) VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accor- dance with Environmental Health Standards. Contact Sanitation District for final inspection upon completion. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration. 3 8 SDR -1620 Exhibit "A" (cont.) VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION Page 4 A. All conditions of the 3/27/86 City Geologist report shall be met. B. Prior to issuance of permits, all requirements of design review (Resolution A- 1176 -1) shall be met. C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. D. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. E. All existing structures on site shall be removed or bonded for removal prior to final map approval, unless the structures are found to be historically significant. F. Any waterlines to adjacent properties effected by the project shall be relocated and an easement provided, as appropriate. 6. Grading shall not exceed 1810 cubic yards. H. Maximum size of the structures shall be 6664 sq. ft. .1 ..IGN REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. A- 1176 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION See Exhibit A STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of George Hwang, 19288 Bainter Ave. for single family home and WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of George Hwang for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) (d /pump) subject to the following conditions: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of M 19 R6 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Burger, Guch, Harris, Peterson, Pines, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTE §T: Scretary, Planning Commission ak FILE NO: A 1176 Chairman, Planning Commission A 1176 Hwang' 0 CONDITIONS: Exhibit A 1. Height of the structure shall not exceed 25 ft. 2. A variance is required to allow construction of a home on a slope that exceeds 30% 3. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall require Planning Dept. review and approval. 4. Landscaping shall be provided along the front of the residence to reduce the visual impacts of the structure. 5. The parking areas shall be screened from the street and the northerly adjacent property. 6. Landscape plans for Condition #4 and #5 shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Dept. prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The residence shall not exceed 6,664 sq. ft. 8. The impervious coverage shall not exceed 15,000 sq. ft. 9. The eaves for the garage shall not encroach into any required sideyard by more than 3 ft. 10. The total grading shall not exceed 1,810 cu. yds. To the extent possible, the cut and fill on site shall be balanced to reduce the amount of dirt to be removed from the site. lanning „Commission Minutes 5/28/86 11. Negative Declaration SDR -1620 George Hwang SDR- 1620 George Hwang, request for tentative building A -1176 site, variance and design review approvals to V -730 permit construction of a two story, 24.5. foot high, single family residence over 6200 sq. ft. in size to be built on a slope which exceeds 30% and which requires grading in excess. of:�- 1000 cu. yds. at 19288 Bainter.Ave.:n`theHCRD' zoning district. Planning Director ?ilia presented the staff reoort:':.r, Public hearing opened at 9:40 p.m. Wm. Young discussed the discrepancy in mathematics and suggests the fence be relocated and., replace., any shrubs that had to be taken down. If there, is any damage to the pyracanthas,the:applicant will plant them back. Applicantidoesn'.t. =feel'. there is any reason to. touch the adobe.house. Mr. Alexander, 15879 Revine Road, was concerned about hillside sprawl. Commissioner Pines wanted clarificationof'why__ the neighbors wanted to relocate'the fence..;;``;.r;:; Jim Jefferson, 15895 Revive Road,.' represented. several neighbors and presented a summary of .their feelings.' Mr. Jefferson asked.the.applicant.. to comply with the same ordinarices as previous .Saratoga homeowners. The so- called improvements still violate the rights•of other residents in the area and remains incompatibleThe group Mr: Jefferson' represented stated it :was:obvious to them to follow the staff's recommendations of limiting size and grading. The average home in the neighborhood is 2100 sq.' ft. and a 6,000 sq. ft. house is completely out of'the.place.. No feasible amount of landscaping could.:lessen' the bulk. Mr”. Jefferson further stated .thatthe.neighborhood. is located over a fault and is notoriously fragile.' 'He asked that the Planning Commission please.... not condemn Saratoga Hills. He'also expressed concern about what construction damage might be done during rainstorms. He further discussed ..proximity of the home to neighbors: and resulting loss of property values. Discussion was held about the access road. The easement on the property. is inconsistent t; so that the proposed plan doesn't comply -fire district regulations.' Mr. asked'. the Planning Commission to insist on:the.=size.. and grading and access compliance that the. City of Saratoga previously established.:. Fran Lordson lives in the house directly 'adjacent or just below the Hwang residence.:•She stated the house will have more effect on her.. home. She stated she doesn't get much sun now, will have a towering road leading up.to'her. property, and the new home will.take this away from her. The new road comes up to her driveway. The proposed house will be 10 -15 feet away from the edge of her property. anning:Commission Minutes 5/28/86 Ms. Lordson also stated the erosion.1n, area is "terrible "The ground shifts,every. year, and it has to be paved every year.,!',, -f She feels these things are being, considered; too lightly. moiled :to.close Another neighbor, Joyce Consoli, was concerned: about the road. "If the holes are indeed..the center, they are changing the road that has;::' been there," she stated. Her .master ,bedroom,Y:. is near that road. Chairman Burger asked staff for clarification: on the road. Staff replied •thatthe road.would`. be constructed in the easement. :The road would not extend beyond that easement Mr. Toppel, City, Attorney, stated the easement. may have been changed by reason of use...: Joyce Consoli stated the road changewoulddras- tically change the complexion.ofthe.neighborhood. Chairman Burger stated the Commission•would'• make it very clear where the easement. Mr..Richard Sage, Hidden Hill Road, was,.`concerned about .the damage done to, the.hillside.by,.the cutting. He presented a drawing,of_what.he thought would happen. Chuck Schenkel, Revine Road,_.lives on top of. the hill. He lost part of his property during this.year's rain and earthquakes.'..He also stated that his property has never been cut of filled.. Bill Robinson, Revine Road, was concerned about .excessive bulk and would. like to ask .the Planning Commission to follow staff recommendati;ons_ garding bulk and grading. Commissioners Harris /Siegfried the.publichearing.. Commissioner Peterson stated when he.reads the.'. findings, he has two objections:.(1)'keep -the grading to 1,000 sq: ft. and (2) reduction of the house t� staff recommendations of 6.,200. sq. ft. Commissioner Peterson doesnhave any objection to the house the way it;:is.designed. The applicant has shown us how the project can be totally redesigned. He stated the applicant has a right to build on his property.,;. The 6,600- sq. ft.'came from the Planning Commission's objection that if the house could be reduced: to 6,600 sq. ft it would ould be placing 400 sq. ft. over the ordina nce but the e ordinance was written for lots. Commissioner Peterson wants to resolve the sq. ft. discrepancies'.' One of the basic conditions is to have a geologist evaluate the property. We do not allow any building unless the City Geologist evaluates the building to be okay. Commissioner Peterson stated he has been fighting big houses on the lanning °Commission Minutes 5/28/86 hillsides for years. He wanted the applicant to step the house down and use the contour of the land. Applicant has done an excellent job.` Commissioner Siegfried stated people need to understand the way the Commission measures Commissioner Burger stated the sq. ft.,could be included as a condition., She also stated the grading concerns her a "little .bit. Commissioner Siegfried statedthe-Exhibit II. F. "construct access road 18.ft..wide,plus. 1 ft. shoulders" should be reduced. to 16.ft. .Chairman Burger was concerned about the exact location of the easement. Commissioner Harris stated the Commission wanted to accept Mr. Hwang's, offer to move the fence and replace it with the shrubs. The City Attorney presented central fire specific conditions as it pertained to. Item C, page 7l. Commissioners_ Siegfried /Pines moved for approval of Negative.Declaration SDR 1620. ,Passed 6 -0. Commissioners Siegfried /Pines moved for approval of- SDR- 1620, :A- 1176, and V- 730:,..:Passed 5 -1. Commissioner Harris opposed because.she cannot make the findings that it is compatible with the neighborhood. 12. Negative Declaration C -231 City'of Saratoga. C-231 Consider amending the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga:to create an. ordinance. to establish a. Planned :Development. Zoning Classification to allow multiple ,uses .on a single site having •suc.h• designation pursuant to a' PD permit. City Attorney Toppel presented the, staff report Discussion was held relative to.page`95, Modifi cation of Final Development .Plan.;..Commissioner Pines wanted to clarify mixed use. Chairman. Burger discussed density bonus.', The City Attorney stated that using Paul Masson, he came up with floor area ratios,. ::c, Commissioner Pines stated the seniors may not' want units that large. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FRO DATE: 5/28/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1620, V -730, A -1176, 19288 Bainter Ave. APPLICANT: Bill Young APN: 510 -24 -06 PROJECT OESCRIPTION: Negative Declaration, tentative building site, variance and design review approval of a single family residence over 6,200 sq. ft. in area to be built on a slope which exceeds 10% and requires grading in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. ISSUES: 1. Preservation of contours. Proposed grading at 1810 cu. yds. can be reduced by redesigning the project to preserve the contours. Staff will be recommending that the grading be reduced to a total of 1000 cu. yds. with balanced cut and fill to the extent possible. 2. Compatible bulk and height. Gross floor area exceeds standard of the HC -RD zone (6793 sq. ft. proposed, including 794 sq. ft. garage and 343 sq. ft. open court) and exceeds the size of the home on the nearby properties (in the County and in the City R 1- 40,000 zone). Staff is recommending that the size of the home be reduced to 6200 sq. ft. The Commission indicated at the study session that the size of the home should not exceed 6600 5q. ft. RECOMMENDATION: uauw go Diana Lewis, Planner l(/ ATTACHMENTS: Negative Declaration Resolution Approving Tentative Map Resolution Approving Design Review Exhibit A -1, Findings Technical information staff analysis 1. Approve the Negative Declaration. 2. Approve SDR -1620 per the attached resolution and findings of Exhibit A -1, and 3. Approve A -1176 per the attached resolution and findings of Exhibit A -1. 4. The variance has been withdrawn. The revised plans show 29.4% slope under the building. No action necessary. Diana Lewis Planner DL /dsc SDR -1620, A -1176, cont. ATTACHMENTS, cont. City Council minutes dated 9 /18/85 Geologist's report A -1176 FINDINGS: EXHIBIT A -1 SDR- 1620 FINDINGS Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared relative to the environmental impact to this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: March 31, 1986. 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill protect The project will not unreasonably interfere with the views of neighboring properties in that the home to the southwest will be about 20' ft. above the proposed peak of the roof. The neighboring home td the southeast has views which are oriented in the opposite direction from the subject property. Trees screen the proposed home to the northwest. The new home will be located where it will be less impact on the neighboring properties than if it was reconstructed at the present site. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the home is to be located in the middle of the lot where large setbacks will be maintained. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape and contours -The natural landscape is not being preserved in that the grading required exceeds 1,900 cu. yds. However, this finding can be made if the grading was reduced to a maximum 1,000 cu. yds. This has been made a condition of approval. The home has been designed to step up the hill with the contours. 3. Perception of excessive bulk With the reduction in size to 6,200 sq ft., the perception of bulk will be minimized by the 3.39 acre size of the lot. 4. Compatible bulk and height Approval of the project has been conditioned to not exceed 6,200 sq. ft. This is the design review standard for the HC -RD zoning district. There are two -story homes within the immediate area. A -1178, Findings, Exhibit A -1, cont. 5. Grading and erosion control standards If the project is approved, grading permits would not be issued until all City standards for grading and erosion control are met. Staff will be conditioning approval with a reduction in grading. TECHNICAL INFORMATION STAFF ANALYSIS DATE: 5/19/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 5/28/86 APN: 510 -24 -06 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1620, A -1176 19288 Bainter Ave. ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative building site, variance and design review approvals to allow construction of a two story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard on a slope in excess of 30Z and approval to allow grading in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. APPLICANT: Bill Young PROPERTY OWNER: George Hwang OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final map, grading and building permits. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration completed 3/31/86. ZONING: HC -RD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family EXISTING LAND USE: Residential (one main dwelling and two second units.) SURROUNDING LAND USES: Rural residential PARCEL SIZE: 3.39 acres NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Moderate to steep sloping topography. Primarily orchard trees are on site. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 29.4% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 27% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1010 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 12 Ft. Fill: 800 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 9 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 264 Ft. Rear: 175 Ft. Left Side: 60 Ft. Right Side: 25 Ft. (to pavement) 15 Ft. to right -of -way HEIGHT: 24.5 ft. Applicant is requesting that the height of the home be allowed to increase to 26 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 12,000 sq. ft. or 8% SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First floor (incl. garage): 5070 sq. ft.* Second floor: 1723 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6793 sq. ft. *Includes 343 sq. ft. for interior garden *Includes 115 sq. ft. for open area between master suite and living room. SDR -1620, A -1176 Technical InFormation(cont.) SDR -1620 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the size of the structure exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard. MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Cedar siding with an earthtone stain and browntone roof tile. BACKGROUND: There was a previous proposal for a two -story home on this lot which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in August, 1985. The item was appealed to the City Council and the Council reversed the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's reasons for reversing the Commission's decision included that the slope under the building site exceeded 30% and there was an alternative building site (where the existing main dwelling is located) that should be used for the new structure. In addition, the project required excessive grading, would adversely effect the views and privacy of the neighboring property owners and the size of the residence was not compatible with other dwellings in the area and would have a perception of excessive bulk. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal which shows the home in an alternative location with a design which steps up the hill. This project was reviewed at the Committee of- the -Whole on May 6, 1986. Concerns expressed by the neighbors at the meeting were the size of the home, the perceived' height of the residence (42 ft. measured at the front elevation), and the omission of the future recreational area from the site development plan. The applicant stated he could reduce the grading by moving the home 3 ft. closer to the road. This would reduce the pad elevations of the home, but the height of house would have to increase to retain the views. The Commission directed that the size of the home should not exceed 6,600 sq. ft. and that the width of the road should be changed to 16 ft., maximum so that an off -site structure would not have to be removed. The Commission also stated that the three -story appearance of the home was not a concern because of the applicant's attempt to step up the hill. The slope under the building footprint has been computed to be less than 30 With the previous application that was denied, the City Council directed that an alternative location of the building should be found where the slope did not exceed 30 The Council felt that the location where the present main dwelling exists would be a possible alternative. The building footprint for the existing main dwelling is approximately 1800 sq. ft. The house is presently within 10 ft. of the side property line where a minimum setback of 20 ft. is required. There is another home within approximately 20 ft. of this building. However, the view of this neighboring home is oriented in the opposite direction. Relocating the proposed residence to where the main dwelling presently exists is not without problems. Placing the new home in this area would SDR -1620, cont. put it closer to an existing residence where privacy may be a concern. Trees which help screen the existing hone may have to be removed to permit a larger home that meets setback. requirements. Lastly, the existing driveway that leads up to the building is narrow and would have to be widened for emergency vehicles. In the proposed location, the house will be closer to the access road so that the grading for the driveway should be less. Also, the slope under the building footprint is reported to be less than 30 The City Geologist has reviewed the project and recommends approval with certain conditions. His report is attached. The Commission has the option to approve the tentative building site, approve the tentative map subject to the relocation of the building site or deny the tentative map. A -1176 TECHNICAL INFORMATION There appears to be three issues in considering the design review request for the proposed structure. First, in placing the home 3 ft. closer to the road, the grading for the project now totals 1,810 cu. yds. Although the driveway length has been reduced from that of the first proposal, grading for the driveway alone amounts to 330 cu. yds. An alternative available is to locate the garage in the area where the turfstone parking is proposed. More of the existing access road may then be used. Also, the design of the home is such that it steps up the hill. To keep the profile of the home lower, cutting into the hillside is being proposed. In addition, level patios are being created. It appears that the proposed design was an effort to address the concerns that resulted in the denial of the original proposal. However, grading could be further reduced by spreading the home more parallel to the contours and by eliminating the graded patio areas. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, the total grading should not exceed 1,000 cu. yds. The second issue is the perceived height of the structure. Because the design of the home is such that it steps up the hill, the home will appear taller. At the study session on this project, the Commission stated that the perceived height of the structure was not a concern. The third issue is the gross floor area of the structure. By staff's measurements, the home is 6,793 sq. ft. in size. However, this amount includes the 794 sq. ft. garage and and 343 sq. ft. interior garden in the center of the home. Previously, the Commission has permitted certain homes to excee'd design review standard when it was determined that the size of the lot would mitigate the perception of bulk. For this proposal, the lot size is larger; however, the existing homes adjacent to the property are at least 1,000 sq. ft. smaller in size. A smaller house may reduce the amount of grading required. The revisions made to the plan since the study session have been to move the home closer to the road. This has lowered the pad elevations by two feet, reduced the excavation for the home by 240 cu. yds. and the driveway by 50 cu. yds., and increased the fill by 130 cu. yds. The cut and fill is now more balanced so that less dirt will have to be moved off -site. Also, the applicant states that the height of the house would have to be increased to 26 ft. This appears to be required to maintain views. Lastly, the pepper tree inside the turfstone parking area is to be saved. Staff can recommend approval of the project with changes to reduce the size of the structure to 6,200 sq. ft. and to reduce the grading to a total of 1,000 cu. yds. 2. Approval of School Crossing Guard Contracts Community Services Director reviewed staff report, explaining that Sacred Heart School was providing its own crossing guard services. Councilmember Callon disagreed with the position in the original staff report that the City could not legally provide funding for such services to that school because that would constitute public funding of a religous agency. City Manager replied that staff had changed the report because the staff was not now taking that position. Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had not yet arrived, Mayor Clevenger proceeded to items following public hearings on the agenda. 3- 9/18/85 FANELLI /HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TD ROBERT NUGENT. Passed 5 -0. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Communications, if any None. B. Written Communications from the Public #1 from E. and F. Steinberg concerning tree removal City Manager reported that he had responded to Mr. Steinberg's concerns; Councilmember Callon requested that Councilmembers be given copies of the reply. C. New Business from Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled None. D. New Business from Councilmembers Callon remarked on the repeated unsatisfactory performance of the microphone system and asked that it be improved. Fanelli brought up subject of Route 85 alternatives report, pointing out that facilities such as parking lots were needed if light rail were included, and their impacts were not known. Mayor Clevenger noted that such facilities would also be needed if bus transit were included. After further discussion of needed information and timetables, there was consensus to have the Route 85 consultant present at the October 2 public hearing and the October 16 regular meeting; after the public hearing, staff and consultant would prepare questions to be responded to be CalTrans; the Council would consider those concerns, along with any of their own, at the October 16 meeting. Councilmembers discussed having another community newsletter prepared soon with information about Route 85. Staff was directed to inform the Council of the timeline for Saratoga's input. The hour of 8:00 having been reached, Mayor Clevenger returned to public hearings on the agenda. V. PUBLIC HERRINGS There was consensus to consider the first two public hearings together. A. Appeal of Negative Declaration, Building Site and Design Review Approvals by Planning Commission, 19288 Bainter Ave. (Appellant, S. Shankle; applicant, G. Hwang) (SDR 1605, A -1102) B. Consideration of Hwang Annexation (Bainter 1985 -1) Community Development Director pointed out locations of various features on the maps and answered Councilmembers' questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Suzanne Shankle spoke as the appellant, saying that she represented a number of neighbors. She presented a summary of their objections to the proposal and documents concerning County policies, including a prohibition of urban development on watershed lands generally above 15% slope. Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., objected to the project on the grounds that the Negative Declaration did not reflect the environmental hazards; the project would exceed Saratoga's standards for grading on hillsides; the size and bulk of the house were excessive; the annexation is not appropriate because it was simply an accommodation for the developer; some historical buildings would be taken down. f In answer to Councilmember Callon, Community Development Director explained the County standards, including prohibition of building on slopes over 30 but noted that the prohibition did not apply to lots of record. William Young then spoke as a design engineer representing the applicant. He stated that the only reason they applied for annexation was that the County would not process their project until they had done so. He stated that they had met all requirements of staff and planned to plant a great deal of landscaping; he presented photographs of another project which they had landscaped extensively and a model of the current project. He also said that Ms. Shankle's house was higher than the proposed house, and the project would not interfere with her view or anyone else's. Councilmembers asked about the proposed road, which would not be counted as impervious coverage because of its construction (unless the Planning Commission changed the definition of impervious coverage, which they were considering); location of neighbors' homes; landslide danger; details of the plan; easements; setbacks; and building on the slope. Mr. Young replied that the proposal did not make use of the existing road because it did not lead to the building as sited. He explained the proposed setbacks and stated that the easement was a previously existing easement for the old road. Bill Heiss, speaking as another engineer for the project, stated that the average slope of the site was 27%, and that the geologist had pronounced the site satisfactory for building. John Stannard, 19280 Bainter Avenue, Los Gatos, stated he had not been notified of the project, although he had owned his nearby property since May. Community Development Director replied that, in accordance with law, homeowners of record as of the latest Assessor's Parcel List in March were notified of the project. Mr. Stannard then stated his concern that an easement appeared to pass through one of his buildings. Community Development Director stated he believed that the building had been allowed to remain in the development previously approved on the condition that a kitchen be removed so that the building could not be used as a second unit. Mr. Stannard requested a delay to resolve his concerns because he had not been notified of the project. Bob Lorinson opposed the project, saying that the roof would appear very high from his adjacent property. Diane Jefferson, 15895 Redberry, opposed the project, saying that she feared grading would endanger her house and property. Joyce Consoli, 19370 Redberry, opposed the project and the annexation, stating that she had not been notified of the proposal and was concerned about the effect of the very large house on the rural character of the area. Mel Wright, 19400 Redberry, stated that the neighbors wish the property to remain as it is. He was concerned about possible use of one building as a second unit, arrangements for an easement, and the drainage from the project. Community Development Director responded that the drainage must be dealt with to the satisfaction of City staff. Bill Robson, Ravine Road, objected to the project because of grading, bulk and size of the building, slope of the site, and inappropriateness of the annexation. Bruce Sogg, 19506 Redberry, opposed the project because he believed it could cause landslide problems. Georgia Nelson, 15821 Hidden Hill Rd., stated that she did not object to the proposal and felt the owners were entitled to build on the site. She believed the project would be an improvement. Fran Lorinson, 19450 Redberry, objected to the proposal because it would block out sun from her property. She felt that the house should be built on a flatter portion of the site. Chuck Shankle, 16303 Ravine Road, expressed concern that his house would be affected by any landslide caused by the project. He feared that the City would make exceptions to allow unsafe building, and he believed that the proposed project would be too visible. William Young rose again to state that the proposal was technically satisfactory, and the owner had a right to build on the lot. He said he had letters of support 5- 9/19/85 from Mr. Hoag and Mr. Durkees, both residents of Bainter Dr. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:04 p.m. The majority of the Council felt the annexation was not inappropriate because it would not start a chain of new development, being surrounded already by developed land. Councilmember Fanelli stated that it has been the policy of the City to annex land on City limits to retain control of development for the protection of both the City and the neighbors. Councilmember.Moyles and Mayor Clevenger felt the annexation should not be approved because there was no reason to annex, since there was no further development which could be controlled by Saratoga. Mayor Clevenger felt that if anything were to be annexed, the Council should study the matter and consider annexing the whole area rather than one small part. CALLON /FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2273 ORDERING THE ANNEXATION. Passed 3 -2 (Clevenger, Moyles opposed). As to the appeal, Councilmembers agreed that the project was intrusive and incompatible with the neighborhood because of its size and bulk; that the watershed issue was a possible factor against the house; the proposed house was not well situated; the City had not followed its own HCRD ordinance prohibiting building on a 30% slope. Councilmember Fanelli added that the City must provide for use of the site at some time; she believed the easement should remain but more trees should be provided with less grading so that the site would be intact. Councilmembers discussed procedures by which the applicant could return with another plan without the necessity for paying further application fees. FANELLI /CAL.LON MOVED TO REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS OF SDR 1605 AND A- 1102 AND GRANT 111E APPEAL, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING C0MMISSION WITH A NEW APPLICATION, BUT WITH THE APPLICATION FEES WAIVED FOR A PERIOD OF 6,MONTHS. Passed 5 -0. There was consensus that the applicant would be required to pay out -of- pocket costs such as noticing fees in connection with the application. Mayor Clevenger then recessed the meeting from 10:29 to 10:40 p.m. C. Reversion to Acreage of three lots, SDR 1596, CAW Associates (J. Chu), Quito Rd. and Montpere Way) The public hearing was opened at 10:43 p.m. Mr. Chu requested Council's approval of the reversion. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:44 p.m. HLAVA /FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2274 APPROVING REVERSION TO ACREAGE. Passed 5 -0. D. Reversion to Acreage of 2 approved lots into 1 parcel, Farr Ranch Rd., Parker Ranch Rd., and Vista Arroyo Ct., B. Reynold The public hearing was opened at 10:44 p.m. Mr. Reynolds requested Council's approval of the reversion. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:45 p.m. HLAVA /MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2275 APPROVING REVERSION To ACREAGE. Passed 5 -0. Mayor Clevenger then proceeded to unfinished:items remaining on the agenda. D. New Business from Councilmembers (continued) Fanelli requested revised list of Council committees; Hlava requested calendar of agenda items for rest of year. Moyles reported on Traffic Authority. inquired as to Masek issue; City Attorneey reported that working drawings had been filed. brought up next issue of community newsletter; various Councilmembers suggested including graphs on Route 85; a tear sheet to be returned by the public; having an article on the Paul Masson property. E William Cotton and Associates TO: SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Review RE: Lands of Hwang, SDR -1605 19288 Bainter Avenue At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotech- nical review of the subject application using: o Tentative Map and Grading Plan (1 sheet, 20- scale) prepared by Jennings, McDermott, Heiss, dated March, 1986. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from our office files. DISCUSSION Diana Lewis, Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 318 B North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 March 27, 1986 S1375B Our review of the referenced plan indicates that the applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence and driveway. Previous plans submitted by the applicant (May, 1985) indicated that in addition to the proposed residence and driveway, a pool and tennis court were planned. The original building site has been moved from the southwest portion of the property to the central portion, and the proposed driveway access has been changed from the northwest property corner to an area approximately 110 feet southwest along the northern property line. Our previous review letter (July 19, 1985) requested that the applicant's geotechnical consultant address the potentially non engineered fill materials where development was proposed and provide mitigation measures. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Since our last review of the subject application, the site development plans have changed. The proposed residence and driveway locations have been moved and plans for a tennis court and pool have been deleted. The new proposed development appears to be somewhat constrained by the presence of oversteep- ened cut and fill slopes and potentially non engineered fill materials. However, it appears that appropriate geotechnical design and proper construction practices could satisfactorily mitigate the potential constraints. Consequently, we recom- mend approval with the following conditions. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING F Diana Lewis 2 March 27, 1986 Planner WRC:BH:Is 1. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation The applicant's geotechni- cal consultant should conduct a supplemental geotechnical investiga- tion of the new proposed residential site and driveway areas. The geotechnical consultant should produce an original engineering geo- logic map and cross section(s) of the areas of proposed development and specifically show all areas of cut and fill. In addition, mitigation measures should be provided for dealing with the oversteepened cut and fill slopes and with the potentially non engineered fill materials where the development is proposed. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review The geotechnical consultant shall review and approve the geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, and roadways) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be described in a letter by the geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test, and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations, retaining walls, and roadways prior to the placement of concrete, steel, and fill. The results of the field inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City to be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to final project approval. The results of the supplemental geotechnical investigation should be submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to issuance of site development and building permits. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. wl t.. Jl l"L11N ✓i William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 William Cotton and Associates-°°° SITE 1_" 1, 000' VICINITY MAP 4. 1 e F.110 pow „a 14, „ere /e e• Ae- 4 1 ,r ILL zrzeer. ri 44 7 /22,, Lanl rr- a E 7 II K =r c 1./eft Ei •7i' f.< •1,..< lee S!!• lrziav ES- A N7S re. 'X..- RI; 7. 11'v7. t N rL f i/ 7 t ?'e i t •.r d7'Y Y i -•r-fL 1 ✓7 3 Z FS 3..7 r17 57`tri. r r/ 4z-a?.`;.• 7:rf 1 Are -Ca k .4; r AP?'" Ager,-/ Lela e /2 r V7 u fr/ i ..ra ..IU....., i______,..ii.0 II VIIIIMUMNI1111•1111•01M1=1=11•1111= MI ��iIi�i�i�i� I MP Orilr rr n _IL] 0 1 U 1 IA,. C7/ y c,41 r. r /B o. .c/ c.r7' /n 'her /.i,r -71;oiC✓ r-4 4”. :r /sc• T c. 1 L D CA•errs,y nTr yr. re/ me.. «guy f l�r l 1%/srf J rox,. se J.J /fi t` kyr -11" -A" %r t M 0/r b 7\ z yr; ;tar' 1 /0 .r /fr., p-t/e.re etoiseerf •.7.7 7 [10 Y .7 .4,1 .772 ".7 e49••••7 p g 40 04 .t•. ■••72/..5 rz P.X -7 1 Ye.* ANI••••• le 1 C Accf "z"Xl al "di -2 7 .PA,/ '<CIL r 26/ k6 Jul LJ c7 2. e.A1ELon. 15 821 JIdd En cRoaxl Zod. aLoi, 6alifoznia 95030 44 /7f‘ 1,6 c 2 -tA G JUN 2 7 1986 APPEAL OF: Application No. Location, SDR -1620 V -730, A -1176, 19288 Banter Ave. Applicant: William Young APN: 510 -24 -06 TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA June 27, 1986 The appeal of this proposed project is a prime example of an unsolved, area -wide problem caused by builder /owner efforts to maximize land investment by building the largest house possible on a given hillside site. This specific house would not be the subject of an appeal if it met all applicable Saratoga ordinances and Saratoga's General Plan, and if it does not infringe upon the rights of other property owners and residents. i?e We ask that the project application before the Council be considered solely upon its own merits, not as a technical improvement on a previously denied application. I must "stand on its own two feet Of equal importance, we ask that the 'Council support the rationale advanded for last year's annexation of the property in question: i.e., "...the city...annexes land on the city limits to retain control of development for the protection of both the city and the neighbors." Aspects of particular concern regarding the proposed develop- ment are as follows: 1. This proposed hillside development will not be compatible with other structures in the area. The proposed bulky, four story appearing structure will be highly visible from the scenic highway, as it sits in a neighborhood compolsed mainly of small one -story homes. Such incompatibility will destroy the character of the entire area. 2. Privacy, light, and view of adjoining houses will be adversely affected byvthe height and proximity of the house and parking areas. 3. The amount of earth to be moved is twice the staff designated limit, and some of the fill is proposed for areas with over 50% slope. 4. New geologic testings have not been made to fall directly under the house footprint. Since adjacent land experienced sliding earlier this year, it is extremely important that new Pg. 2 deeper drillings be made under the proposed footprint. This is for the protection of the owner, as well as the builder architect and the city of Saratoga. These considerations plus the itemized list of concerns in the appeal document, combine to cast grave doubts on the ad- visability of premature project approval. 5. ardfogasPlanning Staff has recommended against approval of this plan as presented. This proposal does not meet applicable Saratoga ordinances and the Saratoga General Plan and, as such, violates the rights of area residents, and therefore remains unacceptable. We homeowners and area residents ask only that the applicant in this case abide by the same well considered and duly enacted Saratoga ordinances and General Plan that have been easily complied with by thousands of other Saratoga home builders. Let the applicant submit a plan which meets all the City's legal requirements; it would then not be the subject of an appeal from us. Coalition of Bainter Redberry Residents 19655 Redberry Drive Los Gatps CA 95030 San Jose Mercury -News, Sunday, June 22, 1986. July 1, 1986 To Whom it may concern; Sincerely Wilfri 19292 Bainter Ave. Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 We have reviewed the plans for the design of the building and surroundings for Mr. Geaoge Hwang at 19288 Bainter Ave. We feel that this design would provide an improvement to the existing property and neighborhood. The added drainage planned would provide a solution to an existing difficult situation and we are in favor of Mr. Young's plans for making these improvements. 6 teu D Dorothy J. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: CARL L. DIERKES ASSOCIATES BOX 495 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95071 July 2, 1986 Re: Proposed Home to be Built by William Young at 19288 Bainter Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 1, Carl L. Dierkes, am the owner of a William Young- constructed home at 19270 Bainter Avenue, Saratoga, CA which I have been the owner and resided in for over the past six years. I understand that Mr. Young desires approval to build another home at 19288 Bainter, Saratoga, CA. This proposed location is approximately three hundred feet from my property. I have reviewed Mr. Young's project plans and wholeheartedly approve. Mr. Young represents to me one of the most conscientious, honest, and trustworthy individuals that I have ever met. For example, every item: in my home was completed with extreme professionalism and craftmanship. I am extremely pleased that he will be constructing this proposed home. The construction of this new home certainly will enhance the property values of ALL existing homes in the area. I believe thAt everyone in the immediate neighborhood is aware of this fact. ,T definitely recommend approval of this project. Saratoga in no way can go wrong approving this project -the new home defintelyhkse another "Showcase" for Saratoga. Ca /D -rkes 19270 Bainter Avenue Saratoga, California APPEAL OF: Application No. Location, SDR -1620 V -730, A -1176, 19288 Bainter Ave. Applicant: William Young APN: 510 -24 -06 TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA June 27, 1986 The appeal of this proposed project is a prime example of an unsolved, area -wide problem caused by builder /owner efforts to maximize land investment by building the largest house possible on a given hillside site. This specific house would not be the subject of an appeal if it met all applicable Saratoga ordinances and Saratoga's General Plan, and if it does not infringe upon the rights of other property owners and residents. We ask that the project application before the Council be considered solely upon its own merits, not as a technical improvement on a previously denied application. I must "stand on its own two feet Of equal importance, we ask that the'Council support the rationale advanced for last year's annexation of the property in question: i.e., "...the city...annexes land on the city limits to retain control of development for the protection of both the city and the neighbors." Aspects of particular concern regarding the proposed develop- ment are as follows: 1. This proposed hillside development will not be compatible with other structures in the area. The proposed bulky, four story appearing structure will be highly visible from the scenic highway, as it sits in a neighborhood compolsed mainly of small one -story homes. Such incompatibility will destroy the character of the entire area. 2. Privacy, light, and view of adjoining houses will be adversely affected by height and proximity of the house and parking areas. 3. The amount of earth to be moved is twice the staff designated limit, and some of the fill is proposed for areas with over 50% slope. 4. New geologic testings have not been made to fall directly under the house footprint. Since adjacent land experienced sliding earlier this year, it is extremely important that new ft Pg. 2 deeper drillings be made under the proposed footprint. This is for the protection of the owner, as well as the builder architect and the city of Saratoga. These considerations plus the itemized list of concerns in the appeal document, combine to cast grave doubts on the ad- visability of premature project approval. 5. arttogasPlanning Staff has recommended against approval of this plan as presented. This proposal does not meet applicable Saratoga ordinances and the Saratoga General Plan and, as such, violates the rights of area residents, and therefore remains unacceptable. We homeowners and area residents ask only that the applicant in this case abide by the same well considered and duly enacted Saratoga ordinances and General Plan that have been easily complied with by thousands of other Saratoga home builders. Let the applicant submit a plan which meets all the City's legal requirements; it would then not be the subject of an appeal from us. Coalition of Bainter Redberry Residents 19655 Redberry Drive Los Gatos; CA 95030 San Jose Mercury -News, Sunday, June 22, 1986. 4 oAto'.'.e.111 15821 c/iddEn c/iLL Woad _Cos. gaol, tali f o 'znia 95030 00k. uo—e-;--eTc; 60L ai-Ce_"d iedZL JUN 273 6 AGENDA BILL W. OP(' DATE: 6/18/86 (7/2/86) DEPT.: Engineering SUBJECT: PARKING PROHIBITION OAK 'STREET AT ST. CHARLES Summary: We have been requested by a resident of the five -unit apartment complex, located on Oak Street at St. Charles, to prohibit park- ing on each side of the driveway to their complex. This request is a valid one, as when vehicles are parked at the locations described it is difficult to adequately enter Oak Street safely. The Public Safety Commission unanimously agreed to the prohibi- tion of parking at this location. Fiscal Impacts: The cost of painting the curb red at both sides of the apartment complex driveway would be less than one hundred dollars ($100) and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033- 3010) Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV 2•. Sketch showing location 3. Letter from resident of apartment complex 4. Memorandum from City Engineer to Public Safety Commission 5. Response memo from Community Services Director to City Engineer Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. MV Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Oak Street at St. Charles Street. Council Action Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET AND ST. CHARLES STREET The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the follow- ing designated portions of street in the City of Saratoga are hereby declared to be congested areas and the following limits for parking of motor vehicles are hereby established for said portions of said street: Name of Street Oak Street St. Charles Street This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed as delineated above. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO.. MV- Description Parking Limit On the northwesterly side NO PARKING from a point which is 44'± ANYTIME northeasterly from the point of intersection of the north- westerly curb line of Oak Street and the northerly curb line of St. Charles Street to a point 67'1- northeasterly thereof On the northerly side from NO PARKING a point which is 8 north- ANYTIME easterly from the point of intersection of the north westerly curb line of Oak Street and the northerly curb line of St. Charles Street to a point 17'± westerly of said point of intersection MAYOR II. vw 'imaargraiimigNIN. _67.2-21 --,-•4 4Ze_.) LL 2,2„e LI 44. RECEIVED MAY 0 7 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Cd?a (t• TO: FROM: SUBJECT: RSS:cd a:NEW o 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM Public Safety Commission DATE: Max 14,. 1986 City Engineer REQUEST FOR PARKING PROHIBITION ON. OAK STREET I have received a request from Doris Behnke of14655.Oak Street to con- sider prohibiting parking on each side of the driveway to their comp1ek (copy of letter is attached). Based on our field review this request seems to be realistic, as their driveway approaches. Oak Street at an angle on an uphill slope. By eliminating one parking space (22' each) on both sides of this driveway it will increase the safety for not only the driveway users, but also for the vehicular traffic on. Oak Street, including the ones turning onto St. Charles Street. The elimination of one parking space on each side of a frequently used driveway on a high use street is common practice and a highly recommended safety measure. Attachments: Letter from Ms. Behnke Sketch showing location City Engineer OgU7' cD2 June 16, 1986 To: Bob Shook, City Engineer From: Community Services Director Subject: Request for Parking Prohibition on Oak Street This is in response to your memorandum dated May 14, 1986, requesting a specified portion of curb on Oak Street in the Village area be painted red to signify elimination of parking for traffic safety purposes. On Monday, June 9, 1986, the Public Safety Commission reviewed the material you had sent to me. The Public Safety Commission unanimously endorsed your recommendations, noting that the change did not create any additional hazards. as+ce� Todd W. Argow jm cc: City Manager Erman Dorsey Public Safety Commission 1:3777 FRUITV =ALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 AGENDA BILL NO. 06 AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA 216e.,/ I GOA DATE: 6/18/86 (7/2/86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: MODIFICATION. OF P'MEDIAN. ON SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD AT VERDE. VISTA LANE Summary: As a result of a request from a resident on Boyce Lane (off of Verde Vista Lane) we have looked into the possibility of pro- viding a stacking lane in the northerly median of Saratoga Sunnyyale Road for vehicles turning left from Verde. Vista Lane onto northbound Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. We feel that this modification would improve the safety for vehicles making this turn and a request should be made to Caltrans to consider this modification. The Public Safety Commission unanimously supports this proposal. Fiscal Impacts: The proposed modification is a safety improvement on a state highway and the cost should be borne by Caltrans. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Sketch of proposed modification 2 Memorandum from City Engineer to Public Safety Commission 3. Response memo Community Services Director to City Engineer Recommended Action: Request to Caltrans to make the safety improvement of modifying the median to allow a stacking lane on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road northside of Verde Vista Lane. Council Action Approved. 1 1 1 11 '1 I 1 ii 1 1 1, I. QUNE BL OSSO /4 DR 47 VezhG.i E. 1 I 11 1. 11, -1- _SA RATO 4 SE/NN VA E y 11 2] (l r O I 4 yC iss ta�ipA Q'4 y IF" R/w OETVW cDO MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF MEDIAN ON SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD AT VERDE VISTA LANE RSS:ED /cd Attachment: Sketch cc: City Manager City Engineer 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 DATE: 5. 19--86 We have been requested.by Don Orlando of20780.Boyce Lane. to look. into the possibility of providing a stacking lane in the northerly median of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road for vehicles turning left. from Verde. Vista Lane onto northbound Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The engineering staff's recommendation is to request Caltrans to make the proposed modification, as it is State highway., We. feel that this modification would improve the safety for vehicles making this turn onto the four lane, high volume highway, allowing more time to merge into the northbound traffic flow after crossing the two southbound lanes. If this recommendation meets with the Safety Commission's approval, we will proceed with our request to Caltrans to make the necessary modifi- cation. Should you have any questions /comments or if more information is needed, please let me know. Og cD2 h N o 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 June 16, 1986 To: Bob Shook, City Engineer From: Community Services Director Subject: Modification of Median on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road at Verde Vista Lane This is in response to your memorandum dated May 19, 1986, requesting that a portion of the median on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road be removed to create an access lane to northbound traffic from Verde Vista Lane onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. At the regular meeting of the Public Safety Commission on Monday, June 9, 1986, the Commission reviewed your recommendations and made a unanimous decision that your proposal should be forwarded onto Caltrans for further study. Please contact me if you have any questions in this matter. Toed W. rgow jm cc City Manager Erman Dorsey Public Safety Commission AGENDA BILL NO. /0? I DATE: 6/25/86 (7/2/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: A -1189 Saude; Appeal of condition•: #2, limiting size of single family home to 6200 sq. ft. in NHR zone continued from 6/18/86 Summary: On June 18, 1986, the City Council received revised plans from the applicant with the statement that since the Planning Commission action on the plans, the height of the garage was reduced to 152' and the home reduced to 6790 sq. ft. in area. The applicant requested that the City Council approve the revised plans. The City Council directed the applicant to provide a copy of the plans to staff and continued the matter in order for staff to verify the information. Based on the plans revised 6/9/86, staff confirmed that the total size of the home is 6762 sq. ft. and the cross section of the garage as shown on sheet 7 (D -D), has been reduced to 15 height.._ Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: Letter from Robert McBain Letter from Terrasearch Plans Recommended Action: CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 6,4 CITY MGR. APPROVAL 0 If the City Council wishes to approve the revised plans, it should approve the resolution prepared by the City Attorney. Council Action Did not pass resolution; denied appeal. Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California RE: Lot 9, Tract 6628 Dear Council Members: I am enclosing for your information, a copy of a letter from our soil engineers Terrasearch inc. The letter covers the grading of the subdivision. I have highlighted the pertinent data and have omitted pages from the letter that covers other lots and the road work. The recommendations as stated by the soil engineers on page #2 are part of the conditions of approval of this project. I wil be present at your meeting on 2 July to answer any further questions cc: enclo RAM :la copies: 10 City of Saratoga 1 Frank Saude Recco inc. 777 N. First Street San Jose Ca. 95112 Very truly yours, e c Robert A. McBain RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1986 PLANNING DEPT. Refs: Gentlemen: SOIL, FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS 11 I.C. 1580 NORTH FOURTH STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 -4676, (408) 287 -9460 Gibbs McBain Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 908 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Attention: Mr. Bob Gibbs Subject: Tract 6628 Lands of Boisseranc Toll Gate Road Saratoga, California REPORT OF TESTIN3 AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING THE GRADING OPERATIONS 1) Tentative Map Prepared By Nowack Associates Dated November 1977 2) Grading Plan Prepared By Nowack Associates Dated May 24, 1982 At your request, our firm has provided testing and observation services dur- ing the grading operations on the subject site. The grading operations have been satisfactorily performed in accordance with our Soil Investigation Report dated 11 May 1978 and our Geologic Investigation Report dated 5 May 1978. It is noted that the testing is referenced to the Tentative Map. Specific on -site engineering decisions are referenced in previous corres- pondence approved by all parties. Grading operations commenced with clearing and stripping operations of areas to be graded. Keyways were excavated into native ground, as necessary, approved'by all parties, and designated slide areas were removed and keyed for fill areas. Some slides were located in cut areas. Areas designated to receive engineered fill were moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% of the maximum dry density as deter- mined by the ASTM D1557 -78 Laboratory Test Procedureas recommended in the aforementioned report. Project No. 4065 -C 27 August 1984 11492 SUNRISE GOLD CIRCLE, SUITE F, RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 916 635 -2153 opmen neer and/or ng x ng recomnend atio s... n�ecessari �cezna "�e c�oR �;io ac,tes s- r -site Should you have tact our office Review by: Tom S. Makdissy, P.E. Principal Engineer any questions or require at your convenience. Copies: 3 to Gibbs McBain Enterprises, -2- r Inc. orm Project No. 4065-C 27 August 1984 Fill was then placed in thin lifts and compacted as above until rough fin i shedgade was achieved Xii7MgOinii7itlifk,are. :now .wady. receive four tai ©}��L a ro ents For roadway construction, the areas wer e scarifiy to C.`....yA6'�iro'� "�wwa.nau d ie required depth, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% of the iraximum dry density in the top 6 inches. Baserock was then placed and compacted to a minimum relative com- paction of 95% of the maximum dry density. The internal streets were ready to receive final improvements at the date of final testing. All laboratory and field test results are summarized on the enclosed TABLES I and II. Subsurface drain systems were installed under the direction of the Soil Engineer during the fill operations. It should be pointed out that proper, positive drainage must be maintained at all times, and all drainage facili- ties must be monitored and maintained to ensure proper operation. In addition, the slopes at the subject site should be monitored periodically and maintained should sloughing and /or erosion occur. To minimize erosion, slope planting, preferably with deep rooted, native plants must be completed on all exposed surfaces of cut and fill slopes. Graded slopes should not be left exposed through a winter season without the completion of erosion con- trol measures and slope planting. mii ie reviewed "by the7goir, determine wh ether suppleme xgadng and or special foundation under the cbseW c2 maintai additional information, please con- Very truly yours, TE "ASEARCH. INC. as G. Ki oject Engi r P.E. (2) (3) Tannish -brown Silty CLAY w /some light weight Gravel Brown Silty CLAY w /minor fine light weight Gravel Tannish -brown Silty CLAY Tannish -brown Silty CLAY Greenish -brown slightly Serpentine CLAY /SILT w /light weight Gravel TABLE I Tannish -brown CLAY /SILT Greenish -brown Silty CLAY (Claystones, soft) Tannish -brown SAND GRAVEL Tannish -green Serpentine Silty GRAVEL Project No. 4065 -C 27 August 1984 Summary of Laboratory Test Results Test No. Description Max. Dry Density Opt. Moisture (Soil Type) p.c.f. (1) Tannish -brown Silty CLAY 113.9 16.4 w /some Siltstones 120.9 15.2 100.2 23.1 115.7 113.4 125.7 117.2 110.1 125.8 138.4 16.3 15.5 11.5 12.4 16.2 19.9 7.0 Test Date No. 1982 84 85 86 8/4 8/4 8/4 Sta 20 +20 Sta 20 +20 Sta 20 +20 88 8/5 Sta 20 +00 90 8/5 Sta 20 +00 91 8/5 Sta 24 +50 92 8/5 Sta 20 +00 93 8/5 Sta 20 +00 94 8/5 Sta 20 +00 95 8/5 Sta 21 +80 96 8/5 Sta 19 +75 Location Toll Gate Road 78 8/4 Sta 23 +50, Center of keyway 79 8/4 Sta 1 +50, Toll Gate Road Toll Gate Road TABLE II Project No. 4065-C 27 August 1984 Summary of Field Density Test Results Depth Moisture Dry Relative Soil Type (ft.) Content Density Compaction and p.c.f. Remarks 33.0 13 117 93 5.0 13 18.0 16.0 15.0 14 14 13 -7- 109 94 111 109 107 96 95 93 14.0 15 108 13.0 11 111 22.0 15 110 9.0 14 115 8.0 14 112 7.0 15 106 7.0 13 117 6.0 13 118 93 96 95 91 97 92 93 94 (6) (4) (4) (4) (4) (6) (4) (4) (7) (6) Test Date Location Depth Moisture Dry Relative Soil Type No. 1982 (ft.) Content Density Compaction and p.c.f. Remarks 264 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +50 265 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +75 266 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +75 267 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 14 +75 268 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +50 269 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 14 +50 270 8/26 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +00 271 8/27 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +50 272 8/27 Toll Gate, Sta 17 +00 273 8/27 Toll Gate, Sta 16 +50 TABLE II Project No. 4065 -C 27 August 1984 Summary of Field Density Test Results 8.0 13 119 95 7.0 13 109 86 7.0 12 117 93 2.0 12 115 91 6.0 12 115 91 1.0 13 114 91 5.0 12 120 95 4.0 11 115 92 3.0 13 115 92 2.0 12 114 91 (6) *(6)RI' 256 (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) 278 8/30 Lot 13 14.0 12 99 80 *(7)RT 279 279 8/30 Lot 13 14.0 14 113 90 (7) 280 8/30 Lot 13 12.0 13 113 90 (7) 281 8/30 East /water tank edge S.G. 12 113 94 (2) of ring 282 8/30 Northwest /water tank S.G. 8 118 97 (2) edge of ring 283 8/30 South /water tank edge S.G. 8 116 96 (2) of ring 284 8/30 Lot 13 10.0 14 110 94 (7) Test Date 14o. 1982 286 8/30 Lot 13 287 8/30 Lot 13 288 8/30 Lot 13 Location a- 2' f04, Bot x7 I291 8/31 Lot 4 292 8/31 Toll Gate Water Line Sta 23 +50 293 8/31 Toll Gate Water Line Sta 22 +00 294 8/31 Lot 4 295 8/31 Lot 13 296 8/31 Lot 13 297 9/2 Lot 12 /driveway TABLE II Summary of Field Density Test Results Depth Moisture Dry Relative Soil Type (ft.) Content Density Compaction and p.c.f. Remarks 8.0 13 115 6.0 12 114 4.0 12 114 Project No. 4065 -C 27 August 1984 91 91 90 5.0 12 117 93 S.G. 15 110 94 S.G. 14 111 94 3.0. 13 112 95 2.0 13 116 92 (6) F.G. 14 115 92 (6) (7) S.G. 12 109 87 *(6)RT 299 28 9/2 Deer Spring Ct. S.G. 13 115 91 (6) Water Line, Sta 1 +00 299 9/2 Lot 12 /driveway S.G. 12 114 90 (6) 300 9/2 Deer Spring Ct., S.G. 12 114 91 (6) Water Line, Sta 2 +00 301 9/2 Toll Gate Water Line S.G. 14 104 82 *(6)FT 307 Sta 19 +00