Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSSARATO�GA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. (p 1 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 6, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department SUBJECT: Establishment of Community Service Overlay District Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance establishing the "CS:Community Service" Overlay District. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will add a new Article 15 -22 establishing the Community Service Overlay District to govern the development and operation of certain conditional uses. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance at its regular meeting on August 9, 1989. The ordinance is discussed in more detail in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Motion and Vote: Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council; Proposed Ordinance; Negative Declaration; Minutes of Planning Commission meetings on July 12, 1989, and July 26, 1989. TMemc from Plarming Director dated. 9/1/89 PAUL S. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD PAUL K. ROBERTSON ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 `NEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOtiNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney . M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) RE: Establishment of Community Service Overlay Zoning District DATE: August 24, 1989 Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance adding a new Article 15 -22 to the zoning regulations, to establish the CS:Community Service Overlay District. The ordinance has been revised several times as a result of staff review and public comment during study sessions and hearings conducted by the Planning Commission. The latest version is the draft dated July 26, 1989, which was approved by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on August 9, 1989. The basic purpose of the ordinance is to establish special regulations for certain conditional uses located within residential and office districts. These uses include institutional facilities, community facilities, nursing homes, health care facilities, religious and charitable institutions, schools and day care facilities. The proposed ordinance will require that a "CS" designation be given to a site before any of these uses can be established. The designation would constitute an overlay district and the site would still retain its underlying zoning classification, such as R -1, R -M or P- A. The specific use for which approval is being sought would then be considered through a normal use permit process, but the additional regulations set forth in Article 15 -22 would also be applied. Although the ordinance originally was drafted in response to the problems arising from the use and intended development of the Oddfellows' site and contains several provisions specifically oriented towards this property, the CS Overlay District will have general application throughout all of the residential and office districts in the City. It should be emphasized that the designation of a site as "CS," will always be accompanied by the issuance of a use permit authorizing the conduct of a specific activity and imposing such conditions of approval as the Planning Commission may require. A CS Overlay does not mean that the property owner may conduct any of the uses listed in Section 15- 22.040 (on page 7). Only those uses which are specifically authorized by the use permit may be established. However, the list of conditional uses in Section 15- 22.040 is not intended to be mutually exclusive. A single use permit can authorize more than one of the uses listed therein. -1- The development standards enumerated in Section 15- 22.050 were derived in part from similar standards contained in the regulations for the MU -PD District. Section 15- 22.060 confers specific authority upon the Planning Commission to modify any of these development standards, so long as the Commission is still able to make the required findings. This authority to modify standards reflects the existing authorization granted to the Commission under Section 15- 55.030 to modify development standards in connection with the issuance of a use permit. - It should be noted that one of the issues originally intended to be addressed in the ordinance is no longer a problem - namely, the rental of picnic grounds on the Oddfellows' property for use by outside groups. Upon being advised of the decision by the Oddfellows to discontinue any further efforts to engage in this activity, the ordinance was amended to specifically exclude the use of outdoor picnic or recreation facilities by persons or groups who are not owners or occupants of the site or invited guests. In other words, the rental of picnic grounds to outside groups would not be a conditional use authorized by the CS Overlay District regulations. Another issue discussed at length by the Planning Commission was the appropriate standard for structure height. An understanding of this issue requires some background information concerning proposed development on the Oddfellows' site. Several years ago, the Oddfellows presented a conceptual development plan to the Commission which was discussed at a study session. This plan contemplated a new three -story structure that would be stepped down against the hillside. In order to accommodate this proposal, a special exception was added to the height regulations for the R -1 District, which now appears as Subsection 15- 12.100(c), and reads as follows: "No structure shall exceed two stories, except that pursuant to a use permit issued under Article 15 -55 of this Chapter, a three -story structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi - public facilities (QPF) in the General Plan, where the average slope underneath the structure is 10% or greater and a stepped building pad is used." During meetings earlier this year between the City staff and representatives from the Oddfellows, the staff was led to believe that a revised master plan had been prepared which did not involve any structures exceeding two stories. Since there would no longer be any need to retain the special height exception which applied exclusively to the Oddfellows' property, Section 3 was included in the ordinance to repeal this exception and establish a general rule that: "no structure shall exceed two stories." Subsequently, the Oddfellows indicated that a three -story structure was being considered after all and they requested a change to the development standards for the CS Overlay District to specifically allow three stories. However, the Commission declined to make this change. A provision was approved allowing the height to be increased up to 35 feet if additional setbacks were provided, but the ordinance still establishes a two -story limitation on structures. The Commission felt that any proposal for three stories should be handled as a modification to normal development standards, as opposed to three stories being a standard in itself. Since the ordinance is intended to have application throughout the City, the Commission felt that any allowance of three stories should be the exception rather than the rule. 5A As in the case of a normal use permit, Section 15- 22.070 authorizes the Planning Commission to impose any conditions or restrictions upon the operation of the conditional use, including hours of operation, frequency of activity, number of persons, noise abatement and traffic control. The listing of restrictions in this Section is by way of example and not a limitation on the scope of the Commission's regulatory authority. Upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, the staff intends to initiate proceedings for placing the CS Overlay classification upon the Oddfellows site since we know that redevelopment of this site is planned for the near future. However, no such proceedings will immediately be initiated for other existing uses, such as religious institutions and community facilities. These other sites will be given the CS Overlay classification only upon the occurrence of development activity or a change of use requiring an approval or permit from the City. A CS Overlay designation would then be placed upon the site and the development or use proposal would be processed and regulated in accordance with the provisions of the new Article 15 -22. The CS Overlay will not apply to any of the commercial zoning districts. Although some of the uses listed in Section 15- 22.040 are designated as conditional uses in the commercial districts, these activities do not create the same impacts in a commercial zone as would be expected if the activity is conducted within a residential neighborhood. The issuance of a use permit is still required, but such permit can be issued without a CS Overlay designation being pi ed upon the site. H op Saratoga City Attorney -3- Saratoga File No. AZO -88 -008 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning -of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The addition of a Community Service Overlay District to the City Code is proposed. The purpose of the Community Service Overlay District is to establish regulations and standards for certain conditional uses that may not otherwise be adequately controlled by the regulations of the underlying zoning district. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The enactment of the District itself will be consistent with present land use policy of the City. This action will authorize any construction or alteration of land. The overlay requires separate and subsequent action by the City as well additional environmental review prior to the authoriation of construction. Executed at Saratoga, California this 26th day of July, 1989. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 4 the not zone as any PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 5. Tr. 7761 Harbor Builders, Mt. Eden Estates, Planning Commission review of a revised landscape plan for streets and graded areas within the approved sub- --------------- - -- division. Continued to July 26, 1989, per request of the Applicant. ----------------------------- --- - - - - - - - - - -- 6. DR -88 -070 Thakur, 21537 Saratoga Heights Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,655 sq. ft. (and a basement of 451 sq. ft.) two -story single ------------ - - - - -- -- - family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------- Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 6. BURGERMARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 3, AND 4. Passed 4 -0. 6. DR -88 -070 Thakur, 21537 Saratoga Heights Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,655 sq. ft. (and a basement of 451 sq. ft.) two -story single ------------ - - - - -- family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------ - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- - Commissioner Harris stated she had concerns regarding the size of the proposed structure and re- quested additional information on the Scenic Easement and its influence on the proposed house. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission of July 12, 1989, and provided the information requested on the Open Space Easement. He confirmed a large portion of the Open Space Easement was visible from Pierce Rd.; such formed the backdrop for the lot. Mr. Kurt Anderson,.Architect, stated that the Planning Director had correctly explained the project; the site contours would be used to minimize the impact of the structure. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 PM. Passed 4 -0. Commissioner Harris stated she wished to clarify that there was open space surrounding the rather massive structure proposed; she would approve the request since her concern had been satisfied. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -88 -070 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: City of Saratoga, Community Service Overlay, consideration of an ordi- nance adding Article 15 -22 to Chapter 15 of the City Code to establish a "CS: Community Service" overlay district. The purpose of the Community Service overlay district is to establish regulations and standards for certain conditional uses that may not otherwise be adequately controlled by the regulations of the underlying zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------ %P-------------------------- - - - - -- Planning Director Emslie noted a letter received from the Odd Fellows' Attorney, requesting a two - month Continuance of this Item. Consensus reached to take public testimony on this Application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 12, 1989 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. Ms, Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, stated the primary this Item was that the Odd Fellows' plans were undecided; the access had not been They had some objections to the proposed Ordinance reason for their request to Continue which would be presented for consideration. N, on. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Application and noted the Odd Fellow the topic of consideration in this Hearing; he advised the Commission to proceed Fellows Master Plan was not City Attorney added that the Master Plan would be required to follow the on this Item. procedure was to determine the land use regulations and appropriate develo ment st g he Ordinance, the proper The Planning Director presented the Memorandum Re: p standards. Overlay, dated July 12, 1989. Consideration of a Community Service Ms. Cocker commented on the proposed Community Service Overlay as follow • Development Standards: Since they did not have a specific Site Plan, they requested less restrictive s - Furthermore, they wished to see language added which gave the Planning Co to modify the Standards, either at the Master Plan stage or at issuance tive Development Standards Site Coverage: t Commission authority - Ordinance currently limited site coverage to 50 %; it was her uncle nce of the Use Permit had been allowed 60% site coverage understanding the Paul Masson site Odd Fellows asked that consideration be given by the Commission to allow the Building Height: The Preliminary Master Plan showed the retirement center to be three stories the same - The proposed Community Service Overlay allowed a maximum 35 ft. height, the distance from the property line, and a limitation of a two - stories height es high and 33 ft. tall - They asked that so long as the 35 ft. height limitation were not exceeded depending upon Allowable Floor Area; - Such was currently 20% of the net site area; Odd Fellows requested 'three stories be allowed - Their concern was that the allowable floor area shown in the Preliminary Master already exceeded that being proposed in the Community Service d something less restrictive Language: Y r Plan may have - They were concerned that language in Section 15 -22,05 ice Overlay - They asked that language be amended to read, "In the event the CS overlay district 0 may create difficulties for lenders "In the absence of the CS overlay district, the site sha is a classiolely according to its underlying zoning designation." thereafter be 'Mr. Bob Barton, Odd Fellows Project Consultant, commented as follows: If they were a new project coming into the City, the proposed Community Services be the ideal way to design the project; however, they had been a neighbor since Noted the serious responsibility of caring for many elderly residents Ices Overlay may g Cited the existing non - conforming building on -site which must be replaced a conformence with the strict standards of the State of California replaced with a building in - Cited their efforts to work out an acceptable solution for the proposed building - Requested a Continuance of the Community Services Overlay in order to further consider such PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, noted the discrepancy between previous testi- mony of the Odd Fellows' Representative regarding the Master Plan and site access and statements made at this Hearing; he asked that these topics be discussed jointly. Furthermore, a comparison of the Paul Masson site with the Odd Fellows property was a poor analogy. Finally, representation had been made that the Odd Fellows' project would not result in a net increase in square footage; now there seemed to be some question of the actual numbers. Mr. Don Richiuso, 19303 Ct., Saratoga, was concerned regarding the possible community use of the existing building; he did not know what the use of the building would mean in relationship to the overall square footage. Residents remained concerned regarding traffic and noise impacts. He asked that the on -site picnic activities be restricted to the residents of the Odd Fellows property. Mr. Burton responded there had been no specific proposal made for use of the existing building. The Public Hearing remained open. In response to Commissioner Burger's question, the City Attorney responded that in the usual Use Permit process, the Planning Commission had the authority to modify development standards without the necessity of a variance; the question before the Commission was whether the same rule would apply to these development standards. Commissioner Harris stated she did not object to three stories per se, if such was within the 35 ft. height limitation, and if the square footage and the number of rooms was not increased. The City Attorney commented that the existing rules allowed three story structures on an institu- tional site, on a downhill slope; the provision was added to accommodate the latest version of their design. Initially a two -story design was presented and the provision allowing a three -story struc- ture was removed; now the Odd Fellows were considering a three -story structure, which would not be on a downhill slope. However, the proposed zoning regulations would not allow three stories in the R -1 district. Commissioner Harris questioned how the intensity of use would be controlled; square footage would be inadequate to address this concern. The City Attorney suggested that a limitation could be placed on the number of residents; the use permit allowed control of the operating details. Commissioner Harris added that this seemed to be the source of the neighbor's concerns, i.e., if the City allowed new structures to be built, the use would be intensified, despite the claims of the Odd Fellows that they did not wish to increase the number of residents. The City Attorney responding to further question, stated that with respect to language in Section 15- 22.080, he had written a response to the Odd Fellows' Attorney; he noted that once the City granted a Use Permit, vested rights were conferred, and could not be revoked arbitrarily. How- ever, he did not wish language suggesting the City relinquish its legislative authority; he suggested language be developed that would be mutually agreeable to both parties. Commissioner Burger agreed to allow three stories if such did not exceed the height limitation; she echoed concerns about an intensification of use on -site and suggested consideration of restrictions. As Staff stated, the question was how should this Ordinance be designed? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Vice Chairperson Tucker had reservations establishing a policy if modifications were to be allowed; Commissioner Burger clarified that the Vice Chair favored the Use Permit process, rather than the Variance process; Commissioner Burger stated she had no objection to this position. The City Attorney noted that the CS - Community Service Overlay proposed was intended for general application in any residential, multi - family or professional office district; he advised that the development standards have some flexibility. Commissioner Burger added she did not wish to see any increase in the site coverage (50% of net site area) or in the allowable floor area (20% of net site area); the standards proposed by Staff were acceptable. Commissioner Harris agreed. Commissioner Moran requested information on the differences between modifying a Use Permit and a Variance request; it was her understanding the Use Permit process was more desirable. The City Attorney reviewed the differences and discussed the making of Variance Findings; he added that the decision of the Commission on this matter should be clearly spelled out in the Ordinance. Commissioner Burger favored the Use Permit process as being more workable in practice. Commissioner.Harris requested an inventory of institutions which could be affected by similar development standards. The City Attorney suggested Staff be directed to return with amended language per this discussion. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -008 TO JULY 26, 1989. Passed 4 -0. 8. DR -89 -017 Nolle, 19935 Herriman Ave., request for design review and variance ap- V 89 -006 proval to construct a one and two - story, 959 sq. ft. addition to an existing home for a total of 3,773 sq. ft.; the variance is to encroach into an existing non - conforming front yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 28, 1989. -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1989; Staff recom- mended approval per a revised Model Resolution which added the following Conditions: 5. The Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the Planning Director for approval prior to zoning clearance. Landscaping shall be installed by the final building inspection. The Appli- cant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City. 6. A qualified engineer shall certify with the City Engineer, that surface and subsurface run -off will not increase due to this addition. All down spouts shall be directed to the existing street storm system. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:08 P.M. Mr. Richard Nolle, Applicant, reviewed the Application and cited previous testimony on this Item; issues raised were addressed by modifications to the roof line and the introduction of landscaping. Plans were submitted showing the site without modification, the Applicant's proposal (requiring a Variance) and the addition without a Variance; the Applicant contended that the latter proposal was a much less desirable project. The use of a Variance both improved the current situation and granted the improvement the Applicant desired. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JULY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. AZO -88 -008 City of Saratoga, Community Service Overlay, consideration of an ordi- nance adding Article 15 -22 to Chapter 15 of the City Code to establish a "CS: Community Service" overlay district. The Purpose of the Community Service overlay district is to establish regulations and standards for certain conditional uses that may not otherwise be adequately controlled by the reg- ulations of the underlying zoning district. Continued from July 12, 1989. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum Re: C -S Overlay Follow -Up. The City Attorney stated that a conversation with Commissioner Moran raised the following issues: - Section 15- 22.040, Conditional Uses, (g): Staff intended this item to specifically exclude the rental of recreational facilities to outside groups; they had the Odd Fellows in mind. Staffs in- terpretation of out of town visitors, connected with the organization, would be that they consti- tuted owners and came under the auspices of the owner. If the Commission felt a clarification were needed, such could be added to the text. - Section 15- 22.080 Additional findings: the question was raised whether all the finding were required and the answer was yes. Introduction was amended to read in part, "...the Planning Commission shall also make all of the findings..." - With respect to the expansion of existing uses, the assumption was made that Staff would take the opportunity to place a C -S Overlay designation on the property within provisions of the article; however, existing properties would not automatically be rezoned. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, commented that the Odd Fellows were pleased to see revisions to the Draft Ordinance, in particular, that three stories would be allowed within the 35 ft. height limitation, that the word "Termination" had been eliminated and that the Planning Commission had the authority to modify the development standards at the permit stage. However, the Odd Fellows had concerns with respect to Section 3: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 12.100 which was amended to read as follows, "No structure shall exceed two stories ". The City Attorney responded that with respect to the individual district regulations, the Article dealing with each district stated that "no structure shall exceed two stories "; The C -S Article had a sentence that preceded the listing of development standards which stated that "these standards shall superseded the district regulations ". The intent was that in the absence of the C -S zoning overlay, the district regulations prevailed, namely, "no structure more than two stories "; the C -S Overlay allowed three stories, if the 35 ft. height limitation were not exceeded. Ms. Cocker cited Section 15- 22.080 Additional Findings and requested information on the intent of (d) which had been added; the new text appeared to be very similar to subsections (a) and (c). The City Attorney responded that there was a request from the Commission to add language on the intensification of use; subsection (d) was the result of this request. He did not entirely disagree with the observation that there was some duplication between subsections (a) and (d); however, one addressed compatibility and the other addressed the intensification of use. Ms. Cocker cited Section 15- 22.040 Conditional Uses (g) and felt that the added text limited the use of the picnic grounds; she suggested a reference to "guest of the owners" be added to the text. The City Attorney stated this reference was interpreted to mean that when an owner (Odd Fellows) conducted the event, this was a use by the owner. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JULY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan noted in another Section of the Ordinance the expression "affiliated with the owner in some way" had been used; he suggested consideration of this phrase in the text cited. Chairperson Siegfried agreed that some language may need to be added to clarify this Section. Commissioner Moran raised a question that when the C -S Overlay was applied on a broader basis, for example, to religious institutions throughout the City, would there be confusion? Ms. Cocker cited the C -S Overlay. Development Standards, Total Parking Required which showed that of 340 minimum spaces required, the Odd Fellows provided only 126 on -site parking spaces; this requirement was too stringent for the type of use (elderly care) considered in this instance. Chairperson Siegfried agreed the standard could be addressed and modified at the Use Permit stage. Col. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, presented a prepared statement in which he commended Staff for the proposed Ordinance Amendment; however, he asked that a three story height be prohibited and requested a temporary status for the Ordinance in order to determine any possible ramifications. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 EM. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger was not in favor of a temporary Ordinance; she noted the time and effort required to develop the current proposal. Commissioner Tappan added that the community would provide feedback on the Amendment. Commissioner Tucker favored a two -story limitation; upon review of the inventory of institutions, she had concerns about allowing three stories, which would be very impactful in residential areas. Commissioner Kolstad stated that while he had concerns about allowing three stories in the C -S Overlay districts, he had no objection to allowing such on the Odd Fellows' property. Chairperson Siegfried commented that the Odd Fellows' original proposal had the unique circum- stance of locating a three -story building on the down slope, which would appear as two - stories. Commissioner Tucker noted that the current proposal did not specify a down slope was required. In response to Commissioner Burger's question, the City Attorney responded this version of the Amendment replaced language for Conceptual Plan originally presented, which allowed three stories on institutional sites with a 10% slope, with the structure being on the downhill slope. Commissioner Burger reiterated her desire for a restriction to two story height for the benefit of the community at large; the Commission had the power to modify the Ordinance with Findings. Commissioner Harris noted additional language was required in Section 15- 22.040 Conditional Uses (g) with a reference to "guest of the owners "; Item to be presented on Consent Calendar. Ms. Cocker noted that the issue of three stories had been addressed earlier; such was crucial to this health care facility for the elderly. While she understood this item could be modified at a later date, the Ordinance Amendment as presently drafted, was sufficiently limited by the requirement that "no three story structure shall be located with 100 ft. of the site property line ". PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JULY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Siegfried responded that the Commission was more comfortable saying that because of the uniqueness of the Odd Fellows' site, the two -story limitation could be modified, rather than allowing three stories in the C -S Overlay which extended throughout the City. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -008 TO AUGUST 9, 1989. Passed 7 -0. The Commissioner returned to Item 8. 8. SDR- 1591.2 Gantayat, 18642 Montewood Dr., request for approval of an extension of time to record a final map. The tentative parcel map granted building site ap- proval in the R -1- 40,000 zone district perm Chapter 14 of the City Code. The individual requesting removal of this Item was not present. Chairperson Siegfried noted for the record that requests for extensions were usually granted as a ministerial act.. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Passed 7 -0. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE SDR - 1591.2 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. 13. UP -89 -009 Neale, 14230 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., request for use permit approval to V -89 -019 construct a three -car garage within a required rear yard in the R -M 3,000 zoning district. Variance approval is necessary to allow this structure to exceed 8 ft. in height at its proposed location. Variance approval is also requested to allow an additional three -car carport enclosure instead of a garage enclosure required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 12, 1989. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Graff presented the Memorandum of July 26, 1989; he discussed Staff Report Alternatives The Public Hearing was opened at 8:28 P.M. Mr. C. W. Neale, Applicant, stated that the reason for carports was to facilitate movement by indi- viduals in wheelchairs; the 12 ft. distance between the carport and the apartments allowed light into the units. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:32 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger noted that the Commission's concern about the carports centered around the resident's needs, as well as preservation of the sizable Oak trees on -site. Commissioner Harris stated that her concern regarding the outdoor storage of items had been addressed by the additional storage space that would be provided; elimination of the carport structure exposed both residents and their cars to inclement weather. Chairperson Siegfried thought the carports would not be impactful. Commissioner Burger added that the site was not particularly visible to off -site neighbors. 091XW oo 0&M2&1XQ)(52& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council 9/1/89 TO: DATE: FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning Implications of the Community Service Overlay --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This memorandum discusses the attributes of the Community Service (C -S) Overlay zoning described in the City Attorney's memorandum. The Council may already be aware the C -S overlay is intended to enhance the compatibility of non - residential institutional uses with their surrounding residential neighborhoods. While the initial overlay idea was generated from concerns regarding picnics at the Odd Fellows, the initial concept has developed into a tool customized to address the particular concerns of institutional uses and established neighborhoods. By looking beyond the picnic issue it was evident to both the Planning Commission and staff that the recent experience at the Odd Fellows stem from inherent differences in the way institutional and residential properties are used. Since Saratoga's land use practice has long allowed institutional uses in residential zone districts through the issuance of use permits, the issue of compatibility may apply to institutional use throughout the City. In no case will the C -S overlay become the panacea which will ensure a successful end to conflicts arising from different interests. However, the overlay provides a process which focuses land use questions and a framework for communication between neighbors and adjacent institutions. In the long run, this result the C -S overlay will benefit both sides of a conflicting issue: the institutions and the neighborhood interests. The C -S overlay neither empowers the City beyond its authority to grant and condition use permits; nor does it relax the property owners obligation to fulfill conditions and maintain the use as approved. Because the C -S overlay continues the current practice of requiring use permits and does not change the underlying residential zone, the regulatory context used by the City to govern such uses remains virtually the same. The overlay does, however enact two fundamental changes to the regulation of conditional uses in the residential districts. First, the C -S overlay specifies uses within the broad category of institutional uses. Second, the C -S overlay requires a comprehensive master plan when changes or modifications are proposed. The current practice allows the Planning Commission to grant use permits for any use that falls within the institutional category. If enacted the C -S overlay now would enumerate specific uses which can be considered as institutional uses. This enables the City to better anticipate potential uses for specific sites..Similarly, the owners of institutional site within the overlay can also know with more certainty what uses will be considered by the City. The second major change is the requirement for a comprehensive master plan when institutional development is proposed. Often questions regarding the ultimate use or maximum potential arise when incremental development is proposed. Since owners of institutional uses are sometimes community based, non profit organizations, development can occur in a piecemeal fashion as funds are generated. Further, the requirement for a Master Plan does not require adherence to the Master Plan once adopted. Conversely, the Master Plan requirement ensures that land use decisions consider the full range of cummulative impacts. In addition to the two contextual changes limiting and defining uses as well as requiring a master plan review of proposed development, the overlay establishes meaningful standards specifically designed to enhance a site's compatibility with its surroundings. Under the current zoning, standards applicable to single family development such as front, side, and rear yards, coverage and height form the standards applicable to institutional uses. Clearly, the inherent nature of an institutional use requires consideration of more restrictive standards such as open space buffers, landscaping; and site coverage to promote consistency between uses. Institutional uses in the City are designated in the General Plan as "quasi- public facilities ". Yet these sites are zoned residential and subject to its land use restrictions. The adoption of the C -S overlay provides a bridge between the General Plan and Zoning District which, as the Council may be aware must be consistent with each other. On a more specific note, the Council should notice that the overlay addresses the picnic issue. Since the Oddfellows and the neighborhood resolved the issue of outside picnics, the Planning Commission responded to a request from a neighbor of the Oddfellows, suggesting that the outside picnics be eliminated from the list of conditional uses. In retrospect, the action may appear drastic since the overlay may apply to other sites in the city. Therefore the City Council may wish to explore methods to address picnics throughout the City. One example is to employ the temporary use permit process to stipulate hours, duration, sound levels and frequency of picnics throughout Saratoga. The staff recognizes that community picnics comprise an asset which should be addressed by the Council by providing policy direction to staff. MMCUT"Mm SUMMM NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1(1:7 FF MEETING D=s September 6, 1989 ORIGINATING DZ"I Encrineerina SUBJECT= Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Median Project Big Basin Way to Verde Vista Recom®end6d Motion: -7�-- I I I I I I I I 1 11 111 1 1 � � � Approve plans and authorize advertising for bids for the subject project when Encroachment Permit is received from Caltrans and all right -of -way has been obtained. QL),ort Summary: Consultant has completed design-of project. An Enroachment Permit has.been applied for. We are negotiating for necessary right -of -way from property owners (Neale & Kahll) who are supportive of this project. Fiscal l=ads: $386,000 For all improvements except plants and planting. To come from Capital Improvement Budget. $ 54,000 For plants and planting. Attachmenta: Plans and Specifications at C,ounci.l. meetincr. Motion and Vote: GIK available at City Engineer's Office and SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. _L� rq AGENDA ITEM U v MEETING DATE: September 6, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Department SUBJECT: Requirement for Occupancy Inspection Upon Change of Ownership or Change of Use Recommended Action: Consider proposed ordinance adding a new Article 16 -71 to the building, regulations and either introduce the ordinance or give directive to staff concerning future action thereon. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will establish a new requirement for an occupancy inspection upon any transfer of real property (except a single family dwelling), or the establishment of a new business (except a home occupation), or any change of use. The ordinance is explained in more detail in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. The cost of the inspection will be recovered through the collection of inspection fees. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council; (b) Proposed Ordinance. Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOP-EL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD PAUL K. ROBERTSON 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: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Occupancy Inspections DATE: August 31, 1989 . M. ATKINSON 0892 -19821 L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979) Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance that will add a new Article 16- 71 to the City's building regulations, to require an inspection of real property (except single family dwellings) upon any transfer of ownership, any establishment or transfer of a business, or any change of use. The ordinance defines "business" as any activity for which a business license is required, except a home occupation conducted within a single family dwelling. The term "change of use" has the same meaning as found in the Uniform Building Code. Basically, a change of use will occur if the new activity will cause the premises to be given a different occupancy classification. A "transfer of ownership" will occur upon any transfer of more than 50% of the equitable ownership interest in real property or a business. This definition is not limited to transfer resulting from a sale transaction, and also would include a transfer by gift, inheritanc e, foreclosure, or any other means. Although the ordinance requires an occupancy inspection to be conducted prior to any transfer of ownership, the failure to arrange for such inspection will not invalidate the transfer. However, the City may proceed to conduct the inspection any time after discovery of the transfer and the obligation to perform any corrective work required by the City will be imposed upon the current owner of the property or business. The purpose of the occupancy inspection is to determine compliance with zoning regulations, building regulations, and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. Based upon the results of the inspection, the building official may order such corrective work as he deems necessary in order to protect the health and safety of the building occupants or the general public. In other words, the finding of a code violation will not automatically result in the issuance of an order for corrective work to be performed. If the violation is only technical in nature and has no effect upon the health or safety of the occupants or members of the public, the building official could allow such violation to continue. It should also be noted that the ordinance will not, in itself, require the retrofitting of existing properties to comply with current codes if the noncompliance has been grandfathered or constitutes -1- a lawfully established nonconforming use or structure. Retrofitting or upgrading would be required only under the same circumstances as now required under the existing zoning regulations and building codes. The ordinance will have no application to any single family dwelling or any business conducted within such dwelling as a home occupation. However, any owner of a single family dwelling may voluntarily request an occupancy inspection to be conducted, in which event, the inspection would be handled in the same manner as a mandatory inspection. If the Council decides to proceed with introduction of the ordinance, a resolution will need to be adopted at the time of second reading in order to establish a schedule of fees for the conduct of the occupancA inspections. . Toppe Saratoga City Attorney -2- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 16 -71 TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: A new Article 16 -71 is added to Chapter 16 of the City Code, to read as follows: Sections: 16- 71.010 16- 71.020 16- 71.030 16- 71.040 16- 71.050 $16- 71.010 "ARTICLE 16 -71 OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS Definitions Requirement for inspection Nature of inspection Corrective action Voluntary inspections Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Business means any activity for which a business license is required under. Chapter 4, Article 4 -05 of this Code, except a business conducted within a single family dwelling as a home occupation. (b) Change of use means any change in the character or use of a structure that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy under the Uniform Building Code or in a different group of occupancies under said Code. (c) Transfer of ownership, as applied to real property or a business, means any conveyance, assignment, or other transfer, by any means, of more than fifty percent of the equitable ownership interest in the real property or business. S16- 71.020 Requirement for inspection (a) An occupancy inspection pursuant to this Article shall be required prior to the occurrence of any of the following events: -1- (1) Transfer of ownership of any real property, except a site having a single family dwelling as the principal structure thereon. (2) Transfer of ownership of any business. (3) Change of use of any structure. (4) The original issuance of a new business license pursuant to Article 4- 05 of this Code, except a license to engage in a home occupation. No inspection shall be required for the annual renewal of a previously issued business license. (b) No transfer of ownership shall be invalidated as a result of the failure to arrange for a prior occupancy inspection, but such inspection may be initiated and conducted by the City at any time after discovery by the building official that the transfer has occurred. The obligation to take corrective action, as described in Section 16- 71.040 of this Article, shall be imposed upon the current owner of the real property or business. S16- 71.030 Nature of inspection (a) Request for inspection. Occupancy inspections shall be conducted by the building official, or his designated representative, upon a request and appointment being made by the owner or occupant of the real property or the owner or operator of the business. An inspection fee shall be charged, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (b) Scope of inspection. Where an occupancy inspection is being made in connection with the transfer of real property, the entire site to be transferred shall be inspected. Where the occupancy inspection is being made in connection with the establishment or transfer of a busness or a change of use, the premises where such business or use is conducted shall be inspected. (c) Subject of inspection. The occupancy inspection shall be made for the purpose of determining whether the real property or premises and the proposed use thereof comply with the following: (1) All applicable zoning regulations of the City; (2) All applicable state and local building codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the uniform codes adopted in this Chapter; (3) All applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, including, but not limited to, requirements for the establishment and maintenance of any business, management or emergency response plan. (d) Inspection report. Within ten days after completion of the inspection, the building official shall issue an inspection report to the person who originally requested -2- the inspection, or to the owner of the property if no prior request was made. The report shall also be made available to any other person requesting a copy thereof. The report shall include any directive issued by the building official for the performance of corrective work described in Section 16- 71.040 of this Article. (e) Duration of inspection report. The inspection report shall be effective for a period of eighteen months from the date of the report. If the intended transfer of ownership or establishment of business or change of use is not accomplished within such period of time, an updated report must be obtained from the building official. (f) Reliance upon inspection report. The inspection report shall not constitute and shall not be construed as a representation or warranty by the building official that no violation of law exists except as may be stated in the report. Nothing contained in the report shall prevent the City, or any other public agency, from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation if a violation thereof is later found to exist. §16-71.040 Corrective action (a) Upon a determination by the building official that a violation of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation described in Subsection 16- 71.030(c) exists, the building official may order such corrective work to be performed as he deems necessary or appropriate to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the structure and the general public. (b) The corrective work shall be commenced and completed within such times as specified by the building official. Unless authorized by the building official, no business license may be issued or change or use established until the corrective work has been completed to the satisfaction of the building official. §16- 71.050 Voluntary inspections Any owner of a single - family dwelling, or the authorized agent of such owner, may voluntarily request that an occupancy inspection of the property be conducted pursuant to this Article. The inspection report shall have the same force and effect as a report issued in connection with a mandatory inspection." SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. ssssss -3- The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -4- MAYOR 1. E7 W r, n M ?Va smoan no. / � o AGE= ITM JMZTIRM- 0=1 _ September 6, 1989 CSS'Y im. A"RO AL� ORIGMTM 8 Enaineerina ' BUBJZ=s Final Acceptance for Tract 7928 and Release Bond Don Coffey, Miljevich Drive Rseomms�d Motion: Grant Final Acceptance for Tract 7928 and Release Bond. ' Report snMearv! On August 17, 1988, City Council at its regular meeting gave Construction Acceptance and developer has maintenance for one -year for the above project. Fiscal MEHMs = City will maintain Glasscow Construction. Lttaahnents s 1. Resolution No. 36B.-2-39 2. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote! o I�<_ P 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 8 -29 -89 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7928 Name & Location: Miljevich Drive & Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Improvements required for Tract 7928, Miljevich Drive 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: DON COFFEY Address: 5131 Moorpark, #303 San Jose, Ca. 95129 2. Improvement Security: Type: Security Bond Amount: $72,000.00 1:3suiny Company: The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company Address: Rx$x:iVt4 Zmm x= Certificate No.: 2550099 3. Special Remarks: RSS/ds,m . RO,'.Y s. chok i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1(� R 2- AGENDA ITEM E8 r (12 MEETING DATE: q 6 Ig CITY MGR. APPROVAL Ah Vt� ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department SUBJECT: Revision to definition of basement; design review for basement additions Recommended Motion: Adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will amend the definition of "basement" to prohibit a direct means of access from the exterior of the structure. The ordinance also expands the provision which allows the Planning Director to refer a design review application to the Planning Commission. The amendments are explained in more detail in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) (b) (c) (e) Motion and Vote: Memorandum from City Attorney Proposed ordinance Negative Declaration Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on 7/26/89 PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD PAUL K. ROBERTSON 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: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Definition of Basement (AZO -89 -002) DATE: August 1, 1989 J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) Section 1 of the proposed ordinance will amend the definition of basement as contained in the zoning regulations by adding a sentence that: "No basement shall have a direct means of access from the exterior of the structure." This addition was requested by the Planning Department in order to clarify the concept of basement as applied to hillside developments. Because basements are excluded from the calculation of allowable floor area for purposes of design review, applicants were claiming that portions of a structure constructed into a hillside should be considered as a "basement," even though such portion was not entirely below grade and could be accessed from the exterior of the structure. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance addresses one of the issues listed on the 1988/89 Legislative Calendar - namely, whether design review ought to be required where a basement is added to an existing structure. Such addition may or may not be impactful, depending upon the circumstances. Consequently, it was decided that the best way in which to handle this problem was on a case by case basis, rather than the establishmentof a standard requirement for design review whenever a basement is constructed. The ordinance amends the "catch -all" provision in the design review article which allows the Planning Director to refer a design review application to the Planning Commission which otherwise could be approved at the staff level. An additional phrase has been added authorizing such referral where the project "may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site." Although basements are not specifically mentioned, this language would cover a situation where the addition of a basement to an existing structure may have the effect of intensifying the use or development of the site even though it does not increase the size or bulk of the structure. The requirement for design review by the Planning Commission would not be automatic and would depend upon a judgment call by the Planning Director. The Planning Commission considered he ordinance at its regular meeting on July 26, 1989, and unanimously recomme ed doption b the City Council. HQZ14� . To p Saratoga City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15 -06.090 OF THE CITY CODE DEFINING THE TERM "BASEMENT" AND AMENDING SECTION 15- 45.060 CONCERNING DESIGN REVIEW The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 06.090 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: " 115 -06.090 Basement "Basement" means that portion of a structure located entirely below grade, except for the top of such basement which may extend for a vertical distance not exceeding two feet from the grade to the ceiling of the basement. As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. No basement shall have a direct means of access from the exterior of the structure." SECTION 2: Subparagraph (a)(8) of Section 15- 45.060 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(8) Whenever, in the opinion of the Planning Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory structure may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or may create a perception of excessive bulk, or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may cause a significant effect upon the natural environment, or may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site." SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. Rev. 7/26/89 -1- The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 7/26/89 -2- MAYOR ti RES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. AZO -89 -004 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 change in the definition of basements to clarify the term as applied to hillside development. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project is a routine refinement of an existing definition contained in the City Code which will not result in an affect on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 21st day of August , 198 . DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 JULY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 17. DR -89 -046 Naghavi, 20233 Seagull Way, request for design review approval to de- molish an existing single story residence and construct a 3, 197 sq. ft. two - story residence in the R -1- 10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 26, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:50 P.M. Mr. Naghavi, Applicant, reviewed the project and noted his desire to build his new home; the proposal conformed with Ordinance and Zoning requirements. Neighbors had no objection to his Application; there were a number of two -story homes on Seagull Way. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:58. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger noted that this was a transitional neighborhood; any project would be an improvement on this corner lot. She suggested the design be more sensitive to the existing homes in that the second story could be less imposing. Commissioner Tucker suggested elimination of the turret feature on the home. Chairperson Siegfried asked that the design of the second story be softened. Commissioner Tappan stated he was not necessarily opposed to the two -story design; he felt the turret feature was inconsistent with other residences on Seagull Way. He favored Staff Recom- mendation to Continue the Item to August 9, 1989, with a Study Session. Mr. Naghavi responded he had provided information on the turret design; he had been working with the City Planning Office for many months and such had never been the topic of discussion. Commissioner Harris felt the square footage requested was a problem; she noted that the second story element was more than half the amount ,of the first story element. Such appeared massive. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -046 TO AUGUST 9, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 2, 1989. Passed 7 -0. 18. AZO -89 -002 City of Saratoga, an ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section 15- 06.090 of the City Code defining the term 'Basement" and amending Section 15- 45.060 concerning design review. The City Attorney presented the Memorandum dated June 6, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:05. There were no speakers. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:05 P.M. Passed 7 -0. HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -89 -002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 26, 1989 Page 13 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report - None. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Memo from M. Nottoli re: Complaint regarding multi -use occupancy zoning violation - Noted and filed. 2. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of June 7,1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Committee -of- the -Whole Report - June 6, June 20 and July 18,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Res p ctfully su ed, Carol A. Probst - Caughey SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V C AGENDA ITEM 0� MEETING DATE: 9/6/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planninq CITY MGR. APPROVALZV7r,����- SUBJECT: Appeal of V -89 -016 Planning Commission denial of a request for additional floor area to allow the construction of a cabana; Location: 15243 Montlalvo Heights Ct. Applicant /Appellant: Mr. & Mrs. David Noller --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Planning Commission to deny the variance request. Report Summary: The applicants are currently constructing rear yard improvements including an area graded into the rear yard upslope which is proposed to contain a pool side cabana measuring 897 sq. ft. The variance request is necessary to allow the applicants to modify the approved pool plans to incorporate the cabana. Should the variance be denied the applicants would construct two parallel five foot retaining walls already permitted and are permitted by Code. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and found that the existing residence was constructed under the City's prior development code and now exceeds the allowable floor area by approximately 1000 sq. ft. Because the site possessed no unique characteristics being a consistently sloping hillside lot, the Planning Commission was unable to grant the request for excess floor area. However it was noted that the proposed location and design of the cabana was sensitive to the surrounding property and resulted in no adverse impact. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memorandum, from the City Council 2. Minutes from 7/26/89 3. Previous Staff Report 4. Resolution V -89 -016 5. Applicant's Appeal 6. Correspondence Motion and Vote Planning Director to the Planning Commission Meeting 7/26/89 0919W oCIT 0&MkTQ)(rV& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 9/6/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of V -89 -016; Denial of a variance to exceed allowable floor area for a 89743 poolside cabana; Location; 15243 Montalvo Heights Ct.; Applicants /Appellants: Mr. & Mrs. David Noller. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- %VAM MANN The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request to exceed maximum floor area by 1877 square feet to allow construction of a pool cabana. Citing the lack of extra ordinary circumstances and the precedent which could be set, the Planning Commission denied the request. The Commission did recognize that the cabana was located and designed to minimize the potential for overbuilding the property. BACKGROUND The existing home is of relatively new construction having been approved in 1986 by action of the Planning Commission. When this home was approved, the floor area proposed exceeded the guideline established for building size. Therefore, the Planning Commission granted an exception to allow the residence to be 6512 sq. ft. rather than 6200 sq. ft. established as the guideline. Since the project was approved two changes affecting the request were made by the City Council. Not only were guidelines for maximum floor area made to be code requirements, they were lowered as well. Today, the maximum floor area for this property is 5532 sq. ft. By today's standards existing structure exceeds the code requirement by 980 sq. ft. without the pool cabana. The applicants are in the process of constructing a pool which is graded in to the hillside and meets with all city requirements, except floor area. The approved plans call for two five foot retaining walls to support the 1 hillside and allow the pool to be constructed into the hillside. As the Council may be aware, a five foot retaining wall is the maximum exposed wall height permited by Code. The applicants objective in gaining variance approval is to modify the two retaining walls to a single wall with a height of 9 feet and incorporate the single wall into an enclosed structure, the proposed cabana. Because the retaining wall would be structurally integrated with the cabana, a variance for the wall height is not required. Therefore, the only code discrepancy stems from excess floor area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants propose to complete the rear yard improvements which include the 897 sq. ft. cabana, pool spas and decks, and an unenclosed gazebo patio and fish pond. The increase square foot is attributed to only the cabana since the gazebo and decks are unenclosed structures not defined as building area by the Zoning Code. The subject site is at the end of Montalvo Heights Court within a neighborhood of relatively new homes. The subject site is within a subdivision created in 1985; therefore nearby homes were constructed at the same relative size. To the south is a 6930 sq. ft. home with a 446 square foot cabana which is set back approximately 125 feet from the Noller property. To the west is the 23 acre Notre Dame Provincialate which has no structures visible from the subject site. To the north is a two - story 6715 sq. ft. home which is setback approximately 421 from the subject site and is 20 feet lower in elevation With the exception of the Norte Dame property which is naturally heavily vegetated the surrounding properties are lightly vegetated and are visible to each other. The rear yard of the Noller property slopes upward to the west approximately 25 ft. The cabana is proposed to be constructed into the slope so that the structure is only partially exposed above grade. In addition, the cabana will incorporate landscaping on the roof to help blend the structure with the hillside. Staff anticipates that the cabana will only be partially visible to the neighboring properties on the north and south. 1201. i61i: T6RH The Planning Commision was unable to find unique circumstances which created a physical hardship preventing reasonable use of the property. The property E has a consistent northeast facing slope of 18% across the site which is typical of hillside properties. The property shape and dimensions are also typical of sites in the zoning district. Moreover, the layout of the home is typical in that communal rooms are located at the rear of the home adjacent to the pool area which provide access to indoor recreation and lavatory facilities inside the residence. The Planning Commission found that the residence was constructed to exceed the floor area by nearly 1,000 sq. ft. in its present state. The home was approved under a less restrictive floor area requirement and a by procedure which enabled the Planning Commission to grant exceptions to floor area without granting a variance. With the recent revisions to the City's design review ordinance, the Planning Commission deliberately required variances. to make it exceedingly more difficult for the Planning Commission to make required findings. These actions were in response to the Commission's concern that new large homes and additions contributed to an overbuilt appearance, changing the character of Saratoga. Without finding exceptional physical circumstances, the Commission is concerned that approval of the project would create a precedent which would undermine the future enforcement of the City's maximum floor area requirement. While the Planning Commission was unable to find exceptional circumstances to warrant granting the Variance, the Commission did conclude that the proposal was sensitively designed and resulted in no detrimental impact to the surrounding properties. Primarily the hillside location and the large setbacks greatly minimize the perception of overbuilding, mass and bulk. Additionally, the Planning Commission received written statements and oral testimony from neighbors expressing the opinion that the Variance would enhance the neighborhood. Specifically, the northerly neighbor downslope from the subject site felt that the cabana would improve the privacy between the properties. APPEAL The appellants raise points relative to the cabana's inobtrusive design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. However these were not issues on which the Planning Commission's action was based. Again, it was the absence of unique features applicable to the subject property that caused the Planning Commission to deny the request. 3 CONCLUSION Staff agrees that the proposed location and design of the cabana greatly reduces the perception of bulk and overbuilding but also staff agrees that the property does not possess unique physical characteristics that would justify the increased square footage which would create a precedent affecting future requests. As stated, the home presently exceeds the allowable floor area by nearly 1,000 sq. ft.; and with the addition of the cabana, the square footage exceeding the code standard would be over 1,800 sq. ft. Staff should also emphasize that floor area restrictions will not prevent the applicants from constructing unenclosed pool side structures. As discussed above, the patio and gazebo are unenclosed structures which are not counted as floor areas. Similar unenclosed structures could be constructed in the cabana location without the granting of a variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Step en E slie, Planning Director 4 Minutes of July 26,1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 JULY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger noted the concerns raised by the Giberson letter /report which had not been reviewed by the Commission. She was especially concerned regarding the grading proposed, the length and terrain covered by the road and siting of the house; while she recognized there were not many alternatives, the building site chosen was a prominent one. Commissioner Harris concurred and noted the Commission's sensitivity to canyon and creek areas; in addition, development was usually placed near established roads. Placement of the structure in the middle of the canyon did not make sense. Chairperson Siegfried agreed with the concerns raised; in addition, the echo effect that occurred in the hillside areas was a sensitive issue. A Study Session was in order. Commissioner Harris noted that the lot was already planned for access off of Sunset Dr. TUCKER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -88 -095 AND SD -88 -019 TO AUGUST 23, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 15, 1989. Passed 7 -0. 16. V -89 -016 Noller, 15243 Montalvo Heights Ct., request for variance approval to ex- ceed the allowable floor area to construct an 897 sq. ft. pool side cabana in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. the existing home currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area by 980 sq. ft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger reported on the land use report. Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 26, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:17 P.M. Mr. Noller, Applicant, read into the record a written statement titled "Noller's Variance Proposal "; renderings of the pool side cabana were presented. Property Owner to the south had seen the plans and did not think his privacy would be impacted. Ms. Patricia Mozelene, 15223 Montal%,) Heights, Saratoga, concurred with the above comment. Ms. Judy Butler, Adjacent Property Owner, agreed with the other speakers; she noted the stringent rules that governed development in the area and urged the Commission's support of this Item. Mr. Brawner, 14850 Montalvo Rd., Saratoga, agreed the property was unique; in addition, the design of the pool he was proposing would be outstanding and would not impact other's privacy. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. Passed 7 -0. In response to Commissioner Harris' questions, Planning Director Emslie stated that the pool side cabana could not be classified as a basement; in addition, the open space to the rear of the subject property was private open space and could be developed at some time in the future. Commissioner Burger thought the design presented was sensitive and did not violate the character of the neighborhood, which had a number of large homes with accessory structures. The pool side cabana would be buried into the hillside and would not be visible from adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 JULY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger continued, stating that this project would not set a precedent in the neighbor- hood, although precedent would be set in other areas of the City. There was validity to the argu- ment that bathroom, changing and refreshment facilities were not convenient to the pool side area. Commissioner Tappan noted the sensitivity of the design in relationship to the site. However, Findings could not be based on the project's attractiveness, the problem of attempting to hide a retaining wall or the fact that the project would not be visible from adjoining sites. Commissioner Tucker had difficulty with a Finding that granting a Variance would not be a grant of special privilege. Chairperson Siegfried commented that this was an area that pre -dated the existing Ordinance; the uniqueness of the site was that this pool side cabana could be installed without being visible. There would be no impact to adjacent residents. Commissioner Burger agreed the cabana was a pretty good size; however, reducing its size would not make a difference since the structure was not visible as proposed. Commissioner Moran stated she shared Commissioner Tappan's concerns and agreed with Staff Report regarding the physical characteristics of the property. Chairperson Siegfried noted the uniqueness of the situation; because of the topography, the Appli- cant had the ability to build a cabana which was essentially invisible since it could be set into the hillside. Such was a unique and unusual situation; he could not recall a similar instance in the City. Commissioner Tappan cited Special Circumstance and stated that perhaps an argument could be made that other property owners had cabanas. Chairperson Siegfried responded that Findings could be made relative to an area, and would not necessarily apply to the City as a whole. BURGER/ KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-016 MAKING THE FINDINGS: - THAT EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED IN THAT THE REAR YARD WAS GREATER IN WIDTH THAN DEPTH. IN ORDER TO INSTALL A USABLE RECREATION AREA, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE REQUIRED. BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND DUE TO THE SENSITIVE DESIGN PROPOSED, THE RECREATION AREA COULD BE BURIED INTO THE HILLSIDE. - THAT A STRICT OR LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARDSHIP IN THAT IT WAS A RECOGNIZED HARDSHIP IN THE WESTERN WORLD NOT TO HAVE ACCESS TO A BATHROOM WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ANOTHER'S PRIVATE ROOM; IN ADDITION, CHANGING ACCOMMODATIONS AND REFRESH- MENT FACILITIES WERE REQUIRED. - THAT GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN THAT GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SIZE AND QUALITY OF THE HOMES AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF PROPERTY OWNERS, A POOL SIDE CABANA WAS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT RATHER A COMMON PRIVILEGE. Failed 3 -4, Commissioners Harris, Tucker, Tappan and Moran dissenting. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO DENY V-89-016 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -3, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger and Kolstad dissenting. Staff Report of July 26, 1989 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROft Martin Jacobson DATE: 7 -26 -89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: V -39 -016; 15243 Montalvo Heights Ct. APPLICANT /OWNER: Noller APN: 517 -18 -44 Q File No. V -89 -016; 15243 Montalvo Heights Court EXECUTIVE BUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 5 -24 -89 Application complete: 6 -7 -89 Notice published: 7 -12 -89 Mailing completed: 7 -13 -89 Posting completed: 7 -7 -89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code article 15- 70.060, a request for variance approval to construct an 897 sq. ft. pool cabana on property where a 6512 sq. ft. home exists while current regulations only allow 5532 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district at 15243 Montalvo Heights Court. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The cabana would be a 10 ft. high, one -story structure of materials and color to match the existing house. The roof of the cabana would be accessible by a stairway. The required findings to recommend approval of the variance request cannot be made by staff. Denial of the request does not create a hardship since the property is developed beyond its maximum potential under current ordinance regulations. No unique conditions with regard to topography are featured on the site which has an even, 18% slope. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: V -89 -016. mj ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -89 -016 3. Plans Denial of application by adopting Resolution STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD, Residential very low density PARCEL SIZE: 1.031 acres; 44,910 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 80 Cu. Yds. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco existing structure (light tan). DVnDAC A T. LOT COVERAGE: 14,368 sq. ft. (32 %) Cut Depth: 9 Ft. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. siding painted to match CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 15,719 sq. ft. (35 %) HEIGHT: 10 ft. 12 ft. SIZE OF Existing: 6512 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: Cabana: 897 TOTAL: 7409 sq. ft. 5532 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Rear: 9 ft. Rear: 6 ft. Right Side: 100 Right Side: 6 Left Side: 95 Left Side: 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's variance approval to construct an 867 sq. ft. poolside cabana where a 6512 sq. ft. single - family dwelling exists. The variance would permit the applicant to exceed the maximum allowed floor area on the site, which is 5532 square feet, by 1877 square feet. The site is located at 15243 Montalvo Heights Court approximately 130 ft. south of Montalvo Heights Drive. The cabana consists of a recreation room, bath, wet bar and pool equipment room. The one -story structure has a flat roof. The doors open to a patio between the pool and cabana and the roof is accessible by a stairway. The maximum height of the structure is 10 feet not including the rooftop railing. The current 2- story, 6512 sq. ft. home on the site received design review approval in March, 1986. An exception was made to exceed the maximum allowed 6200 square feet of floor area. Since that time, zoning regulations have been revised requiring the maximum allowed V -89 -016; 15243 Montalvo Heights Ct. floor area calculated based on the average slope and the net site area on the lot. Variance findings are required to be exceed that amount. Under this regulation, made to the maximum floor area permitted on the property is 5532 square feet. Variance approval this application would further increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and ordinance restrictions. The property is surrounded by relatively large, single - family dwellings. To the north is a 6930 sq. ft. home with a 446 sq. ft. cabana. A 2- story, 6715 sq. ft. home is to the south. To the west is the 23 acre Notre Dame Provincialate. and accessory ll of these large homes ry structures in the neighborhood received design review approval prior to the ordinance revision placing greater restrictions on allowable floor area. FinFin = gs Staff is unable to make all required findings to recommend approval of the variance request. A review of the topographic characteristics reveal no exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances associated with the Nothing unusual with regard to the physical shape of the pproperty exists. The site features an even, 18% northeast facing slope. If the portion of the lot deducted (26 %) due to the slope were included in determining allowable floor area, the maximum area allowed would be 6150 sq. ft.; still less than the 6512 sq. ft. currently on the lot. The strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance does not impose a hardship on the applicant. The property is already developed to its maximum potential with a 6512 sq. ft. home. Denial of the variance does not result in any practical difficulties. No restrictions apply to the installation of the swimming pool -- changing clothes and showering will need to occur within the residence. Staff does not interpret this issue as being a difficult situation. Approval of the variance request would have the effect of setting a precedent for applications of this nature and result in a grant of special privilege. Research into planning files indicates no variances have been granted, under similar circumstances. Two variances which allowed exceptions to floor area were based on unique physical conditions that applied to the subject properties. RECOMMENDATION: Since all required findings cannot be made, staff recommends 89 -016. denial of the variance request by adopting resolution V- Resolution V -89 -016 RESOLUTION NO. V -89 -016 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION NOLLER, 15243 MONTALVO HEIGHTS COURT WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance Approval of plans to construct an 867 sq. ft. cabana on a site which currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A strict or literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that the applicant has already been permitted to develop the property to its maximum potential under the current zoning ordinance. An exception has previously been granted for this site to exceed the allowable floor area. No exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in that the parcel has a common, 18% slope without any unique topographic features. The present floor area would still exceed the maximum allowed if a deduction were not taken for the slope. No unusual situations are attributable to this lot. Granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that no variances have been granted to applicants with similar requests. Two variances have previously been granted by only due to unique physical circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and _other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Dr. & Mrs. David Noller for variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. V -89 -016; 15243 Montalvo Heights Ct. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of July 1989 by the following vote: , AYES: Commissioners Tucker, Harris, Moran, Tappan NOES: Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad ABSENT: None 4/88 A:UPVAR Letter of Appeal Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: APPEAL APPLICATION David and Anne Noller 15243 Montalvo Heights Court 741 -1660 avid and 'Anne: Moller Project File No.: v -89 -016 Project Address: _ nrtalvo Hei gh-ts Court Project Description: na with an 8 ft. retain'.rg ;gall incorporate an the south end of our pool and an aU i Iona g wall Decision Being Appealed: Denlal of variance Date Received: 3 3 Hearing Date: -14/19 Fee CITY USE ON1 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Requested Cabana and. retaining walls are in keeping with the uniqueness of our neighborhood. The design does not contribute to the perception of bulk and maintains the privacy of our neighbors; 1 * A cl i re *Please do not sign this apPlicaton until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of appeal please list them on a separate sheet. this THIS APPI,.TC,%TTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IVITJIIN TEN (10) CALENDAR I]AY4 nr. 1`Htr D�fL Oh THE U •�'�i�I4, . Correspondence NOLLER'S VARIANCE PROPOSAL JULY 26, 1989 I. Opening Remarks My name is David Noller. I am a physician who has been in private practice in San Jose since 1979. I am also on the teaching faculty at Stanford University in the Division of Urology. My wife Anne and I have three children and three elderly parents who reside with us in the summer and winter months:, We have lived in Saratoga since 1979 after relocating from the Universitytof Virginia. We first lived in the Greenbrier Subdivision in Saratoga until August 1987, when we moved to 15243 Montalvo Heights Court. Since September 1987, we have been designing our backyard. II. Proposal We would like to build an eight foot retaining wall with a cabana on the south end of our swimming pool, and a nine foot six inch retain- ing wall on the north end of our backyard to support the deep end of our pool. This would improve the privacy between our next door neigh- bors. In addition, we would like to construct a gazebo on the south side of our lot as a quiet rest area. III. Justification The proposed variance would give our large family needed space, improve our lot, provide bathroom and refreshment facilities near our pool, and enhance the beauty and privacy of our unique.:lot and neighborhood. E A. Needed Space- Physical Hardship 1. Large family- five adults and three children 2. Two adults are elderly- require a quiet environment for medical reasons. 3. Keep children's activities away from inside living space. 4. Living space around pool would be enhanced.. B. Improve our lot- Unusual Physical Characteristics 1. Our backyard borders an open space which is undevel- oped and -is used as a buffer zone by the twenty -three acre Notre Dame Provincialate. 2. The slope on the south end of the percent but the slope on the north 3. Pad for pool is already present. 4. Slope below the pool (i.e. north) 5. Retaining walls are needed to make 6. Using the natural flow of our yard expand our living area and enhance backyard. backyard is eighteen end is five percent. is ten percent. our backyard useable. we will be able to the beauty of our C. Provide bathroom and refreshment facilities near our pool - Practical Difficulty and Physical Hardship 1. Our kitchen is located in the front portion (i.e. east) of the house requiring heavy traffic through the house to and from the pool. 2. Bathroom facilities are located in the middle area of the house (i.e. my parents' room) which interrupts privacy and created a long distance between the pool and the bathroom. D. Enhance the beauty and privacy of our neighborhood SEE PHOTOS I. Our dot has unique physical circumstances. Our back- yard borders the open space of the Notre Dame Provin- cialate. 2. The cabana would be located in the middle of the yard and would not be visible by any of our neighbors. The cabana is hidden in the hillside. 3. The eight foot retaining wall is located in the middle section of the yard and would be camouflaged by the cabana. 4.- The north end retaining wall would enhaance our neighbors' privacy and expand our living space. It would be covered by plants. 5. The pool equipment will be at pool level. The equipment will. be covered by the cabana which will be added safety for the children and act as a sound screen. 3 IV. During the design of our home in 1986, the Planning Commission felt a pool house may be desired and thus would not allow the builder to relocate the house higher on the lot. (See attached letter from Mr. Butler). During construction the new lot restric- tions took effect too. V. Other homes in the area have cabana structures and our cabana would not be unusual for our location,(See attached list). Quoting the staff analysis, "The property is surrounded by relatively large, single - family dwellings. To the north is a 6939 sq. ft. home with a 446 sq. ft. cabana. A two story, 6715 sq. ft. home is to the south. To the west is the twenty -three acre Notre Dame Provincialate." VI. I have followed the City of Saratoga Residential Design Hand- book. A. Our design minimizes the perception of bulk. 1. There is a minimum change to the natural topography by building into the hillside and using the retaining wall as the back wall of the cabana. 2. We are following the hillside contour and using the natural level of the lot as the roof line. 3. The cabana is at minimum height by having the roof level with the south yard. The cabana is hidden. 4. The cabana is designed to compliment the house. B. The structure is integrated with the environment. 1. The cabana has the same architecture design as the house. 2. The structure fits into the retaining wall. 3. The roof of the cabana is blended with the south end of the yard. 4. The fence of the roof the cabana will match the front and side yard wrought iron fences. C. The views are preserved. 0 4 1. The cabana is hidden and violates no one's view. 2. The height impact is minimal due to being designed into the retaining wall. 3. We do not have to view the retaining walls. The cabana covers it. D. The cabana is energy efficient. 1. Designed into the slope of the land and half under- ground makes the cabana energy efficient. 2. The roof will be covered with ground cover. E. There is no violation of privacy. 1. Viewing from the south, one cannot see the retaining wall or the cabana. 2. Viewing from the north, more privacy results from the retaining wall. 3. The cabana is located in such a way that it violates no one's privacy. 4. A minimum amount of noise will be transmitted with the cabana in the middle of the backyard. VII. LETTERS FROM OUR NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT. (See attached) VIII. Conclusion With our lot's unique physical circumstances and character- istics, we are asking for an eight foot retaining wall in the middle of our backyard to be covered and used as a cabana. A nine foot six inch retaining wall is needed on the north end of our lot to increase our useable outdoor living space. We would also like a small open air gazebo on the south end of our lot outside our library. We feel that without this variance we will have difficulty maintaining a quiet indoor environment for our elderly adults. We would also suffer unnecessary difficulties with restroom and refresh- ment facilities which other homes in our neighborhood enjoy. May 26, 1989 Mr. Gerald D. Butler 15015 Vickery Lane Saratoga, California 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: 15243 Montalvo Heights Court, Saratoga Dear Planning Commission: I am the developer of Tract 116732 and the builder of the subject residence. During an on site review meeting, Planning Commissioner Berger and another member of the committee, stated that the proposed residence rear set back should be 80 feet and not 60 feet as requested by myself. Commissioner Berger stated that the future residents may want to build a pool house and therefore, the rear set back of 80 feet would accommodate a future accessory structure of this kind. Therefore, a 60 feet set back was denied and the residence was built on the 80 feet set back as approved by the Planning Commission in the spring of 1987. Respectfully, Gerald D. Butler GDB /stc cc: Dr. and Mrs. David Noller 4. Other homes have cabana -like structures: Montalvo Road - 20433, 15252, 15107, 15555, 14930, 14768 Hill Road - 20301, 20400, 20411, 20252, 20120, 20080 Vickery Lane - 14941, 15615, 20643, Bonnie Brae way - 14900 Montalvo Heights Drive - 20480, 20520 Mendelsohn Lane - 20200, 20127 Piedmont Road - 15176 Madrone Hill Road - 15315, 15255 Farwell Road - 14911, 14855 Horseshoe Drive - 14702, 14655, 14671, 14690, 14600 Residents of Montalvo Saratoga, CA 95070 July 19, 1989 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Heights Drive /Court Dear Planning Commission: I have reviewed the Noller's plans for their backyard retain- ing walls and their cabana. I have also made an on sight inspec- tion both from my yard and from the proposed landscaping project. I see no reason to deny the Noller's request. Their request does not violate my privacy. In fact, it improves my privacy )and adds to the beauty of my neighborhood. Please approve their plan as requested. Sinc 1 arty and An Marie Bouche� 20605 Montalvo Heights Drive 1-4.6a daac-- - �� Gerald and Judy Butler` 15015 Vickery Avenue L 1'� Ait"L Ron and Sharon Hendry 20480 Montalvo Heights Drive Richard and Ruth Mattern 20460 Montalvo Heights Drive David d Tina Pidwell 20628 Vickery Avenue J ,William and Patricia Mozena 15223 Montalvo Heights Court JO OV_ Mike and Jo Olavarri 20520 Montalvo Heights Drive Jeff -and Michelle Rose 20645 Montalvo Heights Drive Sudin and Rama Vi "ttal 15265 Montalvo Heights Court Donald R. McCormack 20634 Vickery Avenue Montalvo Heights Architectural Committee 15015 Vickery Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 To Whom It May Concern: Re: 15243 Montalvo Heights Court, Saratoga, Cabana Review The subject plans for a cabana were reviewed by us on July 12, 1989 and unanimously approved. This review conforms to the requirement of tract 6731 CC & Rs per the City of Saratoga. This pool and cabana will be a good improvement to the neighborhood and not a visual impact for the adjacent neighbors. Respectfully, John P. Charlebois JPC /stc cc: Dr and Mrs. David Noller Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Butler City of Saratoga I FILENANE:0689COM -- - -- TITLE - - - -- PROPERTY TAXES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OTHER LOCAL TAXES INTERGOV. STATE INTERGOV. FEDERAL FRANCHISE FEES USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES TOTAL REVENUES - - - -- TITLE - - - -- PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT MAINTENANCE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS COMMUNITY SUPPORT GENERAL GOVERNMENT INTRAGOV. SERVICES PROJECTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES CONTRIBUTION TO FUND BALANCE 31- Aug-89 q CITY OF SARATOGA FINANCIAL SUMMARY JUNE 30, 1989 JUNE 1988 JUNE 1989 ------------------------ BUDGET - - - - -- ACTUAL VARIANCE ------------------------------- BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE 765,900 704,758 -7.98% 6851800 779,579 13.67°% 197,633 137,070 - 30.64% 572,839 697,612 21.78% 1 1,834,746 2,020,970 10.15% 1,918,934 2,203,959 14.85°% 6 2,131,683 1,464,536 -31.30% 1,595,139 1,630,989 2.25% 2 420,397 435,009 3.48% 670,000 146,591 - 78.12% 470,000 493,425 4.98% 597,000 486,178 - 18.56% 741,646 655,590 - 11.60% 2,381,445 908,429 -61.85% 3 1,817,491 - -- 2,171,568 --- - - - - -- 19.48% 2,968,581 ----- - - - - -- 3,407,433 ----- - - - - -- 14.78% 4 --- - - - 8,379,496 --- - - - - -- 8,082,926 --- - - - - -- - 3.54 %11,389,738 10,260,770 -9.91% BUDGET ACTUAL 1,596,437 1,633,813 -2.34% 1,828,526 1,714,267 6.25% 955,111 784,788 17.83% 928,210 745,279 19.71% 1,522,644 1,409,659 7.42% 1,393,505 1,141,856 18.06% 5 279,582 274,118 1.95% 358,506 364,674 -1.72% 264,608 228,967 13.47% 264,482 220,555 16.61% 59,064 57,736 2.25% 86,327 91,959 -6.52% 843,276 819,660 2.80% 914,232 925,640 -1.25% 890,715 865,341 2.85% 1,055,248 1,148,905 -8.88% 1,051,427 - - -- 623,582 --- - - - - -- 40.69% 4,487,701 ----- - - - - -- 4,303,674 ----- - - - - -- 4.10% --- - - 7,462,864 --- - - - - -- 6,697,664 --- - - - - -- 10.25 %11,316,737 10,656,809 5.831 916,632 --- - - - - -- --------- 1,385,262 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 73,001 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- (396,039) --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- NOTES: 1- INCLUDES REDEMPTION OF PARKING BOND 13 ASESSSENTS - $350,000. 2- F.H.W.A. REIMBURSEMENT CONTINGENT UPON EXPENDITURE. 3- CONDITIONS ON SALE OF COX PROPERTY HAVEN'T BEEN NET TO DATE. 4- INCLUDES PROCEEDS OF PARKING DISTRICT 93 BOND SALE - $1.8 NIL. 5- EXPENDITURES FOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE LAGGING BEHIND EXPECTATIONS. 6- INCLqES SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN TRANSFER TAX, CONSTRUCTION TAX, UTIL USER'S TAX. 1 SUBMITTED BY: PATRICIA_ SHRIVER, FINANCE DIRECTOR APPROVE ?BY: HARRY PEACOCK, CITY MANAGER SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /6 L MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE SUBJECT: HAKONE GARDENS CARETAKER ALLOWANCE Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM 4 K CITY MANAGER• Establish yearly rate for Caretaker /Security Allowance at $2,520 or $210 monthly. Report Summary: The original rate for these services in 1980 was $1,800 or $150 monthly. There have been modifications over the years, increasing the rate, which currently is $2,400 or $200 monthly. This will provide for a 5% increase. FISCAL IMPACTS: The current budget for 1989/90 includes the funds at this new amount. AttnPhmPnta! Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM (4-K MEETING DATE: September 6, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Stop Sign Installation on Ravenwood Drive at Montpere Way , Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. MV- "Resolution Designating the Intersection of Ravenwood Drive and Montpere Way as a Stop Intersection ". Report Summary: Resulting from a request from a resident of Montpere Way to install a stop sign on Ravenwood Dr. at it's.intersection with Montpere Way, a review of the intersection was made by the Engineer- ing Department. Ravenwood Dr. runs north and south and deadends just easterly and northerly of Ravenwood Dr. An eight lot sub- division was built off the end of Montpere Way, extending it 400 feet to a cul -de -sac. With the increased traffic and limited sight distance, a stop sign should be placed on Ravenwood Drive at it's intersection with Montpere Drive. The Public Safety Commission unanimously approved this stop sign installation. Fiscal Impacts The cost to install the stop sign and place the neccessary markings should amount to $150 of which would come from the traffic safety budget (3033- 3010). Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV - (3-7. 2. Memo from Public Safety Commission Engineering. 3. Memo to Public Safety Commission from Engineering. 4. Sketch showing proposed stop sign location. Motion and Vote: -D,L 4 �`� o • 0 � FG" V e D e e August 22, 1989 13777 FRUITVALE AVE \'Ufa QRNIri 95070 (408) 867-3438 0'< �'t. lr' I•� + I }�7UNC1L MEMBERS: An Karen Anderson ~U V '' " ' 'D Martha Clevenger David Moyles Ci'T"( _ S � R , T-G Donald Peterson '� I �' `'r`t'f� � %1 Francis Stutzman To: Robert Shook, City Engine�� Y =�'C' E� i S U =FICc_ From: Community Services Director Subject: Stop Sign Request for Intersection of Ravenwood Drive and Montpere Way At the regular meeting of the Public Safety Commission held on August 14, 1989, the Commission acted on your recommendation to install a stop sign on Ravenwood Drive at its intersection with Montpere Way. A motion to support your recommendation to the City Council was approved by unanimous vote. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Todd W. A 01FOW 3m CC. P S C City Manager Erman Dorsey 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: 7 -28 -89 FROM: Engineering Department SUBJECT: Stop Sign Request for Intersection of Ravenwood Drive and Montpere Way --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- We have been requested, by Don Ansok, 18383 Montpere Way, to install a stop sign on Ravenwood Drive at its inter- section with Montpere Way. Montpere Way used to "dead end" just easterly and northerly of Ravenwood Drive. An eight lot subdivision was built off the end of Montpere Way, extending said Montpere Way 400 feet to end in a cul -de -sac. With the increased traffic and limit- ed sight distance, a stop sign should be installed on Ravenwood Drive at its intersection with Montpere Way, which would clearly assign right -of -way. Attached is a sketch showing the location of above referenced streets and proposed stop sign location. R ert S. Shook City Engineer RSS /df Attachment ., O bl QC 10ir 41 ql 11 �1 1 1� 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 Q� t 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 DRAWN BY EDo"ay APPROVED BY I � e s I ,�tia ♦ u D i ' 1 r 1 1 �r r used 1, dtidt,J *;Je 8 � 11�10N T/�ERE IV1! y 1 M Proposed R I 11 ' i p a wrh 'SMP'Leyewd �1 1 r r 0 � pa r C X. T p° E SP�40A 1I �saszasss� '� A CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING ,00R0 10067 SE O .;'TOO S /GN IM.Yr -4L1- .4 T /ON RMIENN/DOO OR 4N0 MaVrPERE My. D I 1 i 1 4 1 k 1 SCALE HOR. I" - .S"flOiVN VERT. 1 = DATE ✓u /y , 1.989 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. IL -( I MEETING DATE: September 6, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR. APPROVA4/'V)�� SUBJECT: Authorize to advertise for bids for Big Basin Way street tree planting and lighting project. Recommended Motion: Approve plans, authorize staff to advertise for bids. Report Summary: Plans and specifications for above project are in final draft and will be ready for advertising on September 6, 1989. A set of plans is included as a separate item in your agenda packet. It is anticipated that the contract award will be brought to you at the October 4, 1989 meeting and that work will begin shortly thereafter. Actual tree installation will occur in mid - November, during the dormant season. The tree species selection reflects the recommendations of the ad -hoc tree species group from earlier this summer. Fiscal Impacts: Cost of project is budgeted in 1989 -90 Capital Improvement Program. Attachments: Motion and Vote: 0 r'L log % 0=8 _ Sept. 6, 1989 ORZOXNATM = Encrineerina SUJLM s Stop Sign Requests for Intersections of Lutheria Way and La Paloma Avenue; and-Oak Place and La Paloma Avenue Rsconm mUd Motion: Adopt Resolution No. MV- designating the intersections of Lutheria Way and La Paloma Avenue; and Oak Place and La Paloma Avenue as stop intersections. Report Suma Zy= We have had a number of requests to investigate a number of traffic safety improvements in the La Paloma Avenue, Lutheria Way, Oak Place area. These improvements have been reviewed and have been addressed in the memo from the Engineering Dept. to the Public Safety Commission, which is attached. i The Public Safety Commision has unanimously endorsed the recom- mendations to install the two stop signs and have the double yellow centerlines along with rained reflectorized pavement markers installed. Fiscal Zwmats: The cost to install the stop signs, paint the stop bars and legends; and paint the double yellow centerlines along with installed the raised reflectorized pavement markers..would amount to approximately $950.00 and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033 - 3010). Attachments: oic 1. Resolution No. MV -1j4 2. Memo from Public Safety Commission to Engineering Dept. 3. Letter from Warren Heid to Director of Maintenance. 4. Memo from Engineering to Public Safety Commission. 5. Letter from Darlene Silveira to Engineering Dept. 6. Letter from George Kirk to Engineering Dept. L✓ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENU �•}rm ORNIA 95070 0���,� (408) 867 -3438 ?a�n �! ; o ,t OUNCIL MEMBERS: KJ AUG N H I li Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger August 22, 1989 David Moyles CITY Y OF SARATTOGA Donald Peterson To: Robert Shook, City Engine r �� Francis Stutzman ��TY c��� INEER'S OFFICE From: Community Services Director Subject: Stop Sign Requests for Intersections of Lutheria Way and La Paloma Avenue; and Oak Place and La Paloma avenue This is to inform you that the Public Safety Commission at their August 14, 1989, meeting considered your staff recommendation identified in your report dated July 28, 1989, regarding a varie- ty of traffic improvements to Lutheria Way and Oak Place, includ- ing the placement of stop signs on Lutheria Way at its intersection with La Paloma Avenue and the placement of another stop sign on Oak Place at its intersection with La Paloma Avenue. After some discussion, the Commission decided to unanimously endorse your recommendation items 1 through 7 to the City Coun- cil. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Todd W. AsKow 3m cc: PSC City Manager Erman Dorsey ,C7�,TARRE�T B. HEIR • AIA s � A N D A S S O C I A T E S Aus seg L _ A R C H ITECTS • P L A N N E R S LC" 14630 BIG BASIN WAY . P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA . CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867.9365 August 4, 1989 � City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Dan Trinidad, Jr. Director of Maintenance Dear Dan, This letter is in reply to your letter dated July 21, 1989 regarding the hedge at our home at 20250 La Paloma Avenue. I'm not sure who is complaining, but it is annoying to both my wife and me that who- ever it is will not tell us of their concerns. This hedge was planted before the City of Saratoga was incorporated and is no different with sight problems than other areas of the City where either the landscaping is high or where entrances to areas of the City have approved entrance walls and landscaping to identify the subdividion. This corner is not a major intersection, having a cul -de -sac at one side and a private driveway at the other side. Drivers occasionally use Oak Place, La Paloma Avenue, and Lutheria Way as a cut -off around the Village to avoid the very busy intersection. The main problems that my wife and I see are several speeding neighbors and some of the workmen in pickup trucks who are working on projects in the neighbor- hood. It has been suggested that stop signs be installed at Oak Place and La Paloma, and at _ Lutheria Way and La Paloma. It was also suggested that a stop sign be installed on La Paloma at Oak Place. I believe that the neighborhood would agree to these stop signs from my con- versations with several of them. When the street work was completed this past year, including drains, sidewalks, etc., the dip at the corner of La Paloma and Oak Place was removed. This dip had helped to slow down the drivers using the short -cut. My wife and I do not know why some anonymous person or persons are complaining about this hedge other than it does project over the side- walk at certain areas. During our last conversation on this matter you and I agreed that our privacy at that side of our home was import - and and that, when we had rain I would trim back the hedge from the Dan Triniday, Jr. City of Saratoga Page 2 - August 4, 1989 sidewalk. Since we have not had rains, and cannot water our hedge because of the restrictions, we have not trimmed the hedge back as it could be killed and our privacy lost. A green hedge is far better in appearance than a solid fence. Also to lower the hedge to three feet would not resolve the problem. My wife and I have been responsible citizens in Saratoga for over 30 years and we will be happy to meet with you at some convenient time. Please call me so that we can arrange a time for my wife and me to meet with you to again discuss this matter. Thank you. Si cerely, Warren B. Heid WBH:hw 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: 7 -28 -89 FROM: Engineering Department SUBJECT: Stop Sign Request for Intersections of Lutheria Way and La Paloma Avenue; and Oak Place and La Paloma Ave. We have been requested to make a number of traffic safety improvements in the La Paloma, Lutheria and Oak Place area. These requested improvements consist of the following: 1. A stop sign be installed on Lutheria where it meets La Paloma. (At least one -third of the cars fail to stop at this intersection; of those who do stop, most perform a "California Stop "). 2. Speed limit signs be installed on Lutheria, La Paloma and Oak Streets. 3. A "Slow" sign be placed on the right side of Lutheria approximately three or four houses prior to its inter- section with La Paloma. 4. Traffic /radar patrol on these streets until the situa- tion shows improvement. (Over the past years, there has been no evidence of any traffic enforcement vehicles in our neighborhood). 5. A "Slow" sign be placed on the right side of La Paloma at the top of the hill before it drops down to Saratoga Avenue. 6. Yellow lane divider on Lutheria and Oak Street. (These streets are narrow with slight turns, and I have witnessed near collisions many times). 7. A stop sign be installed on Oak Place where it meets La Paloma. Page 2 The above requests will be discussed by number, along with'a recommendation, where appropriate. 1. In order to properly assign right -of -way at this intersection, the installation of a stop sign (R1) on Lutheria at its intersection with La Paloma would be in order. Under Section 21800 of the vehicle code a driver approaching a cross highway from a terminating highway shall yield to said cross highway. (Vehicles travelling up the stem of a "tee" shall yield to vehicles approaching from the cross street - -stop of "tee ". Recommend the installation of the stop sign. 2. The installation of the speed limit signs on Lutheria, La Paloma and Oak Place do not require legislation and can be installed where appropriate by work order from the Engineering Department. Recommend instlaling the 25 mph signs as requested. 3. Rather than a "Slow" sign placed on the right side of Lutheria, a "Stop Ahead" sign (W17) along with pavement legend should be installed if the stop sign recommended in #1 above is approved and authorized. 4. Even though the vehicular volume on these streets is very low and the speeds on Lutheria and Oak Place is probably at or under the prima facie 25 mph (because of the narrowness of the roads) the periodic speed monitoring of La Paloma would be in order, as it is a wider straight roadway. 5. Again, as in #3 above -- rather than a "Slow" sign, a "Stop Ahead" sign along with pavement legend should be installed as there is an existing stop sign on La Paloma at its intersection with Saratoga Avenue. 6. A double yellow centerline along with raised reflec- torized pavement markers placed on Lutheria Way along the curvalinear-sections, would increase the safety of the.roadway. The application of the double yellow centerline can only be used on roadways that are 16 feet or more in width. Lutheria Way would be able to accommodate a double yellow centerline. Although it is not felt that a double yellow centerline would help Oak Place, as it would Lutheria, a short length of striping could be placed at the curve located on the alley (between Park Place and Orchard Road). Page 3 7. Again, as in #1 above, in order to properly assign right -of -way at this intersection, the installation of a stop sign (R1) on Oak Place at it's intersection with La Paloma would be in order. Additionally, this intersection has a sight distance problem, which is attributed to the hedge at the northwesterly corner thereof. Recommend the installation of a stop sign. Attached is a sketch showing the streets discussed, along with the various proposals. Ejriihw LIor,Lfe �� Ys //ow ,Shi's Ir R I 3 tLto� /nd aJP Vro.sed W 17 / v,r~nog Lt4t rd 'Q 11 �' /� � Ex %sfi�,� Ooa6✓� / \ O Yt / /ory � Jfripc S Pr��oes.rtd R J w:� sTOi .d r Q�• Existi,� j� Prooertd *V /7 R/ (� l�b✓�n.�,�f �i nq j \\ DRAWN BY E. Dot'.rc y APPROVED BY OA K P- 'o,00fea/ GLry /t Ys/ /Ow c4ropArr(ipse Ivitii AeiYsel4iis4rd A►wierr CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING PRO.005,6D rRAAFI C. .5b.9fETY ZMAROt/EMEN T.S — L U TH�'R/ A JVY., 44 P-41-47".4 Q V4r. AND OAX PL SCALE HOR. I"= V ERT. 1 = DATE .luly , I9- 8 JUN i T 1-17Y i7 r Mr. Erman Dorsey Traffic Technician Engineering Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Dorsey: Mrs. Darlene Silveira 20271 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 June 16, 1989 We have lived at the above address, corner of Lutheria and La Paloma, for the past five years. Over the years, I have become very concerned about the increase of traffic in our neighborhood. Last month someone ran over our precious cat right in front of our house and sped away leaving her with a broken back. We had to put her down ourselves. This incident has caused me to try and take action once again. Several years ago I wrote City Engineer, Mr. Shook, and requested a stop sign at the corner of Lutheria and La Paloma. I never got any response. Our neighborhood used to be a quiet street until the traffic got so heavy on the bordering streets of Los Gatos /Saratoga Rd. and Saratoga Avenue. Now our neighborhood streets, Oak Street, Lutheria and La Paloma, are being used as "cut- throughs" by people seeking to save time by avoiding traffic on Los Gatos /Saratoga Rd. & Saratoga Ave. Our particular street, La Paloma, is on a hill which causes people to drive very fast down the hill to Saratoga Avenue. Our neighborhood is a combination of many age groups. We have our senior citizens who get out every day and walk. We have families with young children who play, skateboard and ride bikes. Almost all homes have pets. The increase in the amount of traffic and blatant disregard for traffic rules has become a concern for all of us. I was told by a member of the Safety Commission to write you a letter explaining the "whys" of my concerns and to request the following safety features be added to our neighborhood streets. In my letter to Mr. Shook, I expressed my fear that someone was going to get hurt someday. As it turned out, that "someone" was my special kitty; but next time it could easily be a human life that is injured or lost. With the above "whys" stated, I would like to request the following improvements. Mr. Erman Dorsey June 16, 1989 Page Two 1. A stop sign be installed on Lutheria where it meets La Paloma. (At least one -third of the cars fail to stop at this intersection; of those who do stop, most perform a "California stop"). 2. Speed limit signs be installed on Lutheria, La Paloma and Oak Streets 3. A "Slow" sign be placed on the right side of Lutheria approximately three or four houses prior to its intersection With La Paloma. 4. Traffic /radar patrol on these streets until the situation shows improvement. (Over the past years, there has been no evidence of any traffic enforcement vehicles in our neighborhood). 5. A "Slow" sign be placed on the right side of La Paloma at the top of the hill before it drops down to Saratoga Avenue. 6. Yellow lane divider lines on Lutheria and Oak Street. (These streets are narrow with slight turns, and I have witnessed near collisions many times). 7. A stop sign be installed on Oak Street where it meets La Paloma. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your attention to this request. I appreciate your investigation into this problem and your recommendation to the Safety Commission. It may be that all seven requests is too much to ask for, so I have tried to prioritize the list placing the most urgent requests first. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. I can be reached at work at 737 -5408 if I can be of any further assistance. Again, thank you for your timely response. Sincerely, Darlene Silveira Mr /Mr 'rRe E. Kirk, Jr. 20270 Wonta Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070. 0 N 20 JUN �• /98g_> - <N 'i s J Ui�! 2 i 1989 sue. , cd- t - SARATOGD CITY COMCIL IVZ SMOMW no. S Ana ITrrc HZVr= W=11 _ Seotember 6 , 1989 CITY SpPltOVSZ Gww� ORZOMATM EM"s Engineering SUBJECT= Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan Cost Sharing Agreement 146. A 0866a Reeommsadrd !lotion: Approve extension of the cost sharing agreement and authorize Mayor to execute same on behalf of City. RAnort SW=RL'V t There is an existing contract for monitoring stream flow to determine present and future effects of nonpoint pollution on San Francisco Bay Water. Development of mitigation measures is also included in this contract. Initial funding has been exhausted and additional funds in the total amount of $900,000 are needed to continue this work. Saratoga's share as shown on Exhibit B of the agreement is $14,350. Fiscal- Imawts l $14,350 Saratoga's share of $900,000 estimated total cost. Attachments: 1 - Agreement and District transmitted letter. !lotion and Vote: 0 I Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER August 21, 1989 Mr. Robert S. Shook City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: Subject: Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan - Agreement No. A0866a, Project No. 9579 On Tuesday, August 1, 1989, the District Board of Directors authorized extension of the above - described Cost - Sharing Agreement. The Agreement provides for cost - sharing of the Nonpoint Source Program between the District, the 13 cities of Northern Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara at a currently estimated not -to- exceed cost of $900,000. The $900,000 budget would provide for an extension of the present contract for engineering services with Woodward -Clyde Consultants and new funds for the Aquatic Habitat Institute to design and implement research and monitoring to evaluate the present and potential future effects of pollution on the beneficial uses of the waters of the Bay. Following execution of the enclosed Agreement by all parties and execution of contracts with Woodward -Clyde Consultants and Aquatic Habitat Institute, we will submit a statement of your anticipated costs payable to the District within 30 days thereafter. We would encourage your early execution of the Agreement. If we can be of assistance in that regard, please let me know. Please send a copy of the executed Agreement to Susan A. Pino, Clerk of the Board, at this address. Sincerely, Ronald R. Esau General Manager Enclosure cc: Mr. Tom Mumley (w /enclosure) California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1111 Jackson Street, Room 6040 Oakland, CA 94607 Mr. Harry R. Peacock, City Manager (w /enclosure) r s Apt. A0866a EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT #A0866 REGARDING SANTA CLARA VALLEY NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM Santa Clara Valley Water District, a local public agency of the State of California; County of Santa Clara, a subdivision of the State of California; City of Campbell, a municipality of the State of California; City of Cupertino, a municipality of the State of California; City of Los Altos, a municipality of the State of California; Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipality of the State of California; Town of Los Gatos, a municipality of the State of California; City of Milpitas, a municipality of the State of California; City of Monte Sereno, a municipality of the State of California; City of Mountain View, a municipality of the State of California; City of Palo Alto, a municipality of the State of California; City of San Jose, a municipality of the State of California; City of Santa Clara, a municipality of the State of California; City of Saratoga, a municipality of the State of California; City of Sunnyvale, a municipality of the State of California; AGREE this 1st day of August , 1989, as follows: The parties have heretofore agreed to join in meeting the cost of continuing the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Program. AGREEMENT: 1. Santa Clara Valley Water District (hereafter "District ") shall assume a significant coordination role in carrying out the program and shall extend the contract with Woodward -Clyde Consultant for work approved by the agencies. 2. A Task Force consisting of representatives of agencies specified on "Exhibit A" hereto, so marked and made a part hereof, shall oversee and direct the consultant so engaged. M a 3. The parties shall share in meeting the cost, including the consultant's fee and the necessary and reasonable cost incurred by District, in the proportions stated in the schedule thereof marked "Exhibit B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The indicated shares are based on proportional stormwater runoff from the respective jurisdictions as computed for purposes of District's Benefit Assessment Revenue Program, except for the City of San Jose and District. City of San Jose's and District's shares of the program cost are each 30 %. 4. The total cost to be so apportioned shall not exceed $900,000. 5. This agreement will be effective as to signing parties upon the execution of parties sharing 90% or more of the apportioned cost. District will thereupon proceed to secure the services of a consultant as stated in paragraph 1 above. If execution is refused by one or more of the balance of the named proposed parties hereto the share of such party or parties will be met by the executing parties other than District in the general proportion shown on "Exhibit B" or by such division as the executing parties other than District may determine and agree upon. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic of APPROVED AS TO FORM the State of California General Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM County Counsel Y: General Manager 8/17/89 ATTEST: Clerk /Board of Directors SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By: Chairperson, Board of Supervisors EXHIBIT A TASK FORCE AGENCIES San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Clara Valley Water District County of Santa Clara City of San Jose City of Sunnyvale Town of Los Gatos M 4 JURISDICTION Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno Mountain View Palo Alto Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale Santa Clara County . Subtotal San Jose SCVWD TOTAL EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARA VALLEY NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF COST SHARING PROPORTIONS PROPORTIONAL SHARE PROGRAM COST 2.6% * 72.46% = 1.88% $ 16,960 3.4% * 72.46% = 2.46% 22,170 2.2% * 72.46% = 1.59% 14,350 0.6% * 72.46% = 0.43% 3,910 2.4% * 72.46% = 1.74% 15,650 3.8% * 72.46% = 2.75% 24,780 0.2% * 72.46% = 0.14% 1,310 5.4% * 72.46% = 3.91% 35,220 5.6% * 72.46% = 4.06% 36,520 8.6% * 72.46% = 6.23% 56,090 2.2% * 72.46% = 1.59% 14,350 10.0% * 72.46% = 7.25% 65,210 8.2% * 72.46% = 5.94% 53,480 40.00% $360,000 44.8% * 66.96% = 30.00% $270,000 - 30.00% $270,000 100.000% $900,000 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM Town Attorney CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: y APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: