Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-22-1985 City Council packet1 v rte• AGENDA BILL NO. q -s DATE: 11 -13 -85 (11- 20 -85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1473, 20860 Marion, Zambetti Issue Summary All private improvements required for SDR -1473 per Building Site Agreement have been satisfactorily completed. Recommendation Grant Final Acceptance for improvements for SDR -1473 and release bonds. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memorandums Council Action 11/20: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk's Office FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Bond Release for: SDR -1473 1. Bond Type: Surety Bond 2. Amount: $13,000 3. Receipt, Bond or certificate no.: 626325 4. Date Posted: 1/9/84 Issue Bond release to: Name: Eugene Zambetti Address: 20860 Marion Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 Rob: t S. Shook Director of Community Development OEUW AaS�Ce3 Eugene Zambetti, 20860 Marion Road, Saratoga DATE: 5. Bond posted by: Idemnity Company of California 6. Work guaranteed: Public Improvements for Marion Road 7. Account Nuber: 21 2110 630 60 m 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Nov. 13, 1985 The work guaranteed by the bond listed below has been satisfactorily completed. I am, therefore, requesting that bond be released as follows: dillEMOJ AN 01C27c)2 17 .T 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 J (408) 867 -3438 Lam/ ILJi hill TO: City Clerk's Office FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Bond Release for: SDR =1473 The work guaranteed by the bond listed below has been satisfactorily _completed. I am, therefore, requesting that bond be released as follows: Marion Road 1. Bond Type: 2. Amount: 3. Receipt, Bond or certificate no.: 4. Date Posted: 5. Bond posted by: 6. Work guaranteed: 7. Account Number: Issue Bond release to: Address: 20860 Marion Road Deposit Certificate $3000 147 12/19/81 Eugene Zambetti Robert S. S ook Director of Community Development Removal and /or compliance with current City codes per the Tenative Map approvd 21 -2110 Eugene Zambetti Saratoga, CA. 95070 DATE: Nov. 13, 1985 AGENDA BILL NO. q DATE: 11 -14 -85 (11- 20 -85) DEPARThIENT: Community Development S CITY OF SARATOGA VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT #4 SURPLUS FUNDS Issue Summary $73,000 in surplus funds remain after completion of parking facilities,, $60,000 to be utilized to offset assessments and $13,000 to be utilized to maintain facilities. Recoimlendation Adopt Resolution No. utilizing partial credit of surplus funds from the establishment of Parking District #4. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Memorandum from Director of Community Development Council Action 11/20: Approved. Initial: Dept. Bd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING A PARTIAL CREDIT OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARKING DISTRICT NO. FOUR WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga established Parking District No. 4 for the construction of a parking lot and related facilities, the cost of which was assessed against those parcels of land located within the District, consisting of the following: Assessor's Parcel Number 517 -09 -068 517 -09 -071 517 -09 -034 and 517 -09 -035 WHEREAS, all improvements for completed and all direct and incidental costs and WHEREAS, after the payment of hand surplus funds, including accrued interest $73,000.00; and Current Owner Cali Investments, a California limited partnership Eugene Zambetti Floyd F. Gaines and Arvilla J. Gaines Parking District No. 4 have now been pertaining thereto have been paid in full; all costs and expenses, the City has on thereon, in the amount of approximately WHEREAS, the City has determined that $60,000.00 of the surplus funds should be applied, on a prorated basis, as a credit against the next maturing installments of the assessment payable by each of the participants in the District, and the balance of surplus funds in the amount of approximately $13,000.00 should be retained by the City as a reserve for payment of future maintenance expenses relating to Parking District No. 4, as provided by State law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AS FOLLOWS: 1. Each of the current participants in Parking District No. 4 shall be entitled to a credit against the future installments of the assessment for Parking District No. 4 in the amount set forth below, such credit to be applied against each successive installment otherwise payable from and after the date of this resolution until the entire credit has been exhausted. The amount of the credit allocated to each participant in Parking District No. 4 shall be as follows: 100% 60,000.00 2. The balance of surplus funds held by the City, in the amount of approximately $13,000.00, shall be applied as needed toward the payment of future maintenance expenses for Parking District No. 4 as permitted by law, and no further charges shall be levied by the City against the participants in said District for such maintenance expenses until the surplus funds have been exhausted. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to furnish a certified copy of this resolution to the Assessor and Tax Collector for the County of Santa Clara with instruction to modify the tax roll in accordance with the foregoing. The City Clerk should further request that an amended tax bill for the 1985 -86 fiscal year be sent to each of the participants in Parking District No. 4 reflecting the credit against the assessment provided herein. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 20th day of November, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Current Owner Percentage Cali Investments 88.75% Eugene Zambetti 9.4096 Floyd and Avilla Gaines 1.8596 CITY CLERK Amount of Credit 53,250.00 5,640.00 1,110.00 MAYOR ©Q ja REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT #4 SURPLUS FUNDS Upon completion of all the improvements and payment of incidental fees it has been determined that there is a surplus of funds in the amount of approximately $73,000. The City Attorney and the Bond Counsel have determined that these funds can be used to offset future assessments for this district in the same percentage as the original assessment and to maintain the facility. The $73,000 shall be divided into $60,000 for offsetting assessments and $13,000 for maintenance. Attached is a resolution which will utilize the partial credit of surplus funds to the three properties within this district. It will also establish the fund for future maintenance. In both instances these funds shall be exhausted prior to additional payments by the property owners. RSS:cd Attachment UMW off n o C� Rober Shook Director of Community Development DATE: 11 COUNCIL MEETING: 11 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: November 20, 1985 q77 DEPARTMENT: Community Service SUBJECT: Community Ombudsman Program Issue Summary: At the direction of Council, staff was asked to explore the feasibility of re- establishing a community ombudsman program. Such a program was first established in 1983, but was never actually used. The purpose of the program would be to attempt to resolve chronic on -going neighborhood disputes through mediation with an outside third person or "ombudsman The ombudsman would be a volunteer and local Saratoga resident with experience in mediation. There are no legal problems with the City instituting such a program as long as information on individual cases is kept confidential and that any agreement concerning the resolution of a given problem is non binding on the participants. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council authorize staff to re- establish the ombudsman program and begin recruiting volunteers qualified to participate in the program in the role of an ombudsman. Once the appropriate volunteers have been identified, chronic neighborhood disputes would be referred to the program for resolution. Fiscal Impacts: Since the program involves the use of volunteers, there would be no on -going costs to the City in administering the program. Exhibits /Attachments: Memorandum from the City Attorney dated November 12, 1985 Council Action: 11 ?20: C rgensus not to establish progra;. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney RE: Ombudsman Program DATE: November 12, 1985 J. M. ATKINSON, (1892-1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 1979) The City is now considering the establishment of an ombudsman program and the question has arisen as to whether the operation of this program could result in any liability upon the City. There do not appear to be any statutes or court decisions specifically addressing this issue. Based upon the general rules of negligence, we are of the opinion that if the program is conducted within proper guidelines, the City should have no liability problems. We have also conferred with the Santa Clara County Conciliation and Mediation Service and they report no legal difficulties in the operation of their program. We believe the most important factors in the avoidance of liability are the voluntary nature of the program, the confidentiality of communications to the ombudsman, and the role of the ombudsman as a facilitator rather than a decision maker. The objective of the process should be informal negotiation of a voluntary agreement or understanding between the parties. If the negotiations fail to produce a resolution of the problem, the parties should be in no better or worse position than they occupied before participation in the program. To the extent that legal recourse through a private lawsuit may be available to either or both of the parties, the participation in the program should neither promote nor impair the commencement and prosecution of such action. Based upon the foregoing considerations, we would recommend that the following guidelines be established for conduct of the community ombudsman program: 1. Participation in the program must be on a strictly voluntary basis. Each party should execute a written document confirming this fact and acknowledging that no decision will be imposed against the will of any party. 2. All written communications to the ombudsman should be kept confidential, together with the personal notes prepared by the ombudsman during the conduct of the negotiations. The written communications may be kept on file, but the personal notes of the ombudsman should be destroyed at the conclusion of the negotiations (preferably in the presence of the parties). The written document referred to in paragraph 1 above should clearly stipulate that all written and oral communications between the parties and the ombudsman constitute settlement negotiations and would not be admissible in any court of law. In the event an agreement is negotiated between the parties, such agreement should be committed to writing and could serve as the basis for the creation of enforceable contractual obligations between the parties. 3. The ombudsman should be a volunteer donating his services at no cost to either the City or the participants. The person should have some training or experience in the field of negotiation and mediation of disputes, but the most important qualifications are the ability to listen, to be impartial and to accurately communicate the problems or concerns of one party to the other. It should be made clear to the participants that the ombudsman is not rendering professional services by way of psychological counseling or otherwise, and is merely acting as a facilitator of communication between the parties with suggestions as to areas of possible compromise or agreement. 4. The document to be executed by the parties describing the nature and operation of the program should further state that any party may withdraw from the negotiations at any time without adverse consequences. In other words, participation in the program does not constitute the submission of the dispute to binding arbitration. Thus, the program will be successful only to the extent the participants are genuinely interested in resolving their differences. Saratoga City Attorney are& Ug'K'W' ©0 0 tr, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney FROM: Community Services Director SUBJECT: Community Ombudsman Program d Todd W. A •ow jm Attachment cc: City Manager DATE: Sept. 16, 1985 At the last Council Meeting, you may recall that the Council asked staff to explain the feasibility of reactivating a community "ombudsman" pro- gram which had been developed, but never used, a couple of years ago. The topic was brought up in the context of how to avoid using too much CSO time through involvement with neighborhood disputes. It was Council's hope that neighborhood disputes could be handled in a more cost effective manner using an ombudsman or community advocate. Toward that objective, certain legal issues first need to be examined. For example, to what degree is the City's liability exposure increased by being the administrator of such a program? What kinds of training should the City provide to the volunteers to reduce the City's risks? What kind of qualities and qualifications should the City look for in potential volunteers interested in participating in the program? The City started to implement a community advocate program in 1983; how- ever, once the program had been set up, it was never actually used. Attached is a description of that program dated November, 1983. Research through the files reveals two volunteers were selected to participate in the program. One was Bob Rutherford, with 25 years experience in the personnel function with an insurance agency involving training, employee relations, and salary administration. He also had a year of law school and worked five years as a claims adjuster before becoming involved in the area of personnel. The other individual, Ron Carroll, does not have his background reflected in the file. We would like to bring this matter back to the Council in October. Please contact me if you have any questions. City of Saratoga November, 1983 VOLUNTEER COMMUNITY ADVOCATE Purposes To help resolve conflicts and solve problems between individuals and public service organizations within the community. To help promote and develop positive attitudes and relations between individuals and organizations. To help improve the quality and effectiveness of public services within the community. Definition Under direction of the City Manager, Volunteer Community Advocates lend assistance to individuals or organizations within the community who are having difficulty or problems with governmental and other public service agencies in response to needs for service, complaints or other concerns. Volunteer Community Advocates provide such assistance by: Clarifying and defining problems; Identifying responsibilities and authorities; Communicating effectively with involved parties; Exploring alternatives and options; Providing advice and recommendations. Volunteer Community Advocates are not authorized to direct or supervise individuals or employees of organizations, nor to determine or impose solutions to problems. They act solely in an advisory capacity according to their knowledge, experience, problem solving skills and communicating ability. Typical Tasks Meet or communicate with individuals, groups, representatives of agencies and others on issues of concern; research Official codes and regulations to determine authorities, responsibilities and /or procedures; analyze problems and complaints; develop and prepare suggestions, recommendations and advice; and/or inquiries In when appropriate, make referrals to other resources within the community. Desired Qualifications Ability to communicate effectively in oral and written form; Ability to research and analyze legal, admini- strative codes and regulations; Ability to relate well with the public and organi- zational representatives; Basic knowledge of effective problem solving techniques; Basic knowledge of local government and organi- zational functions and structure; Desire to promote and develop positive relations between individuals and institutions AGENDA BILL NO. DTE 11 -14 -85 (11- 20 -85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. S D Fiscal Impacts None Council Action 11/20: Approved. CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 7382, TEN ACRES Exhibits /Attachments 976 CITY OF SARA'TOGA Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject tract. Memo describing development and bond Initial: Dept. Hd. Issue Suurniary This is a confirmation of the action taken at your November 7, 1985. meeting. The public improvements required for the subject tract have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. MEMORANDUM UM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7382 Public Improvements required for Tract 7382 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Casimir Szlendak 2. Improvement Security: .c- J t, Bond or Ga�ti44-ca -No.: 005 SB 050006 RCA 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Name Location: Ten Acres Address: 3077 Corvin Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 Type: Surety Bond Amount: $56,000 Issuing Company: Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. Address: 6 Rober Shook DATE: 11 -14 -85 )/-Qt t Y1-1 ,Lift., ,..,,,,..,;.2 AGENDA BILL NO. q c Initial Dept. Hd. DATE: 11/22/85 c. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development c. Mgr. SUBJECT: V -714 Ray Haydon, 18621 Kosich Drive Appeal of Variance Denial for an 8 ft. Soundwall ISSUE SUMMARY 4. Appeal Letter 5. Minutes dated 10/23/85 6. Exhibits 7. Correspondence 1. The applicant is proposing an 8 ft. masonry soundwall along the northern and a portion of the eastern (Saratoga Ave.) property lines. 2. The traffic noise assessment study submitted indicated an on -site Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 74 dB or 14 dB in excess of exterior standard of 60 dB CNEL or 45 dB interior level. 3. City's Noise Element states that ambient noise level in residential areas is not to exceed 45 dBA. 4. City policy does not include protection of residence and yard from noise by fences exceeding 6 ft. 5. Approval of an 8 ft. wall on Saratoga Ave. would set a precedent. The end result could be a series of 8 ft. walls along arterial streets creating a tunnel effect. RECOMMENDATION 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision. 2. Staff recommended denial of the 8 ft. soundwall. FISCAL IMPACTS None EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report dated 11/22/85 2. Resolution No. V- 714(C) -1 3. Staff Report dated 10/11/85 COUNCIL ACTION 12/4: Denied appeal. 12/18: Voted to reconsider; to be agendized 1/7. 1/7: Denied 4 -1. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on V -714; 18621 Kosich Drive 1 DATE: 11/22/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/4/85 The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 ft. masonry soundwall along the northern and a portion of the eastern (Saratoga Avenue) property lines. An old orchard is located to the north of the site. The applicant submitted a traffic noise assessment study prepared by an acoustical engineer. The report indicates that the on site Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is 74 dB or 14 dB in excess of the exterior standard of 60 dB CNEL for residential zones. (An exterior level of 60 dB is equivalent to a 45 dB interior level.) The City's Noise Element of the General Plan states that the ambient noise level in residential areas should not exceed 45 dB. Staff does not know what the current ambient noise level is in the City but believes it to be higher in particular along arterial streets. The Planning Commission has approved walls in excess of 6 ft. to provide protection from noise on the Tricia Woods subdivision and the Kocir property on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. These sites have physical grounds which allowed the variance findings to be made -the Tricia Woods fence is only 8 ft. at its northerly portion, because of the ground slope beneath it and the Kocir property is lower than street level. The Commission expressed a concern of noise impacts to residential properties along arterial streets. However, they felt that if they approved the variance that a precedent would be set. The end result could be a series of 8 ft. walls along major streets creating a tunnel effect. The applicant has submitted two lists of addresses (52 locations) where fence height exceeds 6 ft. The majority of the 37 properties on the first list submitted have rear properties along Prospect Road. The second list includes properties with rear yards along Cox Avenue and properties off of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Variance approval was granted for the 10.5 ft. wall at 12855 Saratoga Sunnyvale (Kocir) and Use Permit approval was granted for the 8 ft. wall at 13522 Debbie Lane (Lightbody). Report to Mayor City Council V -714; 18621 Kosich Dr. 11/22/85 Page 2 The Council has agreed to fund a review of the City's Noise Element. Work has not begun on the review. However, it is unlikely that a result of the review would be a recommendation to allow 8 ft. walls along major streets throughout the City. Robe t S. hoo Director of Community Development RSS /lh 2 VARIANCE �1a ATTEST: T2DIXICNIX SecroLaiy RESOLUTION NO. the application of RAY HAYDON ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried V -714 (c). -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA for a WIIEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received to allow an 8 ft. soundwall along the front and side property lines at 18621 Kosich Drive and WHEREAS, the applicant (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the Variance be, and the same is her by (gazkask) (denied) subject to the following conditions: Per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985. AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Pines and Peterson NOES: None FILE NO: V -714 Variance Chairman, Planninc Commission (c BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (Mild(MWCZCZEXIIMUM4KXXEIMMXIOQUOiXXXX XXXIINNXIIMXXXXXIGKIW (the Planning Commission could not make all the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of October 1985 by the following roll call vote: City of Saratoga APPROVED BY: A [NIT ".LS APN• 386-18-03 APPLICANT: Richard Hero OWNER: Ray Haydon APPLIC.A..TION NO, 8, LOCATION: U -714: 1861 Kosich Drive ACTION REQUESTED: Variance Approval to allow a 5 ft. side and rear yard setback where 10 ft. is required, to allow an 8 ft. soundwall along the side and portion of the front property line where 6 ft. is the maximum permitted and to allow a 7 ft. 6 in. wall and gate along portion of the exterior side where 6 ft. is the maximum permitted. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN Single Family Residential DESIGNATION: Medium Density (M -10) EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: An old orchard is located northeast of the site. The parcel is zoned residential. A small commercial area is located northeast across Saratoga Avenue. Residential areas are adjacent on the remaining sides. PARCEL SIZE: 10, sq. ft. DATE: 10 -11 -85 COMMICION MEETING: 10 -23 -85 \rS NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Large evergreen trees are located on the southeast portion of the site. Other areas of the site are lawn covered and landscaped. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1'4. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1 PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 5 ft. (10 ft. required) Left Side: 12 ft. Right Side: 5 ft. (10 ft. required) HEIGHTS: Addition (residence): 14 ft. Sound wall along northern and eastern property .line: 8 ft. Wall and gate at southwestern property line: 7.5 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 51% Report to Planning Commission Date 10/11/85 V-714, Haydon, Kosich Drive Page 2 ¶317E OF RESIDENCE: Existing: Garage Addition: TOTAL MATERIALS COLORS: Exterior: Antique white stucco and brick Roof: Terra cotta concrete tiles STAFF ANALYSIS: 2 ,154 sq. ft. 420 sq. ft. 2,gq4 sq. ft. The site is a corner lot and Staff has interpreted the front to be along Saratoga Avenue. With this interpretation, the residence faces the exterior side along Kosich Drive. The existing residence does not comply with the exterior side yard setback of 25 ft. along Kosich Drive. The site itself is 712 sq. ft. smaller than the 11,500 sq. ft. minimum required for a corner lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. The project complies with height, square footage and impervious coverage requirements. The applicant wants to relocate the garage and access. to Kosich Drive rather than Saratoga Avenue for safety reasons. A driveway currently exists from Kosich Drive to the proposed location of the garage. Saratoga is heavily travelled and it would be safer to access the site on Kosich Drive. The need for a side yard variance could be deleted by locating the garage closer to Kosich Drive. The standard length required by ordinance for a covered parking space 15 18 ft. If the garage were located along the 10 ft. setback line the structure would extend about 5 ft. along the existing residence. This location would block the existing window in the laundry room. It is not possible to provide two adjacent parking spaces that comply with the 9.5 ft. required width in the proposed location without encroaching into the rear yard setback area. The encroachment could be reduced to 4 ft. rather than 5 ft. The applicant is proposing an 8 ft. masonry sound wall along the northernmost property line and along a portion of Saratoga Avenue. Noise on the site is fairly high because of traffic on Saratoga Avenue. An old orchard is located adjacent to the site. The orchard does not serve to absorb noise as would larger trees or other residential development. The applicant has submitted a report for a traffic noise assessment study prepared by an acoustical engineer. The report indicates the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) on site is 74 dB or 14 dB in excess of the exterior standard of 60 dB CNEL for residential zones. An exterior CNEL level of 60 dB is equivalent to e 45 dB interior level. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan states that the ambient noise level in residential areas should not exceed 45 dBA. The effectiveness of a soundwall in reducing noise impacts g pacts is determined by several factors including the distance between the sound source and the wall and the well and the receptor, the material of the well and the amount of diffraction at the top of the wall. The acoustical engineer has provided a table which indicates the noise reduction for different well heights located in the proposed location. (The table refers to the side yard which is the portion Report to Planning Commission Date 10/11/85 V -714, Haydon, Kosich Drive Page 3 of the property along Saratoga Avenue and the rear which is the area directly north of the residence.) According to the engineer a 10.5 ft. wall would be necessary to mitigate the traf1c noise from Saratoga Avenue to 60 dB CNEL in exterior areas. The applicant has indicated to a7l,mff that he does not wish to change the proposed wall height at this time. The applicant is aware that if the variance is approved for an 8 ft. wall and he then wishes to change the height that a new variance approval will be .required. Although the General Plan states that ambient noise level in residential areas is not to exceed 45 dBA, Staff does not know what the current ambient noise level is in the City but believes it to be higher. (The Council has agreed to fund e review of the City's Noise Element.) The ambient noise level is probably higher along the City arterial streets. It has not been set as e policy that it is e common privelege to protect your residence or yard(s) from noise by fences exceeding 6 ft. It should be noted that the Planning Commission has approved variances for walls in excess of 6 ft. to provide protection from noise on the Tricia Woods subdivision and Mr. Mrs. Kocir's property on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. These sites had physical grounds which allowed the variance findings to be made- -the Kocir property 1s lower than street level and the Tricia Woods fence is only 8 ft. at its northerly poriton, because of the ground slope underneath it. Allowing an 8 ft. well on e property on Saratoga Avenue would set e precedent. The end result could he e series of 8 ft. walls along the street creating e tunnel effect. The well will be visible from Saratoga Avenue and will appear stark. The well is proposed to be offset at the northeast corner to preserve existing trees. The trees will serve to screen the well at that corner from view from points further north along Saratoga Avenue. The well and gate proposed at the new driveway also exceed the permitted 6 ft. in height. FINDINGS: The variance application has four parts: a) Side yard (northeast side) b) Rear yard (westernmost side) c) 8' soundwall d) 7.5 ft. wall and columns A strict or literal interpretation of the ordinance for the rear yard 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessory Physical Hardship: Purposes of the ordinance requirements is to provide a balance between structures and open areas and to protect properties from noise created by commercial and industrial traffic. 3 Report to Planning Commission V-714, Haydon, Kosich Drive Page 4 setback would create a practical difficulty since it would not allow the applicant to relocate the garage and provide safer access to the site. P strict or literal interpretation of the well height along the side and front of the property would cre. e e practical difficulty in that the applicant would not be able to construct a well to -5.vide a barrier to reduce the noise impacts created by traffic along Saratoga Avenue. A strict or literal interpretation of the side yard setback and the 6 ft. height of the well and columns at the driveway entrance does not create a practical difficulty in that the required covered parking could still be met and the applicant could still construct the wall and gate at the driveway. Exceptional or extraordinary Circumstances: There are exceptional circumstances in that the site is smaller than the minimum site area required for a corner lot and the site is lcoeted adjacent to a busy street. The size of the lot, the location of the residence, and the safety issue concerning access makes it difficult to relocate the garage and maintain the required rear yard setback. Al- though the site is located adjacent to a busy street, a 6 ft. soundwall could be constructed to reduce the noise impacts to the property. No exceptional circumstances exist concerning the side yard setback or the driveway wall and column. 3. Common Privilege: Date 10/11/85 It is a common privilege to reasonably expand a residence. The required width of two adjacent covered parking spaces is 19 ft. An expansion on the western side of the residence to comply with the requirement would require a 4 ft. encroachment rather than a 5 ft. encroachment as proposed. The garage could be relocated to the western side of the residence and comply with the required size and maintain the required 10 ft. side yard setback. Denial of the side yard variance would not deny the applicant the right to reasonably expand the residence or to change the access to a safer location. A purpose of the Ordinance requirements is to protect properties from noise. However, it is not a common privilege in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district to construct an 8 ft. well to reduce the noise impacts created by living adjacent to a busy street. Denial of the variance for an 8 ft. soundwall would not deny the applicant the right to take other measures to reduce the noise level on the property. There are no exceptional circumstances concerning the height of the wall and columns at the driveway entrance. Denial.of the variance would not deny the applicant a common privilege. 4. Special Privilege Granting the variance for the rear yard setback would not be grant of a special privilege since exceptional circumstances exist concerning the Report to Planning Commission V -714, Haydon, Kosich Drive Date 10/11/85 Page 5 location of the existing garage and denial of this part of the variance would be a denial of a common privilege. There are no exceptional circumstances concerning the side yard setback; granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege. Exceptional circumstances do not exist concerning the proposed 8 ft. soundwall. Denial of the variance would not deny the applicant the right to protect inhabitants of the property. Therefore, granting the variance for the soundwall would be a grant of a special privilege. No exceptional circumstances exist concerning the wall and columns and denial of the variance would not deny the applicant a common privilege. 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare.: Staff noted no potential impacts to public health, safety or welfare from any part of the proposed project. The change in site access from Saratoga Avenue to Kosich Drive will provide a safer access to the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the rear yard setback per the Staff Report dated 10/11/85 and Exhibits 8 through E subject to the following conditions: 1. The encroachment into the. rear yard setback area shall not exceed 4 ft. Therefore, the addition shall maintain a 6 ft. setback from the property line. Staff recommends denial of the variance for the side yard setback, for the 8 ft. soundwall and for the 7.5 ft. well and columns at the driveway having been unable to make Findings #3, and #4. If the Planning Commissio wishes to approve the variances the necessary findings must be made and Staff has recommended conditions: 1. The height of the soundwall shall not. exceed 8 ft. measured from the top of the wall to the natural or finish grade whichever is greater and measured on either side of the wall. 2. Landscaping shall be installed to soften the appearance of the soundwall. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final. 3. The wall shall be staggered along the northern property and set back 10 ft.. from the eastern property line to minimize the visual impacts. Revised plans reflecting this condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. APPROVED: P/ Lucille Hise PAN Do N V- 7) (1) REQUIRED FINDINGS /7 Our request for a variance from the zoning ordinance is because we have a dangerous situation @present each time the owner enters or leaves his (Ex.) parking garage. Saratoga Ave. traffic these times is so heavy and quick moving that on several occasions ir_the past year the owner has been placed in the position of near accidents. ur proposal is to abandon the Ex. garage and construct a new one, that would have access to Kosich Dr. and be located as far from the corner as possible. Unfortunately this requires a variance because of the reduced setbacks required to fit a 2 -Car garage in the proposed location. The Noise Levels at our property are such as to cause terrible nuisance. (2) The corner lot, has a Kosich address and fronts on Kosich Dr. The lot is wider than it is deep so we have difficulty in placing a new detatched garage in the rear yard area. The original design that provided access to Saratoga Ave, leaves us little option for our alternate garage and safe driveway location. The proximity of Saratoga Ave is also such as to place us in the path of the unblocked or filtered sound given by the traffic at any given time. (3) The privelege deprived of this owner with this lot is that of entering and leaving his home in a safe manner, and the noise levels are intolerably high. (4) The granting of this variance will not constitute a special privelege because in general most of the other properties are laid out in a safe and appealing manner of access and use of property. Noise is not a great problem further into the tract. (5) The granting of the variance will enhance the safety of Sara- toga Ave, and provide a safer access to Kosich Dr. And our new sound wall will reduce noise from the edge of this pro- perty and improve the neihbeirhodd. noise level 'as his 2940 SCOTT BOULEVARD SANTA CLARA, CALIF. 95054 Mr. Ray C. Haydon, Jr. 18621 Kosich Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Dear Mr. Haydon: EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES ,INC. Consulting Engineers TELEPHONE: (408) 727-6840 October 11, 1985 Project No. 17 -155 Traffic Noise Levels and Control Measures fo Saratoga Avenue Traffic Sources, Residence at 18621 Kosich Drive, Saratoga Ref. (a) Site /Roof Plan for Modifications to Ray Haydon Residence, 18621 Kosich Drive, Saratoga, by Drafting Planning Service, San Jose, 28 August 1985 This report will provide you with the results of a traffic noise impact and control study for residence at 18621 Kosich Drive, Saratoga. The Saratoga Avenue traffic noise assessment was performed by continuous measurements over a 22 hour period conducted on your property. Calculations were performed to determine the noise reduction benefits from different height barriers, including achieving an exterior level of 60 d13 CNEL as applied to other residential projects in Saratoga. 1. Existing Traffic Noise Levels To determine existing traffic noise impingement levels from Saratoga Aenue traffic sources, continuous, high -speed measurements were made using a Gen Rad Company Community Noise Analyzer, Type 1945. The measuring system microphone was MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 7 2 installed at a location having a 25 ft. setback from the Saratoga Avenue right -of -way and approximately 69 ft. from the roadway centerline. Continuous recording of daytime, evening and nighttime levels were made and the following statistical levels were produced by the Community Noise Analyzer: Date and Time Period TABLE I Saratoga Avenue Traffic Noise Levels Measured at a 25 Ft. Setback from the Roadway Right -of -Way Boundary Noise Levels (dBA) L max L 5 L 10 L 50 L 90 L min L eq October 9 -10, 1985 9:00 -11:00 pm (evening) 79 69 67 58 49 44 X3 11 :00 pm -7:00 am (night) 88 66 63 49 40 34 65 7:00 am -7:00 pm (daytime) 93 71 70 64 56 41 68 The Table I data reveal evening noise levels ranged from 44 to 79 dBA with a continuous equivalent sound level (L of 73 dBA. Nighttime levels ranged from 34 to 88 dBA with an L of 65 dBA. The daytime levels were from 41 to 93 dBA and the L was 68 dBA. To evaluate the recorded noise levels in terms of a common noise descriptor, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) was calculated for the survey location. formula: where: 3 The CNEL is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure over a 24 hour period. The CNEL index divides the 24 hour day into three subperiods, i.e., the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), and also applies weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA to the evening and nighttime periods, respectively, to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during those periods. The CNEL vales are calculated from the measured L values in accordance with the following mathematical CNEL [(L 10 1og 12) (L 5 10 1og 3) (L 10 10 1og 9)] -10 1og 24 L L eg for the daytime (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) L L for the evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) L L for the nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) 24 indicates the 24 hour period denotes decibel addition The CNEL value for the recording site was found to be 74 dB or 14 dB in excess of the exterior standard of 60 dB CNEL for residential zones. Thus, the planned noise barrier wall, as shown on the Site /Roof Plan, Ref. (a), must reduce Saratoga Avenue traffic noise by 14 dBA. 4 2. Noise Barrier Specifications Traffic noise can be reduced by interposing acoustically opaque barrier walls between the traffic and the receptor locations. The amount of noise reduction yielded by a barrier wall depends upon the amount of diffraction at the top of the wall, the amount of acoustical opaqueness of the wall, the distance between both the sound source and the wall, and the wall and the receptor, as well as the wavelength of the sound, waves. The amount of attenuation increases with increased wall height, increased distance from the source and from increases in the angle of diffraction of the sound waves. Calculations were made to determine the attenuation various height noise barriers would yield if constructed at the location shown on the site plan. The following summarizes the noise reductions from various height barriers: TABLE II Summary of Noise Reductions for Various Height Barriers Located as Shown on the Site Plan Traffic Noise Attenuation (dB) Barrier Height Side Yard Rear Yard 6 Ft. 5 3 8 10 9 10 13 11 11 Ft. 15 12 5 The above data reveal a minimum height barrier of 10.5 ft. is required to attenuate side yard noise levels to 60 dB CNEL. The central area rear yard noise level of 71 dB CNEL will be reduced to 59.5 dB CNEL by a 10.5 ft. high noise barrier. Thus, a minimum 10.5 ft. high barrier is required to mitigate Saratoga Avenue traffic noise to 60 dB CNEL in exterior areas. The above report summaizes our nois' study findings and conclusions for the planned modifications to your residence. If you should have any questions, please call me. ELP:m Respectfully submitted, Edward L. Pack, Sc.D., P.E. Acoustical Engineer RICHARD HARO ARCHITECTURAL. DRAFTING AND PLANNING SERVICES 384 S. BAYW00D AVE. SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95128 (408) 984 -2419 November 11, 1985 Dear Sirs: We are requesting an appeal to the Planning Commissions decision to deny our application to allow our 8' sound wall along, Saratoga Avenue. The commission was concerned about the noise levels that our engineer had documented, and were in agreement with the need for action on this problem but dinied it because it would set a precedent for future appli- cations. My client and I have seen 8' fences in Saratoga, and they might be considered a must in new deveopments in this city, dependent upon the noise levels at those properties. We took initiative and consulted the proper engineer to advise us on how to reduce the noise leve, and followed his guide lines. The study shows that we must have a 10' fence to reduce the noise to a tolerable level. We are requesting only an 8' tall wall. We are willing to work with the city for an appealing design; ie. Landscape in front of wall, staggered wall, or backfill to reduce vertical height of flat surface or a combination of methods. Our request to you; is to allow our 8' fence, and others along Saratoga Aveune or other noisy streets. Making them appealing in design through design guidelines and review with Planning Department. Proqiding your citizens with com- fortable noise levels, halting the current decline in desir- ability to live next to these arterial highways and set up design review guides for future applications of this nature. Respectfully ours, te,t.S Richard Haro Designer/ Architect for Ray Haydon Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes Meeting 10/23/85 SUP -12 It was directed that this matter be continued to November 13, 1985. 10. UP -591 Smilja Maynard, Request for Use Permit Approval for an existing cabana located within the 50 ft. required rear yard setback area 20 ft. and 8 ft. respectively from the rear and side property line at 19330 Saratoga Los Gatos Road, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (to be withdrawn) This item was withdrawn. 11. V -714 Ray Haydon, Request for Variance Approval to allow an addition to maintain a 5 ft. side and rear yard set- back where 10 ft. is required, and to allow an 8 ft. soundwall along the front and side property lines, and to allow a 7.5 wall and gate along the street side at 18621 Kosich Drive in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from October 9, 1985 (This item was heard at the end of the public hearings, at the request of the applicant.) Staff described the application, recommending approval of a 6 ft. rear yard setback and denial of the balance of the application. Richard Haro, the designer, gave a presentation on the project. He stated that the 8 ft. wall is a prime concern because of the sound on the road. He described the proposed wall and landscaping. Edward Pack, the acoustical engineer, discussed the findings of the study he had made. He clarified that the major noise does not come from the direction of the empty orchard, but from the Saratoga Avenue traffic. Ray Haydon, the applicant, addressed the sound. He commented that he feels the 8 ft. wall is necessary. Commissioner Pines moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner B. Harris noted that the Staff Report refers to the fact that the City Council has agreed to fund and review the City's noise level. She stated that she would like to see if the City Council can do something to benefit not only the applicant, but many others and be more in conformity. Commissioner Peterson indicated that he could not support a 8 ft. wall on any street, commenting that it sets a precedent. He noted that he lives off of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and everyone has 6 ft. walls. Commissioner J. Harris pointed out that the Commission has denied several applications on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Commissioner Burger commented that the applicant, on the on -site visit, indicated that he could reduce the 7.5 wall and gate to the required 6 ft.; however, the 8 ft. wall is a problem. Commissioner Pines stated that he can appreciate the problem with the sound since he lives off of Saratoga -Los GatosThoad. He commented on the precedence set by approving an 8 ft. w-A1.1 and stated that this points up the urgency of addressing this situation. He added that these streets are going to get more traffic, and the acoustical report shows graphically the difference between a 6 ft. wall and an 8 ft. wall. Commissioner Burger moved to approve V -714 (b) for a 6 ft. rear yard setback and deny V- 714(a) for the 5 ft. side yard setback, V- 714(c) for Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes Meeting 10/23/85 V -714 an 8 ft. soundwall, and V- 714(d) for a 7.5 wall anci._gate, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985 and Exhibits B througli Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion. It was clarified to Commissioner Pines that the applicant does not need a permit to build a 6 ft. fence. on his property line. Commissioner Pines suggested that the applicant do some mitigating landscaping. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The appeal per was noted. 12a. Negative Declaration SM -22 Kemp Carter 12b. SM -22 Kemp Carter, Request for Site Modification and Variance 12c. V -715 Approvals to construct a recreational court with 10 ft. high fencing on a 10% slope with no side yard setback where 20 ft. is required at 19306 Pinnacle Court, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (to be continued to November 13, 1985) It was directed that this be continued to November 13, 1985. 13. A -1016 McBain and Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two story, single family resi- dence with gross floor area which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft., on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 5, Tract 6628, Tollgate Road Staff described the application, reporting that the matter was originally before the Commission in November, but the applicant requested a continuance to allow for amendment to the CC &Rs that restricted the development to single -story structures. They noted that the Commission had recommended in those changes that the height of this residence be no greater than 21 ft; however, this application does not reflect that. Staff indicated that they could not make the necessary findings and recommends denial. The petition from the neighbors on Bougainvillea in opposition to the proposal was noted. Staff commented that the grading is not consistent with the approved grading plan. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Bob McBain, the owner, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the grading and the height. He explained the changes that have been made from discussions at the last meeting. Discussion was held on the measurement of the square footage. Peter Kynell, the applicant, stated that he feels they have conformed with everything discussed at the last study session. It was explained to Mr. Kynell that by the standards used by the Commission, the home is 8200 sq. ft. house. The City Attorney clarified that the square footage is not calculated according to the UBC; the interpretion of floor area is as defined in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. He explained the measurement of open area in terms of bulk. Commissioner B. Harris pointed out that, by the applicant's measurement, it is still 1,000 sq. ft. over the guideline. The aesthetics of the house were discussed by Mr. Tynell. Commissioner J. Harris commented it is a lovely design and she has no qualms with it from an aesthetics point of view. However, in trying to envision it up on that very high visible pad, it has vertical lines that will accentuate the height. She stated that a 7400 sq. ft. house is a very large house; her perception of it is that it is going to be much too bulky for the site. Commissioner Burger pointed out that they`buildab1e pad on this particular application was also rather small. Discussion followed on the amendment of the CC &Rs. Mr. McBain pointed out that they refer to a restriction of 21 ft.; however, there is wording in them that states that a height greater than 21 ft. can be approved with the consent of the committee and the City of Saratoga. He T L L.? c_ (L 1.S R f ;'L (5 r. H /l C E FO T, 6.0 cJ-L-' b W 4 r K0_$ !C hE b r2 vs/ 0A.../ s.7 L Ex !S'j ,43 TO u1/ /07 X E s`i 1, v 9c J t. q2 ,�C //.4/ Gw 7 .4 G o,t-' C� J, c?,.� 7 t d 477;4 c �Ec �j s L 7 /9.3 7 rS 7/r'* C.v s i r C /i VD cr .r s TA1 iShl Tip/ T? c5 r= cJ �C'/.r 17) 6 /4- /I/ 1S s.3" 1 'C6:: C/Z. !i v/' r)/A) 77s CL 7 /5 o 7 TO Cf 7:/ c. ail ox2 P lz p6 /:7_ 6t./x)6. A /0p6 r c9 c c/' b� cs% 4-,i Ca `7tS`� '7c Ri C t'L f� i`( �.5 i v i '�1r X (.S (.t.) Cr 7 Tc' r. Zc`- o f 9 S, 3, Zo "1 3SS 20 333 7 2 0 a 7 7 2 a. 3 1f z.o 1 1 11. j 2 c)35 2c `e-S is 2 IZ3 4. a t), IZ 198"' -7 176 zo. 7 zI 1 971 zz. 19 23 I I Zs /9537 2 9Si "z q, S� z9, 6S 9 Lt-`7 -7 32. 1 5 /.3 y 397 35� 9 3 79 ST, .2_ /Zo`) /x'`77/ t W L L L D om. P4 1 cf CT. tvidis CuLb• Cr, f --1 i4,e, 71) V cSiet�/� TTO G- C L+,,," 17? .5'6 (RE l ti; c,5 TO 6 W W /l /11 c G C' tc T q fe/4 !'D 6 H. 7 0 t L ;71 /LA OF VA P„I /I.! E F 1, 47 /6 c- Ai E G kEEle, 'S 71 7 E 4) te: E E 7 77/ME s z. -7, r4. te. re. !Yr- F k k 7 7c j //1- /7 E ".7 E o z'ED 7/7// /V AXE/ 7 X 7 74 I LA) ILL 'y 0 u I.- 'F 7 6 A.74'9Z joE" t/Ap,JANcE-: guiLt://J6 pEpo....,117,S, To 7H ES E P/C, te r' /43 01 ffic: L._ 771f: 7 ro /0 A I "7- O F THE /S Al)biTio4JA APG2E.7,7E E_A '7' '7 J/../ \e PP.1) PETk ,4-7- te62 SA C-At eel 0 7 0 /44`,2)/7 PAlci PE /ETI E coti 11Y ,E x I S T Xi G 7 r c IC E /JC E A JFF. co x /9,.` /9'3Y3 /9 za9 12g? /9 200 1 I9 a�6� ?,o s 7 /3• lSSo2 S 2 G 1 H u r I C; LE /J b VERo /vrc, ir)/Z. UJti 1AJ/1 FFop r Cf� /.t1 D. TC G4 )n/)J /1 LE R R. S a;+KA TO C-.A L`/w),JE Q »E LN v1 LLR LA/, 1 /o r /-71/ G, c K L Ft; h' /irh CEr.,E,v7_ Lc% cc" L /KE /1 PR- bPOS /�/0 V L l