The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-17-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA_ Y SARATgqOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �'l� AGENDA ITEM: U JS MEETING DATE: W ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY,MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023 - Kinnier; 14706 Sixth Street Appeal of Planning Commission approval to construct a 1,754 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 3,271 sq. ft. parcel Recommended Motion: Deny the appellant's request and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the project. Report Summary: Background: The Planning Commission first reviewed Ms. Kinnier's request to develop this severely substandard parcel with a two -story home in February, 1992. That original proposal was for a 2,266 sq. ft. residence of basically the same design as this new proposal. The item was continued to a subsequent_ public hearing to allow the applicant to address Commissioners' concerns that the home was too large and massive for this small, narrow lot. At a subsequent April public hearing, revised plans were presented to the Commission representing that the structure had been set 2 ft. lower on the site, 4 ft. further back from the front property line and that minor architectural changes had been made. The Planning Commission felt that the structure still needed to be reduced in size, which the applicant was not willing to do at the time. The Design Review and Variance requests were then denied. This denial was appealed to the City Council, which voted to uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Current Proposal: The new application reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 10, 1993, was for basically the same style of home, but with the following modifications: • The structure now meets the required front and rear yard setbacks which were previously requested to be waived as part of the Variance request; • The highest point of the structure has been lowered from 26 ft. to 21.2 ft. by utilizing a flat roof design. • The upper level floor has been stepped back approximately 10 ft. from the first floor to provide improved architectural relief .along the front elevation. I r • The total floor area has been reduced from 2,266 sq. ft. to 1,754 square feet. Excluding the 286 sq. ft. one -car garage, the habitable floor area is now 1,468 square feet. The Planning Commission accepted the staff report analysis, opened the public hearing to take testimony and then deliberated on the request. As the attached minutes from the meeting indicate, the Commissioners agreed that all of the necessary Design Review and Variance findings could be made to support the project and voted 5 -0 to adopt the prepared resolutions. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow -up Actions: None Public Notice: A total of 105 public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject site. Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motions: New plans would need to be submitted to the Planning Commission for Design Review approval. Attachments: 1. Appeal letter 2. Planning Commission minutes date 2/10/93 3. Staff report dated 2/10/93 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" TO: CITY OF SARATOGA RE: APPEAL OF DECISION GRANTING BUILDING PERMIT Several months ago, Linda Kinnier began the process to obtain a permit to construct a home on a very sub standard lot located at 14706 Sixth Street. Initially she wished to build a house approximately 2200 square feet on a lot that is some 3200 square feet in size. This initial request was denied, appealed and denied again. Subsequently, she lowered the square footage of the house to some 1700 square feet to comply with suggestions made by the building department. This plan was approved for permit. Both property owners on either side of the property find both the size and design of this property inappropriate for the size of the lot. Neither owner has objected to the construction of a house, but rather the size with respect to the size of the lot. Ms. Kinnier believed that privacy was a major consideration, re windows looking out the adjacent properties to the North and South. While the privacy issues were a concern they, in no way, were as major a concern as the size of the project. U. Kinnier did redesign the house such that windows were reduced and would use materials that were obscure. While this design reduces one problem, it significantly increases another. As the property is some 21 feet high, the wall to the North will create a rather significant barrier as well as having significant visual impact on the back yard to the North. Although there are some architectural details breaking up the wall, they are few. Given the grade and slope between the two properties, the effect of this wall is increased. I am sure that this wall will block some sunlight during the warmer months of the year when. back yards are used for recreation. The property to the South will be impacted, but not as significantly as it is above the subject property by the same grade and slope. It has been suggested that a' much larger house is being constructed on the corner of Sixth and St. Charles and its lot coverage has a similar impact. This house is not bordered by houses on either side nor does it have a significant change in elevation with respect to the property to its North. The other side is a street providing a break between the two properties. In conclusion, I must also add my belief that this permit was granted on the basis of Ms. Kinniers perseverance and, persistence, rather than on the merits of the project viewed independently from her efforts of the last year. I say this. because several members of the Design and Review Board complemented Ms. Kinnier on her efforts, determination and implied, in my opinion, she should be granted this permit because of her efforts rather than on the objective review of the property and design in question. Sincerely yours, . U G. D. Covell, Jr. P.O. Box 1202 Carmel, Ca. - 93921 Planning Commission N.. rtes Meeting of February 10, . j93 Page 9 CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT_&*1fP.M. Glen Bullig, 10460 Pine Ville Avenue, Cupertino, project arc ' , spoke in favor of the application. He explained that the project had received r Planning Commission approval, but due to cost overruns of the main stru e, the property owners were unable to proceed with their plans to constru ool, spa, deck and gazebo. He explained the project and the landscape p to the Commission. Jim Page, applicant, spoke in fav the application and the proposed landscape plan. MORAN /MURAKA OVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. MOR URAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE SM -92 -007. PASSED 5 -0. 8. DR -92 -034 - Kinnier; 14706 Sixth St., request for design V -92 -023 - review approval to construct a two -story, 1,754 sq. ft. residence on an existing substandard 3,271 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to 7 Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed structure to encroach into the required side yard setbacks and to allow a one -car garage in lieu of the required two -car garage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 10, 1993, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. Planner Walgren noted the receipt of letters from Sue Kalman and Diane Tully expressing opposition to the project specifically opposing the size of the proposed house and the exception of a 1 car garage (instead of the required 2 car garage). Planner Walgren also noted the receipt of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Adams opposing the 1 car garage exception. AT 9:57 P.M., CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Linda Kinnier, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. She noted that a majority of the existing homes in the vicinity have only one -car garages. Ms. Kinnier explained how the plans for the proposed house had been redesigned per the direction of the Planning Commission. She pointed out the utilization of non - deciduous trees in the landscape plan and noted that these trees would provide /protect privacy year- round. Planning Commission M' tes Meeting of February 10, _i93 Page 10 Commissioner Wolfe inquired as to the number of off - street parking places that would be provided. Staff indicated 2 parking places - one in the garage and one in the driveway. Ms. Kinnier, applicant, stated that she would: be agreeable to extending the width of the driveway in order to provide additional off - street parking. George Cobell, P.O. Box 1202, Carmel, owner of property immediately south of subject site, expressed concern regarding the size of the proposed house. He stated his opinion that the house was massive and too large for the lot. He also expressed concern regarding impacts on privacy. He noted that there had been a discrepancy in the location of the property line. Henry. Wyrsch,.14700 6th Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating that the house is too large for the lot. He expressbd preference for a one story home and suggested that the house size be reduced. Gloria Wyrsch, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. She stated that a two -, - story structure would be out of character and suggested that the applicant be directed to design a one story home. Mrs. Cobell, 14710 6th Street, concurred with the comments made by previous speakers. She also expressed concern regarding privacy impacts because of the slope of the lot. She stated that the proposed project would have a negative impact on the historical house at 14700 6th Street and reported existing on= street parking problems in the area. Ms. Kinnier, applicant, addressed the concerns raised by previous speakers. She explained that the Code restrictions would allow for a one story home of only 840 square feet (approximately) which would be inadequate for her needs. She noted that she also plans to install a retaining wall to alleviate any erosion potential. MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:33 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Discussion commenced regarding the design, privacy concerns as expressed by the public, and the landscape plan. Commissioner Jacobs noted that he saw no way to redesign the home without removing the second story which would severely restrict the size of the home and which the applicant has indicated is not acceptable. Chairperson Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Jacobs comment. CALDWELL /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE V -92 -023. PASSED 5 -0. planning Commission M' `es Meeting of February 10, 093 Page 11 Commissioner Jacobs expressed his preference for retaining as much landscaping as ible instead of increasing the width of the driveway to allow for additional parking. )WELL /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -92 -034. PASSED 5 -0. DIRECTORS ITEMS J Planning Director Curtis verified that the Commission had denied Desert Petroleum's request for a 10 year use permit extension and had approved the one year use permit review per recommendations made in the staff report. The Commission indicated that this was correct. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Moran inquired about roofing material requirements, specifically the required fire retardant rating. Staff explained the requirement for the use of fire rated roofing materials. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council minutes - 1/20 & 1/26/93 2. Public hearing notices of upcoming items on the 2/24/93 Planning Commission meeting. Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.to 7:30 p.m. on February 24, 1993, in the Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -Application No. /Location: DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023; 14706 Sixth Street Applicant /Owner: xinnier Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: February 10, 1993 APN: 517 -08 -023 Director Approval: Y� 14 / Ub Sixth Street File No. DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023; 14706 Sixth Street EXECUTIVE BUNK MY: CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 9/30/92 Application complete: 10/30/92 Notice published: 1/27/93 Mailing completed: 1/28/93 Posting completed: 1/21/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design I review approval to construct a two - story, 1,754 sq. ft. residence on an existing substandard 3,271 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed structure to encroach into the required side yard setbacks and.to allow a one -car garage in lieu of the required two -car garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request by adopting the attached resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR -92 -034 and V -92 -023 3. Planning Commission minutes dated 4/7/92 and 2/12/92 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" 5: Previous plans, Exhibit "B" File No. DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023; 14706 Sixth Street STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 3,271 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 88 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 4 Ft. Fill: 20 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: -1.5 Ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finished with horizontal wood siding and stucco, both proposed to be painted tan with off - white trim. Roofing material is composition fiberglass shingles. A material board will be available at the public hearing. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 44% (1,453 s.f.) 60% HEIGHT: 21.2 ft. 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Garage: , 286 s.f. 1st Floor: 816 s.f. 2nd Floor: 652 s.f. TOTAL: 1,754 .s.f. SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: *To be determined by the not indicate allowable sq. ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Background: 27 ft. Front: 25 ft. 20.8 ft. Rear: 20.8 ft. 6 ft. Right Side: 9 ft. 6 ft. Left Side: 9 ft. Planning Commission - the City Code does floor areas for parcels of less than 5,000 The Planning Commission first reviewed Ms. Kinnier's request to develop this severely substandard parcel with a two -story home in February of last year. That original proposal was for a 2,266 sq. ft. residence of basically the same design as this new proposal. The item was continued to a subsequent public hearing to allow the applicant to address;Commissioners' concerns that the home was too large and massive for this small, narrow lot. File No. DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023; 14706 Sixth Street At the following April public hearing, revised plans were presented to the Commission representing that the structure had been set 2 ft. lower on the site, 4 ft. further back from the front property line and that minor architectural changes had been made. The Planning Commission felt that the structure still needed to be reduced in size, which the applicant was not willing to do at the time. The Design Review and Variance requests were then denied. This denial was appealed to the City Council, which voted to uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Current Proposal: This new application is for basically the same style of home, but with the following modifications: • The structure now meets the required front and rear. yard setbacks which were previously requested to be waived as part of the Variance request; • The highest point of the structure has been lowered from 26 as f_t. to 21.2 ft. by utilizing a flat design. • The upper level floor has been stepped back approximately 10 ft. from the first floor to provide improved architectural, relief along the front elevation. • The total floor area has been reduced from 2,266 sq. ft. to 1,754 square feet. Excluding the 286 sq. ft. one -car garage, the habitable floor area is now 1,468 square feet. Design Review Request: As established in the original staff report, staff does feel that the style of the proposed home is consistent with the Village Design Guidelines, encouraging "traditional" or "rustic" architec- ture, and that the necessary Design Review findings articulated in the attached resolution can be made to support the request. The revised lower roofline, achieved by cutting off the peak of the roof, tends to give the structure a truncated appearance. However, it should be noted that the applicant was attempting to comply with Planning Commission and City Council direction with regard to this height modification. Staff's only concern with the design of the revised plans is the abrupt and relatively massive appearance at the north and south elevation walls, particularly the north side. Staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of stepping the upper floor along the north side back from the lower floor to provide some horizontal relief. Ms. Kinnier did not feel this was feasible given the File No. DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023; 14706 Sixth Street constrained nature of the lot and the difficulty in obtaining the amount of usable floor area needed (the front of the house is only 13.5 ft. wide, and the back is 26 ft. at its widest point). Given that these two side elevations will not be visible in their entirety, staff feels that site constraints- warrant-- supporting the plans as submitted. Variance Report: Approval of the design review application is contingent upon the Commissioners' being able to make the necessary Variance findings. The three findings include: that special circumstances exist applicable to the property which prevent the applicant from complying with the zoning ordinance regulations; that granting the variance would not be a grant of special privilege; and that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public -'-s health, safety or welfare. The size and configuration of the parcel itself qualifies as a special circumstance. The 3,271 sq. ft. lot is 25 ft. wide at the street frontage, and flares out to 37 ft. at the rear. It would be virtually impossible to design a two -story home which would fit within the setback envelope of this site. The lesser setbacks required for a one -story home could be met, but would reduce the habitable floor area to roughly 800 sq. ft., substantially less than a typical new home in Saratoga. Based on the constraints of the parcel and the unlikelihood of the home affecting the public's health, safety or welfare, staff feels that the Variance findings can be made to recommend approval of the application. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request by adopting the attached resolutions. PLANNING COMMISSIOti MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page.2 3. She stated it is her recollection that trees 5, 6, 8, and 11 should remain and would like the minutes to reflect this. MORAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE ABOVE AMENDMENT. PASSED 3 -0 -1 (Bogosian abstain) - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 3, 1992. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren noted the Cancellieri application has been appealed to the City Council and will be heard on April 15, 1992. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -91 -073 - Tsang, 14581 Sobey Oaks Ct. (Lot #16), request for design review approval to construct a new, 5,532 sq. ft., two -story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 44,862 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zone district within the Sobey Oaks subdivision (cont. to 5/13/92; application expires 7/27/92). MORAN/ BOGOS IAN. MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4 -0. Com. Moran requested that item 2 be moved to then end of the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS ** 3. DR -91 -064 - Rinnier, 14706 6th St., request for design V -91 -017 - review approval to construct a new, two - story, 2,226 sq. ft., single family residence on an approximately 3,271 sq. ft. parcel and a request for variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks and from the City parking requirement in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. (cont. from 3/25/92; application expires 5/29/92). ------------------------------------------------------------ Planner Walgren presented the Report dated April 7, 1992 and answered questions regarding privacy issues and the house size proposed. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 3 Ms. Linda Kinnier, 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. commented on the issues of parking, privacy, landscaping and house size. Regarding the parking, Ms. Kinnier stated they now have one covered and one uncovered parking space. She stated there will be one small bedroom window facing the neighbors to the north with regards to the privacy issue. Ms. Kinnier expressed concern.about the trees noting that both are in bad health, one has fell over and the other should be removed. She quoted from the Arborist's report regarding the trees. Ms. Kinnier stated the living area of the house does measure in the 1700 s.f. range and the 2200 s.f. includes balconies etc. Ms. Kinnier went on to explain the configuration of her lot and where the building is placed. She stated a smaller house does not fit her needs. She noted she had received calls in favor of the project. In response to Commissioners questions, Ms. Kinnier stated the level of the floor of the garage is at grade. She noted she had considered narrowing the house to obtain a 8 ft. setback, but this is not.appropriate. Ms. Kinnier explained the landscape plan and the placement of the trees. She stated there would be a six foot fence along the property lines. Lowering the house was discussed. Ms. Kinnier stated the Soils Engineers did not recommend going any deeper. In response to.Com. Favero's question, Planner Walgren stated there is potential that they will see more remodeling requests in this area. Resident, 14700 6th Street, stated the trees for screening will not address the privacy; issue in winter. As far as excavating and lowering the structure, he stated it would be possible to put in a pump and he would be willing to run a line through his property. He expressed several other concerns regarding the living area of the house and privacy. He stated the structure could and should be more scaled to the lot size. In response to Commissioners questions, the resident stated the fence proposed .is approximately 25 feet from his property. He stated the obscured glass proposed is acceptable, but there will be no privacy when the windows are opened. Mr. Doug Prichard, Home Profiles, stated they could meet all the requirements if the. applicant put a flat roof on her home, but does not feel this is compatible with the neighborhood. He noted the applicant has been very flexible in trying to work with staff. Chr. Caldwell closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. In response to Com. Moran's question, Planner Walgren stated the landscape plan, as submitted, is not detailed enough and staff will require a more detailed plan. Com. Bogosian stated he did meet with the applicant on -site to discuss the concerns raised at this hearing. PLANNING COMMISSIOi,, MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 4 Com. Caldwell expressed concern regarding the privacy issue and the scale of the home. Com. Bogosian feels that property owners are aware of the constraints before buying the property. He stated the proposed plan does not address the privacy concerns. He noted the applicant had not pursued studies for drainage, etc. and now he should investigate the possibility of lowering the structure. Com. Moran stated she is not concerned about the size of the proposed house because she feels the neighborhood is in. a transition of redeveloping. She does feel the house should be more scaled to this lot. Com. Moran expressed concern regarding the privacy issue. Com. Favero stated the character of the neighborhood should be preserved as is and is not in favor of the proposed size of the structure. FAVERO /MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF DR -91 -064. The Commissioners asked the applicant if she would want . a contiruance. After, discussion, Ms. Kinnier stated she does not want a study session. The above motion was carried 4 -0. BOGOSIAN /MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF V -91 -017. PASSED 4 -0. 4. UP -91 -008 - Fathali, 18444 Purdue Dr., request for use permit approval to operate a large family day care home within an R- 1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 3/25/92; application expires 9/5/92). ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated April 7, 1991 and answered questions of the Commissioners. Chr. Caldwell opened; the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ed. Clements, 595 Park Ave., Ste. 101, San Jose, addressed the State Health & Safety Code noting quality child care is very important. He noted the applicant offers quality child care and to make this economically viable, they require 7 to 12 children. Mr. Clements presented written statements to the Planning Commission. Mr. Clements addressed staff's concerns. He noted the additional children will only increase the traffic by five cars and the applicant is willing to pick up and drop off children in order to decrease the number of cars. He noted the garage has been converted back to a garage as r�equi.r-ed by staff. He feels noise is not an issue as the traffic on Quito Rd. is nosier. Mr. Clements stated an additional five or six children will not impact the traffic. Planning Commission M., Lutes Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Four Commissioner Forbes requested that resurfacing and widening of the driveway be included as a condition of approval. CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Chairperson Moran stated she was in favor of a darker color for the house. Commissioner Durket stated he.was also in favor of a darker color and a tree maintenance bond. DURKET /FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE V -89 -045.1 PASSED 7 -0 DURKET /FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR -88 -064.1 WITH THE AMENDMENT _ THAT THE COLOR BE DARKER AND THAT A TREE MAINTENANCE BOND BE SECURED. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarity of the motion to specify that the bond be a 5 year bond and that the color be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioners Durket and Forbes were in agreement. Commissioner Bogosian stated that he was going to reluctantly support the application for extension. He said he was perturbed regarding the "after- the - fact" evaluation of the trees. He felt that the trees did not get a fair hearing and stated that the evaluation may have been based on the idea that the removal of the trees was a done deal. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Bogosian's comments. The motion carried 7 -0. 2. DR -91 -064 - Kinnier; 14706 6th St., request for design V -91 -017 - review approval to construct a new, two -story, 2,226 sq. ft., single family residence on an approximately 3,271 sq. ft. parcel and a request for variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks and from the City parking requirement in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 1/22/92). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 22, 1992 to the Planning Commission and also made the following modifications to the resolution: Page 35, second finding, should read "...the proposed setbacks are adequate so as not to unreasonably interfere... "; and Planning Commission Mir Lutes Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Five Page 39, fourth paragraph from the bottom should read "... the construction of a new single family dwelling at the proposed setbacks will in no way... ". Planner Walgren also answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Douglas Prichard, project designer, spoke in support of the design of the proposed house and the variance application. He also answered questions of the Commission regarding the design, window placement, invasion of privacy mitigation and landscape issues. George Cobell, 14740 6th Street, stated he was not opposed to the new development of the lot, but felt the proposed house was too large and therefore inappropriate to the size of the lot. He also expressed concern regarding privacy invasion, the proximity of the proposed structure, and potential traffic hazards with the use of the street for additional parking. Mrs. Cobell, 14740 6th Street, expressed the same concerns as Mr. Cobell and added that she had concerns about the tree removals and required landscape replacement. She also posed a question as to the owner of the bay tree that is to be removed. Douglas Prichard, project designer, addressed the Commission stating that the property had been surveyed and the bay tree in question belongs to the applicant. Commissioner Favero stated that the tree removal and condition of the trees were of concern to him. He also asked for available information regarding the size of other homes in the neighborhood. Planner Walgren stated that he had no information regarding the size of the surrounding homes. Owner, 14700 6th Street, expressed the same concerns of the previous speakers and stated his opinion that the proposed house was out -of- character with the rest of the neighborhood. FORBES/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:34 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Durket stated he could not support the project because he felt the house was too large for the lot. Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Durket and added that he could not make the design findings because of the height and bulk of the building. Commission Tucker expressed agreement with the previous two Commissioners. Planning Commission Mr, Lutes Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Six Commission Forbes addressed the'City Attorney as to whether the Commission was obligated to approve any structure that met the Zoning` Regulations because the lot was created as a legal lot. The City Attorney explained that the Commission was not obligated to approve any structure which did not meet the zoning codes and for which the Commission could not make the findings. Planning Director Eisner reminded the Commission that it would be impossible to deny legal use of the lot. FORBES /FAVERO MOVED TO DENY V -91 -017. Commissioner Bogosian suggested continuing the item to enable the applicant to come back before the Commission with revised plans addressing the comments of the Commissioners. Following discussion, Commissioner Favero withdrew his second to the motion posed by Commissioner Forbes. The motion to deny V -91 -017 died for lack of a second. Chairperson Moran addressed the applicant explaining the option to either request a vote or to continue the item and present a modified design reflecting the comments of the Commissioners. The applicant was in favor of the continuance. DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE-DR-91-064 AND V -91 -017 TO THE MARCH 25, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. PASSED 6 -1 (Forbes opposed). Planning Director Eisner stated that the variance application would require re- notification of the neighbors. Commissioner Tucker requested that the Cobells be sent the new notification. The Commission took a break at 8:52 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 9:06 p.m. 3. DR -91 -067 - Sobey; Oaks Associates, 14766 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for designs review approval to construction a new 3,713 sq. ft. one - story residence within the Sobey Oaks subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 43,010 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 12, 1992, to the Commission. February 10, 1993 Dear Planning Commission: We would like to express our opposition to the proposed new residence -eFi Sixth street that is being discussed tonight. We feel that the proposed house is too large for the lot. It would look tok? crowded for this neighborhood. We would not be opposed to a smaller dwelling on the lot. We feel that having only a one car garage will cause curb side parking which also is not aligned with the character of our neighborhood. Sue Kalman 14761 Bohiman Rd. (corner of 6th and Bohiman) /C Dianne Tuley i 14755 Oak Street 1. FEB 5 199" February 3, 1993 Mr. Paul L. Curtis Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: This letter is in reference to the following public hearing item: DR -92 -034 & V -92 -023 (APN 517 -08- 023) - Kinnier; 14706 Sixth As residents of 14730'Sixth Street, we would like to voice our concern about potential parking congestion on the street should a variance be approved for a one car garage at the above address. Yours truly, Earl & Marcia Adams 14730 Sixth St. Saratoga, CA 95070 Jill 111111111112 71VA-MR01. i!111�111 �1110i� I � � �.5 STE 1.3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 February 24, 1993 Mr. G. D. Covell, Jr. P.O. Box 1202 Carmel CA 93921 Dear Mr.'Covell: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker We have received your application for an appeal of design review approval to construct a two - story, 1,754 sq. ft._ residence on an existing substandard 3,271 sq. ft. parcel and variance to allow the proposed structure to encroach into the required side yard setback and to allow a one -car garage in lieu of the required two -car garage at 14706 Sixth St. We have also received the appeal fee of $161. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of March 17, 1993. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation . on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission. and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you should find it necessary to request a continuance, you must obtain the applicant's consent in writing. You may do so once without charge. Any subsequent requests for continuance must be accompanied by a fee of $215. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Printed on recycled paper. Planning Department Ms. Kinnear, Applicant e I Date Received: /1-3 s Hearing Date: j 1_ Fee:- $161.0.0 Receipt No.: 'A Sy (N Name of Appellant: G•Z)- Address: Telephone: APPEAL APPLICATION W irrz Q.v 8o) 110-2, Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: ^]�6 /7�=/}�1 wlq 1�fL Decision Being Appealed:_ G47Ayn-t-I(&& oj7 Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): * Signature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. TO: CITY OF SARATOGA RE: APPEAL . OF DECISION GRANTING BUILDING PERMIT Several months ago, Linda Kinnier began the process to obtain a permit to construct a home on a very sub standard lot located at 14706 Sixth Street. Initially she wished to build a house approximately 2200 square feet on a lot that is some 3200 square feet in size. This initial request was denied, appealed and denied again. Subsequently, she lowered the square footage of the house to some 1700 square feet to comply with suggestions made by the building department. This plan was approved for permit. Both property owners on either side of the property find both the size and design of this property inappropriate for the size of the lot. Neither owner has objected to the construction of a house, but rather the size with respect to the size of the lot. Ms. Kinnier believed that privacy was a major consideration, re windows looking out the adjacent properties to the North and South. While the privacy issues were .a concern they, in no way, were as major a concern as the size of the project. Ms. Kinnier did redesign the house such that windows were reduced and would use materials that were obscure. While this design reduces one problem, it significantly increases another. As the property is some 21 feet high, the wall to the North will create a rather significant barrier as well as having significant visual impact on the back yard to the North. Although there are some architectural details breaking up the wall, they are few. Given the grade and slope between the two properties, the effect of this wall is increased. , I am sure that this wall will block some sunlight during the warmer months of the year when back yards are used for recreation. The property to the South will be impacted, but not as significantly as it is above the subject property by the same grade and slope. It has been suggested that a much larger house is being constructed on the corner of Sixth and St. Charles and its lot coverage has a similar impact. This house is not bordered by houses on either side nor does it have a significant change in elevation with respect to the property to its North. The other side is a street providing a break between the two properties. In conclusion, I must also add my belief that this permit was granted on the basis of Ms. Kinniers perseverance and 'persistence, rather than on the merits of the project viewed independently from her efforts of the last year. I say this because several members of the Design and Review Board complemented Ms. Kinnier on her efforts, determination and implied, in my opinion, she should be granted this permit because of her efforts rather than on the objective review of the property and design in question. Sincerely yours, N&,a � G. D. Covell, Jr. P.O. Box 1202 Carmel, Ca. 93921 s File No. AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, l -b o �Iz , as appellant on the above file, hereby authorize Enginee °ng Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the above file. '9 Date: � C1,3 Signature: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, NO. % AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 17, 1993 Q CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering _\' 14G SUBJECT: Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge, Capital Project No. 926 - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the project. Report Summary: All work on the Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge, Capital Project No. 926, has been completed by the City's contractor, Lionsgate Construction Corp., and inspected by staff. The final construction cost for the project was $ 123,246, which is 5.6% above the awarded contract amount of $ 116,700. The additional construction costs were incurred as a result of having to modify the bridge to conform to new ADA requirements. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the contract so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by 'subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming. no Stop Notices are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Project No. 926, Account No. 4510, to cover the cost of the project including the executed change orders. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the contract and will release the contract sureties and retention thirty days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: March 17, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering SUBJECT: Quarry Creek Status Report Recommended Motion(s): None required. AGENDA ITEM � ( -Y CITY MGR. Report Summary: Attached is a status report on Quarry Creek which was requested at the previous Council meeting. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow U o Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. �e1 OA A R� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker TO: City Council FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Quarry Creek J DATE: March 11, 1993 ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- At the previous City Council meeting, I'was requested to provide a status report on Quarry Creek. Since I am not certain what I am to be reporting the status of, I will organize this memo into two parts, one dealing with the lower portion of Quarry Creek where the City sponsored buttress project was done, and the other dealing with the upper portion of Quarry Creek in the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision, Tract No. 7761. Hopefully, by the end of this memo, I will have included the information you requested. Lower Quarry Creek: This is the portion which is downstream from the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision and into which the drainage from the subdivision and other surrounding hillside properties flows. Several years ago, the City arranged for the installation of a 48 inch concrete culvert along the length of the lower Quarry Creek to carry the creek flow. On top of the culvert, an earthen buttress was constructed to stabilize landslides underlying Vaquero Court and Old Oak Way. Additionally, the buttress allowed for the rebuilding of Quarry Road which had suffered extensive damage during the winter of 1986. On December 16, 1987, near the completion of the project, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a Cease and Desist Order on the project which prevented the remaining drainage improvements from being constructed on top of the buttress and the revegetation of the watershed area. After nearly five years of negotiating with the Corps, the Cease and Desist Order was lifted on June 25,. 1992 with the stipulation that the City reach an agreement with the California Dept. of Fish and Game to mitigate the loss of low flow channel and riparian habitat caused by the buttress project. Printed on recycled paper. Since last summer, staff has been working to reach an agreement with Fish and Game. Earlier this week a milestone was reached when Fish and Game staff and City consultants tentatively agreed to a mitigation scheme which will attempt to* recreate an equivalent amount of wetland habitat to replace what was lost during the buttress construction. The plan should be finalized over the next 2 -3 months and assuming Fish and Game approval and Corps consent are secured, implementation may begin this summer with the final revegetation occurring this fall. The cost for this work has and will be funded by the Quarry Creek Trust, Fund No. 61, through Capital Project No. 9109. Upper Quarry Creek: When the Corps issued its Cease and Desist Order, it also included the work which was under construction in the upper Quarry Creek in the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision. Eventually however, the Corps recognized the subdivision work as being separate from the City sponsored buttress project and made separate determinations that both projects complied with Nationwide Permit No. 26, although the Corps has maintained (and rightfully so) that agreements with the Dept. of Fish and Game should have been secured for both projects. Because the Corps stopped the developer of Mt. Eden Estates from completing the drainage improvements as designed, (a concrete lined channel), the developer was forced to seek an alternative method for stabilizing Quarry Creek in the subdivision. Ultimately, the developer installed a series of gabion basket drop structures to control erosion, however they have proven to be only minimally effective and considerable erosion has resulted in the subdivision, particularly during this past winter. (As an aside, it is my opinion that if the gabion drop structures were properly engineered, they would have proven to be effective. On the other hand, I also believe that they have controlled erosion to some degree, although not nearly to an acceptable level.) In November of 1990, the City signed a Settlement and Release Agreement with the developer whereby among other considerations, the developer posted an $80,000 cash bond to guarantee a three year maintenance period for the streets in the subdivision and completion of remaining improvements in upper Quarry Creek.to the satisfaction of the Corps and Fish and Game. When it became apparent this past winter that the gabion structures installed by the developer were not effective at controlling erosion in Quarry Creek, the City demanded on behalf of several homeowners in the subdivision that the developer take additional measures to control erosion. When it appeared that the developer was resistant to perform additional work, the City seized the -cash bond and has been using the proceeds to fund remedial erosion control measures this winter. The most recent work involved clearing the sediment basin where upper Quarry Creek discharges into the lower Quarry Creek culvert adjacent to Lot 18 in the subdivision. This work was performed within the past two weeks and involved using several pieces of large equipment for which the City had to contract. The sediment removed from the basin has been piled on Lot 18 and may be used in the future to fill in some of the more severely eroded portions of Quarry Creek in the subdivision as part of an overall erosion control and restoration plan. It is my hope that the City and the developer will come to an agreement in the near future to have such a plan prepared. I have been attempting to work this out with the developer's attorney and I remain optimistic that an agreement can be reached and a plan implemented this summer. However in the event of an unwillingness on the part of the developer to cooperate, the City should be prepared to continue to use the proceeds of the cash bond to follow through with this. As progress is made, I will keep the Council informed. 1 19" L� da" iI Larry I. er in SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �02 CI MEETING DATE: March 17, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering �. AGENDA ITEM S /� )_ CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Letter from David Krevanko, 14171 Teerlink Way, concerning acceptance of improvements in Tract No. 6781 Recommended Motion(s): None. P Report Summary: Attached is a report in response to the February 15 letter from Mr. Krevanko. Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. Follow Up Actions: Staff will proceed to resolve the various issues involving Tract No. 6781 which have delayed City acceptance of the subdivision improvements as outlined in the attached report. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. 4 OW 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 MEMO TO: City Council FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvements in Tract No. 6781 DATE: March 11, 1993 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker This is in response to the attached letter from Mr. David Krevanko concerning City acceptance of the subdivision improvements in Tract No. 6781, Teerlink Ranch. Tract No. 6781 is one of four hillside subdivisions which have yet to receive either Construction or Final Acceptance from the City. The other three subdivisions are Tract No. 6701 (Bas Homes), Tract No. 7761 (Mt. Eden Estates) and Tract No. 7770 (Cocciardi- Chadwick). Although each subdivision has unique problems which have delayed City acceptance of the improvements, the problems generally pertain to deficiencies with the streets and storm drainage systems which require corrective work before any type of acceptance would be granted. In the case of Tract No. 6781, the outstanding issues which need to be resolved are: 1. Repairs to cracked and failed sections of street pavement. 2. Repairs to cracked concrete curb and gutter sections. 3. Miscellaneous repairs to storm drain inlet structures. 4. Repairs to damaged drainage structures in Calabazas Creek. 5. Locating and setting street monuments. 6. Identification of trail easement and street locations per the original and amended maps and determination of which locations shall govern in the future. Printed on recycled paper. The first five items are fairly straightforward and can be accomplished under the City's direction by a contractor working with the City on another City project. My suggestion would be to use whichever contractor the City hires to perform the next Pavement Management Program work later this summer. Furthermore, I have recently discovered that the City is still retaining a $ 40,000 cash bond which the original developer of the subdivision posted with the City at the time of Final Map approval. These funds can be used to pay for the corrective work which needs to be done and, in my opinion, should be sufficient to cover the costs of the corrective work. Item 6 is something which needs to be resolved because portions of the streets and trails offered to the City on the original Final Map were realigned on an amended Final Map, (and further realigned via subsequent recorded offers of dedication), yet were never offered to the City on the amended Final Map. Moreover, it appears that the streets and, for the most part the trails, were built in the locations shown on the amended Final Map. As the original developer is no longer in the picture, it will most likely be necessary for various property owners in the subdivision to deed portions of property to the City, as well as to one another, to reflect where street rights -of -way, trail easements and property lines should exist on record based on what has been built in the subdivision. I have been working with the City Surveyor to clarify exactly what transactions will need to occur and then I will be contacting each of the affected property owners to discuss. how to proceed to resolve this issue. At that point, I will be suggesting that everyone agree to work with the City Surveyor to prepare and sign deeds as that would seem to be the most efficient way to work all of this out. The City Surveyor's costs on matters involving street right -of -way and trail easement locations can be funded out of the cash bond which the City is retaining, however his costs on matters involving property line locations should be paid by only those property owners involved. Item 6 can be resolved independently of items 1 -5, and probably within the next two months. Assuming the repairs in items 1 -5 are performed later this summer, I see no reason why the City could not grant Final Acceptance of the subdivision improvements before fall. Assuming this is the outcome which everyone desires, I will be proceeding as described above unless I am directed otherwise and I will notify Mr. Krevanko of this. Turning to Mr. Krevanko's letter, there are two points I would like to make in response to the bulleted paragraphs. First, since I have been City Engineer, I have never been formally contacted by any of the Teerlink Ranch homeowners about these issues other than an occasional telephone call. Several weeks ago I was asked to attend an evening meeting of the homeowners, which I did, to explain much of what is in this memo. It was in fact I who encouraged the homeowners to send a letter to you in the first place. Secondly, the $ 160,000 settlement which the City received was for the sole purpose of widening the Pierce Road bridge at Sarahills Drive. This was a requirement of the Measure A settlement agreement with the original developer of the subdivision and as you know, the developer went bankrupt and the City assumed control of that project which is now moving ahead as Capital Project No. 953 and which should be completed later this year. Larry I. P rlin- February 15, 1993 E � W E FEB 1 6 1993, CITY OF SARATOGA David Krevanko Mayor Karen Anderson CI'T'Y 1VIl+.:NAG7E�I3,'S ©Fp'ICI; City of Saratoga 14171 Teerlink Way 13777 Fnutvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 741 -0217 Subject: Acceptance of Teerlink Ranch Tract No. 6781 by the City of Saratoga Dear Mayor Anderson, We are writing to request the city council to initiate appropriate action leading to the formal acceptance of our tract by the City of Saratoga. Our preliminary inquiries on this matter suggest that there is not a formal acceptance process nor a specific timetable in place. Even though the purpose of this letter is not to address the many details of such a process, we feel that some background research is called for. Just to highlight two areas, for example: It is not clear to us why the tract has not been accepted already (perhaps even three years ago). The City has been requested to provide this information on multiple occasions over the past several years. Contact was made with both the past and present City Engineers. No information was ever provided other than a repeated comment that "...there are deficiencies that need to be corrected ". Had this issue been resolved in a timely manner, items that fall into the category of minor deficiencies today would already have been handled by the city as routine maintenance, such as a slurry coat to the streets. The original developer reached a formal settlement agreement with the city during a bankruptcy proceeding in which the city received $160,000 in unrestricted funds. In turn, each party released the other from any further obligation on the project. This agreement was signed on behalf of the city by Harry Peacock, City Manager. We further understand that the agreement inured to all "successors and assigns" (viz., the Homeowners) as well. We believe this matter in particular deserves careful review because it directly relates to our immediate mutual responsibilities in addressing the tract acceptance. We are sure you appreciate that as substantial taxpayers in the area, we are very interested in moving ahead with formal acceptance in a proactive fashion. We look forward to working with the city to make this happen. Your prompt consideration of this matter will be most appreciated. You may address any response or inquiry to my attention. I will in turn follow up with the Teerlink Ranch Development homeowners. i cerely, David Krevank Secretary cc: Teerlink Ranch Homeowners TEERLINK RANCH DEVELOPMENT HOMEOWNERS LIST Mr. & Mrs. W. Alff 14185 Teerlink Way Mr. & Mrs. D. Aveni 14161 Teerlink Way Mr. & Mrs. R. Denton 21770 Heber Way Mr. & Mrs. R. Hill 21760 Heber Way Mr. & Mrs. D. Krevanko 14171 Teerlink Way Mr. & Mrs. R. Kundtz 21790 Heber Way Mr. P. Lee & Family 21800 Mt. Eden Rd. Mr. & Mrs. V. Luthra 14151 Teerlink Way Mr. & Mrs. D. McCammon 21771 Heber Way Mr. & Mrs. J. McNeish 14124 Dorene Ct. Mr. & Mrs. H. Morrison 14170 Teerlink Way Mr. & Mrs. W. Palmer 21761 Heber Way Mr. & Mrs. J. Rosenberg 14134 Dorene Ct. Mr. & Mrs. A. Seville 14142 Dorene Ct. Mr. & Mrs. D. Smith 14152 Dorene Ct. Mr. & Mrs. H. Teerlink 21810 Mt. Eden Rd. Mr. & Mrs. J. Zeid 21781 Heber Way March 15, 1993 Mayor Karen Anderson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 s, cO David J. Krevanko 14171 Teerlink Way Saratoga, Ca. 95070 408 - 741 -0217 Reference 1) Letter dated February 15, 1993 from David Krevanko speaking on behalf of the Teerlink Ranch Homeowners, Tract 6781 Reference 2) Memo from Larry Perlin dated March 11, 1993 to the City Council. Reference 3) Settlement and Mutual General Release signed by the City of Saratoga, dated April 15, 1992 (attached). Dear Mayor Anderson, In response to Ref. 2 we wish to indicate our appreciation of the professional manner in which the City Engineer has attempted to address our legitimate concerns. However, this matter goes well beyond the purview of the City Engineer as indicated in the following summary: Teerlink Ranch Homeowner Position Summary - The issues are more than just engineering related. There is a serious issue involved here as to whether the city council shall insist that the spirit and details of City of Saratoga contracts are to be honored by the city. Specifically, phone calls were made by the homeowners to the City Engineer regarding acceptance of Tract 6781 at the very time that (Spring 1992), the city was negotiating separately (unbeknown to the homeowners) with the developer as evidenced by Ref. 3 attached. This agreement released the developer and the homeowners from any further improvements to the tract and returned a substantial sum of trust money to the developer. It is our belief that good faith action on the part of the city would have dictated immediate acceptance of the tract on or about April 1992, coinciding with the city's complete and total release. It is unacceptable that the city evidently no longer feels bound to this contract and is now wishing to negotiate both money and property from the homeowners as additional conditions on a project that was legally and financially completed in April 1992. It is our view that Tract 6781 should be accepted retroactively to April 15, 1992. The city should be required to honor the agreement Ref.' 3. Some areas of clarification to the above are as follows: 1) City of Saratoga negotiation with the developer to the exclusion of the homeowners - In view of the potential burdens that the city is now attempting to shift to the homeowners, we are troubled that we were not included in any of these discussions. In any event, the language of the settlement agreement clearly releases "Teerlink/Lambert, its trustees, general partner(s), limited partner(s), employees, agents, successors and assigns, from any and all claims, demands, sums of money, actions, causes of action, obligations, and liabilities of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, arising from or in connection with or related to the Project ". The homeowners are specifically 4ncluded as "successors and assigns" and we suggest you carefully review this document. 2) Failure of City to act pro - actively - The city has in effect left the project and the homeowners in a state of limbo, contrary to the intent of eventually accepting the tract into the city. We do not believe this inaction is at all consistent with the General Release Ref. 3. Moreover, we.are unfortunately led to question the top -level responsiveness and candor with which the city, collectively, has addressed the big picture here, and the Mutual General Release (Ref. 3) has never been mentioned, offered, or addressed by the city, even to this date. 3) Use of Developer money - The issue of the intended use of the $160,000. (Ref. 3) raises an interesting and key point as part of the negotiation with the developer. Whether the city's intended use of the money was primarily for the bridge or otherwise, we would naturally assume that the city carried out all necessary due diligence with regard to ascertaining all needed improvements of any nature. It would have been irresponsible not to do so, in light of the complete and total release signed by the city. In point of fact, the use of the $160,000. was unrestricted in the General Release. If the city required more money to address other improvements, then the settlement amount presumably would have been higher. As it turned out, a substantial sum of money was actually returned to the developer (cf. Re£3). In brief, the city should now be required to work within the budget they themselves established 4) Deeding of easement property to the city - We question whether it is legal for the city to require certain homeowners to deed portions of their property to the city (Ref. 2) as a condition of tract acceptance. Again, this appears to violate the General Release (Ref 3). In final summary to the above letters, we wish to underscore our desire to have our tract accepted by the city. As a condition of this acceptance, we are troubled by the seemingly unlimited additional requests imposed on the homeowners. We feel that such requests represent a de facto failure of the city to honor its own General Release (Ref 3). In view of the above, we are requesting a meeting with you, Mayor Anderson, prior to the city council meeting on Wednesday, March 17. We want to know exactly what position the city will be taking on this very serious matter, going well beyond issues of engineering detail. We the homeowners will then take the action we deem appropriate. Sincerely, David J. Kreva!W cc: Teerlink Ranch Homeowners r SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between: a. Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. (hereinafter "Teerlink "), a limited partnership and the debtor -in- possession under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, in Case No. 587- 01488 -ASW, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California; b. Gerard & Lambert, Inc. (hereinafter "Lambert "), the sole general partner of. Teerlink; and C. The City of Saratoga (hereinafter "City "), a municipal corporation. RECITALS WHEREAS, in 1984, in settlement of an action between Teerlink and Lambert (hereafter collectively referred to as "Teerlink/Lambert ") and the City, Teerlink/Lambert agreed to perform certain works of improvement as more specifically described in the Agreement between Contractor and Owner approved by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to Order dated July 22, 1987 (hereinafter "Project "). WHEREAS, in March of 1987, Teerlink filed an action for Chapter 11 protection. It was agreed by Teerlink and the City that certain inoncy. available to Teerlink would be held in a trust account by Teerlink's attorneys and could be used for the Project to be undertaken by Lambert pursuant to an Agreement between City and Teerlink. Said agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to Order dated July 22, 1987. WHEREAS, on July 20, 1989, it was agreed that the money held in trust by Teerlink's attorneys would be transferred to the City and placed in an interest bearing account and that City would contract directly with -1- Lambert, with the approval of Teerlink, for the Project. This agreement was .approved by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to Order dated October 13, 1989. WHEREAS, since October 13, 1989, no agreement has been reached with Teerlink/Lambert as to the nature and extent of the Project and its cost and the Project has not substantially advanced. WHEREAS, based on engineering reviews of the Project, cost- breakdowns for the Project, and an . order of the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) closing the South Bridge as unsafe, City has determined it would be safer and more cost - effective to replace the South Bridge with a new bridge rather than attempting to reconstruct it. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. In consideration of the retention by City of the total sum of One Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000.00) from the amount held in trust for the Project, plus interest on said $160,000.00, at the rate earned on the account, from April 2, 1992 to the date the funds are disbursed to City pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, and in further consideration Teerlink/Lambert releases any interest they may have in that certain steel described as steel purchased by Lambert for the Project, pursuant to a contract dated October S, 1989, from Western Metal & Stair Fabricators dba Spec -5- Steel, the City, its officials, trustees, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns, hereby fully release and forever discharge Teerlink/Lambert, its trustees, general partner(s), limited partner(s), employees, agents, successors and assigns, from any and all claims, demands, sums of money, actions, causes of action, obligations, and liabilities of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, arising -2- from or in connection with or related to the Project, and waives any and all claims in Teerlink's bankruptcy case. 2. In consideration of the return to Teerlink of the. balance of funds in excess of the. above $160,000.00, plus interest earned as set forth in paragraph 1 above, held by City on behalf of Teerlink. (approximately $124,840.06 as of March 31, 1992), and all accrued interest to the date the funds are returned to Teerlink, Teerlink/Lambert, their trustees, partners, employees, agents, successors, and assigns, hereby fully release and forever discharge City, its officials, trustees, employees, agents, successors, and assigns, from any and all claims, demands, sums of money, actions, causes of action, obligations, and liabilities of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, arising from or in connection with or related to the Project. 3. City and Teerlink/Lambert represent and warrant that in executing this Agreement they do so with full knowledge of any and all rights which they have or may have against each other. Other than the representations made herein, City and Teerlink/Lambert have not relied upon any representations or statements made by anyone other than their own representatives. It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that this Agreement shall be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction and release of each and every claim City and Teerlink/Lambert may have against the other relating to the Project, including, but not limited to, their various liens and claims against the funds held by City on behalf of Teerlink. 4. The parties are aware of and do hereby waive the provisions of §1542 of the California Civil Code, which Section provides: -3- "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 5. All signatories to this .Agreement represent and warrant that they have full and complete authority to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the entity for which they are executing this Agreement. 6. The effectiveness of this settlement shall be contingent upon approval by the Bankruptcy Court ' in the Teerlink bankruptcy case. 7. This Agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court and the parties agree that the enforcement and interpretation thereof is subject to such jurisdiction. 8. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. each of which shall be deemed an original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. Dated: April „(, 1992 Approved: CrN OF SARATOGA A Muni ipal C-=Strauion By: City JAanager MEYERS, NAVE. RIBACK & S R By: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney Attorneys for City of Saratoga Dated: April 1992 GERARD & LAMBERT, INC. By: Alan Lambert, President -4- "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or _ suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." 5. All signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that they have full and complete authority to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the entity for which they are executing this Agreement. 6. The effectiveness of this settlement shall be contingent upon approval by the Bankruptcy Court in the Teerlink bankruptcy case. 7.. This Agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court and the parties agree that the enforcement and interpretation thereof is subject to such jurisdiction. 8. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. Dated: April 1992 Approved: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER CTT'Y OF SARATOGA A Municipal Corporation I: By: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney Attorneys for City of Saratoga Dated: April , 1992 I City Manager -4- Dated: Aril 1992 p , TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. . A California Limited Partnership By: GERARD & LAMBERT, INC. General Partner . Approved: LAW OFFICE S,OF WILLIAM C. LEWIS By: William 'C. Lewis Attorneys for Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. -5- m President 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I am employed by the LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C. LEWIS and my business address is 510 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. On this date I caused to be served the within documents:- ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE OF CONTROVERSY on the parties in this action, by delivering a true copy to the following: Heber Teerlink . Michael S. Riback, Esq. 16101 Matilija Drive Meyers, Nave, Riback & Silver Los Gatos, CA 95030 Gateway Plaza 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, CA 94577 (By Overnight. Courier) I caused each envelope with postage fully prepaid, to be sent by on (By Mail) I caused each envelope, with postage fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States . mail at Palo Alto, California on June 2, 1992. _ (By Hand) I caused each envelope to be delivered by hand. _ (By Telecopy) I caused each document to be sent by Automatic Telecopier to the following No: on I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that `I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar Association. Executed at Palo Alto, California on June 2, 1992. � 0 i U - CLL 10 _ LESLI L. MAYS KIM :4 a D1„ 1D1ZY This Agreement is made between Teerlink Ranch, Ltd., a California limited partnership, and the City of Saratoga, California. Recitals WHEREAS, Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. filed a Voluntary Petition under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on March 19, 1987. Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. continues as a Debtor -In- Possession in such proceedings which are pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, and such proceedings being Case No. 587 - 01488 -M; and WHEREAS, prior to, and following the filing of the Chapter 11 Petition, Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. has been developing a subdivision in the City of Saratoga consisting of a number of residential lots commonly referred to as Tract 6781; and WHEREAS, Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. has sold subdivision lots pursuant to Orders of the United States.Bankruptcy Court with the "net proceeds" of such subdivision lot sales being delivered to, and held in trust by, counsel for the Debtor-In- Possession, the firm of Campeau & Grube, and with such firm presently holding in excess of $354,000.00 in trust pursuant to Orders of the Court; and WHEREAS, in connection with the completion of the subdivision project the City of Saratoga requires certain improvements to be completed as more specifically described in the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner which is attached to the.Order of`the- United States Bankruptcy Court approving such Agreement; and WHEREAS, Teerlink Ranch Ltd. and the City of Saratoga desire to complete the improvements referred to above under the terms of the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner and this Agreement as approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1. The sum of $354,000.00 shall be held in trust by the law firm of Campeau & Grube and not disbursed other than pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner. 2. Within ten (10) business days of the entry of the Order approving this Agreement and the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. shall cause construction to be initiated regarding the subject improvements and the "bridge improvement" shall be a first priority with respect to the subject improvements. The "bridge improvement" shall be completed_ within 120 days subject to reasonable delays as provided for in the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner. 3. The law firm of Campeau & Grube is authorized to make disbursements under the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner upon the submission to Campeau & Grube of requests for payment accompanied by approval of the City of Saratoga through the City Engineer and copies of such disbursements shall be provided to counsel for the City of Saratoga and counsel for Bank of America. 4. Upon the initiation of work on the "bridge improvement" as provided for in this Agreement and the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner, the City of Saratoga will remove any restrictions and /or moratoriums regarding the receipt and processing of building permits, or other types of permits and approvals which may be required in connection with the development of a subdivision lot by the purchaser thereof, and the City of Saratoga will immediately begin accepting and processing all such permits and other necessary approvals, if any, in the normal manner under which such matters are handled by the City of Saratoga. 5. In the event there is a default under this Agreement or the Agreement Between Contractor and Owner, the following shall apply: . I A. The City of Saratoga shall give ten (10) days written notice of such default to Teerlink Ranch, Ltd., 141 First Street, Los Altos, California, and to Campeau & Grube, 55 South Market Street #1040, San Jose, California 95113. B. Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. shall have ten (10) business days in which to cure such default or, if such default is not reasonably cureable within ten (10) business days in which to meet with the City of Saratoga and assure the City that such default will be promptly cured in a manner which is acceptable to the City.of Saratoga. C. In the event that a default is not cured within ten (10) business days, or the City of Saratoga is not satisfied that a default will be promptly cured as set forth above, then, in such event, counsel for the City of Saratoga may deliver to the law firm of Campeau & Grube written demand that the balance of the above- referenced $354,000.00 held in trust be turned over to the City of Saratoga and Campeau & Grube, upon receipt of such written demand, shall promptly turn over the balance of such funds to counsel for the City of Saratoga. DATED: KI SO & F YN B fwp - OLD S. TO , Q Attorneys for City of Saratoga CIT OF SARATO BY `►,' HARRY IV PEACOCK, CITY MANAGER DATED: CAMPEAU & GRUBE BY JAMES R. GRUBE, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Teerlink Ranch, Ltd. c� c C. In the event that a default is not cured within ten (10) business days, or the City of Saratoga is not satisfied that a default will be promptly cured as set forth above, then, in such event, counsel for the City of Saratoga may deliver to the law firm of Campeau & Grube written demand that the balance of the above- referenced $354,000.00 held in trust be turned over to the City of Saratoga and Campeau & Grube, upon receipt of such written demand, shall promptly turn over the balance of such funds to counsel for the City of Saratoga. DATED: ai I A B Attorneys for City_ of Saratoga CIT OF SA O BY �� '•�I� HARRY / PEACOCK, CITY MANAGER CAMPEAU C... I C. In the event that a default io not cured within ton (10) business days, or the City of Saratoga io not satisfied that a default will ba promptly cured no sot forth above, then, in such event, counsel for the City of Saratoga may deliver to the law firm of Campeau 6 Grubs written demand that the balance of the above - referenced $3548000.00 held in trust be turned over to the City of Saratoga and Campeau i Grube, upon receipt of such written demand, shall promptly turn over the balance of such funds to gounsel for the City of Saratoga. DATEW ATKINSON 6 FARASYN BY HARROLD S. TOPPEL, ESQUIRE Attorneys for City of Saratoga DATED: CA"EAQ 6 GRUBB BY JAMES R. GRUBB, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Tearlink Ranch, Ltd. TEERLINK RANCH, LTD. By: GERARD & L �ERT, INC. Genera ner Dated. y: Alan G. Lambert, President C`, SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Q EBECIITIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: 'U MEETING DATE: March 17, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planninc CITY MGR. APPROV A44, - SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment requiring Conditional Use Permit for certain businesses operating during night -time hours Recommended Motion: Introduce an ordinance requiring Conditional Use Permit approval for businesses in P -A and C Zoning Districts which provide direct customer service or dispatch deliveries between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Report Summary: On February 24, 1993, the Planning Commission (5 -1 vote) recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amendment to require a Conditional Use Permit for "all- night" businesses. The use permit process provides the opportunity for public input and identification of impacts to neighboring properties which may be created by businesses operating throughout the night. Conditions may then be imposed upon any approval to reduce identified impacts to an acceptable level. At the meeting, the Commission raised concerns regarding businesses which generate delivery activities where direct customer service would not be involved. The Commission requested staff to consider an expanded definition of "direct customer service." Staff suggests amending the definition of "direct customer service" to include conducting a delivery service. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow IID Actions: • Extension of moratorium to restrict new /expanded hours of operation during ordinance adoption /review period • Adoption of ordinance - April 7, 1993 • Effective date of ordinance - May 7, 1993 Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: All -night businesses will continue to be permitted as a right with no specific review of potential impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission Minutes Meetin f February 24, 1993 Page 9 Chairperson well outlined the issues of the subdivision as follows: 1) Re ign the entrance to the access road '2) Re -ali ent of the (new) road 3) Provide 0 -foot Riparian Habitat Easement along Wild Cat Creek - to prohibit an evelopment with in that 60 feet. (This was suggested by Chairpers Caldwell). Commissioner Bogosian noted eipt of a letter from Mr. Avery expressing concern regarding the potential fi azard posed by the eucalyptus trees on the site and requesting the trees be re rifted. There was discussion regarding the euca tus trees and Mr. Avery's requests. There was consensus to direct staff to con t the Fire Chief with regard to the issue of the eucalyptus trees. BOGOSIAN /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CONTINUE 93 -001 TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE FOL WING DIRECTION TO STAFF: 1) THE ENTRANCE TO THE ACCESS ROAD S , L BE REDESIGNED 2) THE (NEW) ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE RE -ALI D 3) ESTABLISH A RIPARIAN HABITAT EASEMENT CH WOULD PRECLUDE ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 60 FEET WILD CAT CREEK 4) THE FIRE CHIEF SHALL BE CONSULTED WITH REGARD O THE ISSUE OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREES. Commissioner Wolfe inquired whether a fence would be permitted within foot easement. Chairperson Caldwell indicated that a fence would be acceptable within the easement, but no- other structure would be allowed. THE MOTION PASSED 6 -0. 7. AZO -93 -001 - City of Saratoga, proposed amendment to Article 15 -18 and Article 15 -19 (Zoning) requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the Professional and Administrative Zoning District and the Commercial Zoning District for any businesses providing direct customer service between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a. m. Planning Director Curtis presented the Report dated February 24, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 24, 103 Page 10 Commissioner Bogosian expressed concern regarding potential problems with the ordinance. He noted that the ordinance would permit the 24 hour operation of a business which does not have direct customer service between the hours of 1:00 a.m and 6:00 a.m., but does accepts deliveries which create a noise disturbance. Chairperson Caldwell inquired why the ordinance took special consideration and, due to the specified- hours in the ordinance, excluded application to most restaurants. She stated that an enforceable use permit would help with mitigating noise from restaurants. She inquired about the draw backs that may exist if the hours specified in the ordinance were moved back to 11:00 p.m. Planning Director. Curtis explained that by changing the hours specified in the ordinance from 1:00 a.m. - 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. would create too many non- conforming uses and any expansion or alteration to these businesses would trigger the use permit process. Commissioner Jacobs expressed concern regarding the .use permit process being used as a tool to punish businesses with regular operation during late hours. Commissioner Wolfe expressed concern regarding losing potential businesses and, tax dollars because of the use permit requirement. Chairperson Caldwell stated her preference for pulling the hours specified in the ordinance back to. either 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 p.m. Commissioner Bogosian stated that he could not support Chairperson Caldwell's suggestion because it would put too much restriction on business. He expressed his concern with the operation noisy businesses between the hours of 1:00 a.m. ind 6:00 a.m. but that do not have direct customer contact and thus "falls between the cracks" of the provisions of this ordinance. He suggested that language be incorporated into this ordinance which would encompass such situations. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt that if the ordinance included those businesses which operate, but do not have direct customer service during the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., an entirely new issue would be opened. Chairperson Caldwell stated that she favored forwarding the ordinance on to the City Council with the recommendation that language be added to address the issue of business that do not provide direct customer service but receive deliveries and such during the hours specified in the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 24, 1993 Page 11 Discussion commenced with regard to choosing language to address the issue of businesses running deliveries during the specified hours in the ordinance. Planning Director Curtis suggested the Commission proceed with recommending approval to the City Council and also send language to the Council for their consideration which would address the Planning Commission's concerns. He indicated that staff would need some time to come up with appropriate language. CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:04 P.M. Jerry Carsia, 12855 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, spoke of activity on commercial property which disturbs nearby residential areas. He reported problems with noisy delivery trucks, fumes from those trucks, noise in general, and the frequency of youths gathering at nearby commercial properties. He urged the Commission to take this opportunity to correct some of the on -going problems faced by residents whose property is near commercial property. Commissioner Wolfe inquired whether the Commission really wanted to get into the issue of trying to regulate or mitigate noise generated by the operation of businesses conducting indirect customer service during the ordinance hours. He noted that there must be some other law which dealt with noise generated by such business activity. Commissioner Jacobs expressed his preference for the Commission to move on the item and make amendments to the ordinance at a later date if circumstances proved it necessary. Commissioner Bogosian stated his support for tightening up the ordinance. Since there was no one else wishing to speak, WOLFE /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:12 P.M. PASSED 6 -0. BOGOSIAN /JACOBS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -93 -001 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MOTION PASSED 5- 1 ( WOLFE OPPOSED). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Planning Director Curtis announced that f CQty,;Council has asked for two Planning Commissioners to serve on a sub- committe"o review and make recommendations on the Community Property Maintenance O- rdinance:; .,- � o� SAR9 ti ?O y� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE 9 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler M E M O R A N D U M victor Monia Karen Tucker TO: Saratoga Planning Commission QFROM: Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director DATE: February 24 1993 SUBJECT: AZO -93 -001; Proposed Amendment to Articles 15 -18 & 15 -19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommended Action Recommend to the City Council a code amendment requiring a Conditional Use Permit for uses located in any Professional and Administrative and Commercial Zoning District which propose providing customer service between 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Background Recently, the City Council has received complaints regarding the operation of 24 -hour businesses in Saratoga. As a result, the Council directed staff to evaluate types of uses and the effect of hours of operation restrictions on those uses and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Uses Permitted as a Right The current code does not restrict hours of operation for office, retail or service commercial uses that are permitted as a right. Permitted as a right means that no discretionary action is required for the businesses to be established. A new business occupying a vacant space needs only a business license to operate. If interior modifications are necessary (relocate walls, etc.), only building permits are required. Building permits are considered ministerial approvals, not discretionary and, therefore, do not require any special City reviews. For uses permitted as a right, no notification of adjoining neighborhoods is required. Conditional Use Permits A Conditional Use Permit is required for special uses. These special uses have been deemed to be appropriate if the impacts resulting from the use can be mitigated to a level that would be no greater than that resulting from a use permitted as a right. Conditions can be imposed as part of the Conditional Use Permit review (i.e. the discretionary action) which mitigate negative Printed on recycled paper. impacts. For example, a gasoline service station requires a Conditional Use Permit. If the operation of the station creates impacts of noise, light /glare, traffic, etc., conditions may be required that reduce lighting levels, restrict traffic movements, or limit hours of operation -- all which may be necessary to allow the use to operate "in harmony" with adjoining or nearby residential neighborhoods. Noise Ordinance The current code does provide neighborhood protection from commercial impacts for uses permitted as a right in the form of noise ordinance provisions. This reduces noise levels adjacent to residential areas during night -time hours. Typically, noise is the Primary source of concern to nearby residents which results from people talking, car radios, doors slamming, loading /unloading, etc. Historical Perspective Historically throughout the country, businesses were open only during "normal" shopping hours which typically were daytime or early evening. Businesses were even closed on Sundays, even to the point of the enactment of "Blue Laws." Eventually, business hours restrictions were softened to allow "essential" services to be available, including food, gasoline, medicine (i.e. pharmacies), etc. As more and more families consisted of both spouses working together with the necessity of working longer hours, businesses expanded hours of operation to accommodate customers who needed to shop at night. Today, while not a common practice, more and more businesses are staying open longer for customer service. These expanded business hours can create impacts such as noise, traffic, etc. on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Analysis The following is an analysis of the issues and how any changes in hours of operation would affect business activity in Saratoga. What types of business would be affected? Businesses consist of office /professional . uses and retail /service. uses. Office uses are not open extended hours and generally do not create impacts on residential areas. Typically, office uses buffer residential uses from commercial development because they create minimal impacts. Retail /service uses should be viewed in two ways. Business activity may be occurring on -site during hours when customers are not present. The baker at the bakery in the early morning or stocking shelves /maintenance after customer hours can extend a business "hours of operation ". It may be appropriate to distinguish between business activity and actively providing service to customers. How will any change in hours of operation affect existing businesses? When a new code amendment becomes effective, all uses legally existing prior to the effective date are "grandfathered" and are considered legal, non - conforming uses. They can continue to be conducted in the same manner as they now do. However, any changes in the intensity of use, expansion of facilities, etc. would require the existing use to conform to the new code requirements. If the legal, non - conforming use vacates the premises, it can be replaced with a similar use without conforming to the new code requirements, provided the replacement occurs within 90 days. If it is not replaced within the 90 day period, the use is considered abandoned and all new uses must conform to the current codes. How do other cities handle 24 -hour businesses? The following cites were contacted: • Cupertino - requires Conditional Use Permit • Los Altos - no special requirements (no previous problems or complaints) • Sunnyvale - requires Conditional Use Permit ffi Los Gatos - no special requirements • Campbell - requires Conditional Use' Permit if business operates past 11:00, p.m. What are alternatives to the current code? • Prohibit 24 -hour operation of all businesses Comment: May be circumvented by a business that "closes" for one hour; Assumes that all 24 -hour businesses are detrimental whose impacts cannot be mitigated; Alleviates all business activity adjacent to or in the area of residential neighborhoods. • Require a 24 -hour business to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit Comment: May be circumvented by a business that "closes" for one hour; Allows for imposing conditions (e.g. hours restrictions) if necessary to mitigate impacts on residential areas; Allows for case -by -case review to determine if specific type of use needs conditions (e.g. some uses may create minimal impact because of specific location on the. site, proximity to adjacent residential uses, etc.) • Require a business which provides service to customers between 1:00 a.m. - 6:00 a.m. to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit Comment: Provides for review and conditional approval of uses which may create impacts on residential areas; May result in "all" businesses closing at 1:00 a.m. The 1:00 a.m. time recognizes businesses throughout the City that currently stay open until 1:00 a.m. (notably restaurants) which would provide continued consistency in business hours of operation. CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION Businesses which operate on a 24 -hour basis are not common in Saratoga; nor does it seem apparent that there is a tendency toward a significant increase in the number of 24 -hour businesses. However, even though not common, the existence of one 24 -hour business may create impacts on adjoining residential areas. Therefore, it may be appropriate to review the "extended hours" operation and provide conditional approval to mitigate any potential impacts. It should be noted that the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is not to be used simply as a tool for denial, but rather as a review procedure to determine if conditions may be imposed to achieve an acceptable use. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached ordinance which accomplishes the following: 1. Requires a Conditional Use Permit for any business which actively provides customer service between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. 2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be required for businesses located in all Professional and Administrative and Commercial Zoning Districts. PLC:cw MAR -05 9s FRI 09:01 IU:HEYERS hJHVE ET AL TEL N5:510`351 -4451 4747 P02' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 18.020 AND 15- 19.020(a) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RELATING TO OPERATION OF A BUSINESS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 1:00 A.M. AND 6:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Sections 15- 18.020 and 15- 19.020(a) of the Code Of the City of Saratoga are hereby amended to read as follows: "15 -18 -020 The following permitted uses shall be allowed in a P -A district, unless a use involves the operation of a busines Providing ct Customer s 'ce (including. but not limited to. conducting a delivery service) on -site between_ the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6.00 A.M., in which event such use may be allowed upon the granting of a u e permit 1mrsuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter: (a) Professional, administrative and medical offices. (b) Financial institutions. (c) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. (d) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off- street parking facilities as set forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter. (e) Temporary Christmas tree sales between November 1st and December 3ist, on a site not less.than nine and one -half acres in size. (f) Antennas operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone communications, not exceeding forty feet in height including the antenna support structure. The minimum setbacks for such antennas shall comply with Subsection 15- 80.010(e) of this Chapter. . 15- x9.020 The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any commercial district, unless a use involves the operation of a business providing direct customer service (including but not limited to FF:I 09:02 I U: NEYER5 NHUE ET HL TEL N0: 510/351 -4481 9747 P03 conducting a delivery service) on -site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M.. in which event suck use may be allowed upon the granting of a use permit pgrauant to Article 15 -55 of this chapter: (1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (2) Service establishments. (3) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article•15 -40 of this Chapter. (4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off- street parking facilities as set forth in Section 15-- 35.020 of this chapter. (5) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. (6) Antennas operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone communications, not exceeding forty feet in height including the antenna support structure. The minimum setbacks for such antennas shall comply with Subsection 15- 80.010(e) of this chapter." Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting-time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of , 1993, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk March 5, 1993 gars \273 \ord \aandhrs.asr MAYOR SARATOOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V 1 AGENDA ITEM - Z MEETING DATE: March 17, 1993 nI/ CITY MGR. ' ORIGINATING DEPT. Planning W SUBJECT: Extension of moratorium on commencement of new business hours (1:00 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.) Recommended Motion(s): Adopt an Urgency Ordinance extending a previously approved 45 -day moratorium for 10 months, 15 days on the commencement of any new business in the P -A and C Zoning Districts which provides direct customer service between the hours of 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Report Summary: On February 17, 1993, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance which established a moratorium on the commencement of any new businesses in the P -A and C Zoning District, which provide direct customer service between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Section 65858 of the Government Code allows the City Council to adopt a moratorium preventing new businesses from being established during the public hearing process, that may otherwise be in conflict with the ordinance under consideration. The moratorium can be approved for a 45 -day period as an Urgency Ordinance. The moratorium may be extended, if necessary, after consideration at a duly noticed public hearing. The 45 -day Urgency Ordinance will expire on April 3, 1993. If the City Council introduces the new ordinance on February 24 and adopts it on April 8, the new ordinance will not be effective until May 8, 1993. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the moratorium to ensure that business hours will not be commenced which are in conflict with the new ordinance. The moratorium can be extended an additional 10 months, 15 days which will adequately cover the public hearing and review process. The moratorium will automatically expire upon the effective date of the new ordinance. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow Up Actions: • City Council adopts hours of operation ordinance - April 7, 1993 • Effective date of ordinance - May 7, 1993 Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: An all -night business could be established during the public hearing process which would be inconsistent with the hours of operation ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. City Council Minutes 4 February 17, 1993 of De Cinzo, as he was the first person in the press to ress the creek problem. Mayor Anderson stated her sole objection to the oon was that she was portrayed as a man. She noted she did no sk anyone to call the newspaper. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Report fr City Engineer on Status of Bicycle Advisory Commit Appointments City Manage eacock stated three members have been appointed to the Bicycle sory Committee and they will continue the process at this time. uncilmember Burger stated she received a call from a citizen who is interested in serving on this Committee. City Manager Peacock stated she should contact the City Clerk's office. MONZA /xOHLER,_.MOVED_TO,- RECEIVE.AND FILE.. A88 D - -5 -A B. Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Commencement of Operation of Business Activity Between 1:00 a.m. and _6:00 a.m. within all Professional and Administrative office and Commercial Zoning Districts City Manager Peacock presented the staff report. He stated this matter was discussed at the previous meeting and the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance. Mr. Kocir, 12855 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., outlined the noise factor he has had to put up with 24 hours a day. He stated he wants hours of operation prohibited between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. He thanked staff for prohibiting some of the truck noise. In response to Mr. Kocir's question, Mayor Anderson stated there will be another hearing regarding 24 hour operations. She added that 24 hour Nautilus has approval. Mr. Kocir asked, under what section of the Commercial District's Article 15 -19, the 24 hour Nautilus was consummated. He noted this needs to be looked into. Councilmember Monia stated the urgency ordinance only deals with the stopping of the permit process as it stands. He added there will be a hearing in which the ordinance.change will be finalized. Mr. Kocir addressed an article in the Saratoga News noting the City and 24 hour Nautilus maintain they are under no obligations to inform nearby residents about 24 hour operation. He added the article also noted the City did not look for potential problems before this was approved. He stated this will be addressed at another hearing. Mr. Kocir also expressed concern about activity outside Safeway during the summer months. Mayor Anderson stated the business is not the problem, but the customers. She noted the Sheriff's Department is working on this ,problem. Mr. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Rd.., spoke in support of the ordinance and noted he is concerned about 24 hour operations. Councilmember Monia stated he is concerned about the word "Commencement" in section 1. J City Manager Peacock stated this word will be changed to "Initiation" City Council Minutes 5 February 17, 1993 MONIA /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE URGENCY ORDINANCE, CHANGING THE WORD 11COMMENCEMENT11 TO "INITIATION'S. PASSED 5 -0. Mayor Anderson moved to the public hearings:at this time. - S. PUBLIC HEARINGS �- 8: p P. X A. CDBG and Human Services Allocations for 1993 -94 Staff commends that the City Council allocate HCDA Funds for eligible project Wand allocate Human Services grants from other revenue sources accordin &to staff recommendations. Ms. Karen 'mpbell presented the staff report. She reviewed the funds received fr the Federal Government and the money to be used from the City's Genera Fund. She reviewed staff's recommendations as outlined in the staff port. In response to yor Anderson's question, Ms. Campbell stated if the $45,000 is not ed for public service money, technically $174,000 could be used for pital improvements. She also added that under ADA Hakone Gardens an Wildwood Park are required to have disability access, but is not a if the CDBG funds can be used for this. In response to Cou 'lmember Burger's question regarding parks complying with ADA, M Peacock stated the Council will review the Transition Plan in March He noted all public facilities must comply with ADA requirements. City Engineer Perlin stat a request from staff is to retain a consultant who would su ey City facilities to address ADA requirements. He noted staf as a list of projects and they are in the process of prioritizing. Councilmember Tucker suggested 1 king at what is necessary for making a decision to fund organizations nd then look at other applications in light of the budget cuts. City Manager Peacock suggested t' City Council prioritize the remaining funding with the unders ding that this decision is preliminary and is not final until the udget is adopted in June. He noted the number indicated in the b ,ff report is predicated on established Council policy. He noted if a Council wish to change the policy they may do so. Mayor Anderson went through the requests at his time. American Disability Act City Engineer Perlin stated staff does not have a in =house expertise and the CDBG funds do provide the funds to addre the requirements. City Wide Curb Cuts City Engineer Perlin stated there are many more locations which need curb cuts, but cannot do this year. He noted staff wil be attempting to prioritize the locations and will seek community input. Hakone and Wildwood Park City Manager Peacock stated a survey is needed by a ' onsulting architect to find out the cost to meet ADA requirements. Ilk City Engineer stated CDBG funds can be used for handicap acces `on old facilities, but cannot be used to build new facilities. , l Emergency Housing No speakers Second Harvest Food Bank SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��i AGENDA ITEM + MEETING DATE.: March 17, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager �"� SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance Amending PERS Contract Recommended Motion: Introduce Ordinance Report Summary: On March 3, 1993, the Council approved a Resolution of Intention to amend the city's contract with the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to add the benefit of 2% at 55. Although no decision has been reached on how the amendment will be funded, this is the next step in the paperwork in order to have the contract amendment go into effect before June 30, 1993. If negotia- tions with the employee group fail to achieve an acceptable agreement on funding the added benefit, the contract amendment process will stop and the Ordinance will not be brought back to Council for final reading and adoption. Fiscal Impacts: If the contract amendment is adopted, beginning July 1, 1994 the PERS contract will cost an additional 3.843% of payroll until the year 2011. After 2011, the permanent increase will be 2.19% of payroll. Based upon current payroll, it is estimated that the annual payroll cost of eligible employees will be $2,805,647 at July 1, 1994. Therefore, the initial additional annual cost at that time is estimated at $107,821. Follow Up Actions: Agreement by employees and Council on funding of additional cost; Adoption of Ordinance; Amendment to PERS Contract prior to July 1, 1993; New PERS rate will go into effect July 1, 1994. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: If the necessary actions do not proceed on the above timetable, amendment of the contract will be delayed one year, or postponed indefinitely. Attachments: Ordinance Amending PERS contract Sample Amendment to PERS contract ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Saratoga and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. SECTION 2: The Mayor of the City Council of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption, and shall be published in summary form once at least five days before its adoption and again within fifteen days after its adoption in the Saratoga News, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Saratoga, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. SECTION 4: 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. The above and foregoing Ordinance the waiting time required by law, at a regular meeting of the City held on the day of , 1993, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk was regularly introduced and after was thereafter passed and adopted Council of the City of Saratoga by the following vote: Mayor P'1LASE DO NOT SIGN " F RIBI ONOr AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT COPY BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADME41STRATION OF THE " PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA The Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective June 1, 1961, and witnessed April 27, 1961, and as amended effective April 6, 1973; April 1, 1977 and May-1, 1978, which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows:. A. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective May 1, 1978, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive: - All words and terms used herein. which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age," shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members. . 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after June 1, 1961 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. SAFETY EMPLOYEES. 5. Persons hired on or after April 6, 1973 and prior to January 1, 1975 on a temporary and /or seasonal basis not to exceed 6 months were excluded from PERS membership by contract. Government Code Section 20336 supersedes this contract provision by providing that any such temporary and /or seasonal employees are excluded from PERS membership subsequent to January 1, 1975. IBS- ti0 NOT 51GN "EX1i1Bli Cam" _ 6. Ile percentage of final compensation to be provided for local miscellaneous members for each year of credited prior and current service shall be determined in accordance with Section 21251.132 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service prior to March 31, 1978, termination of Social Security,, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified). 7. Public Agency elected to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 20024.2 (One -Year Final Compensation). b. Section 20862.8 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave). 1. C. Sections 21263 and 21263.1 (Post- Retirement Survivor Allowance). d. Sections 21380 -21387 (1959 Survivor Benefits) excluding Section 21382.2 (Increased 1959 Survivor Benefits) and Section 21382.4 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). . 8. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20740, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20759 effective on April 1, 1977. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20759, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20759. 9. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members of said Retirement System. 10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed.by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. A.- B. This amendment shall be effectn the BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RET'WNT SYSTEM c7� BY CHIEF, CONTPAM SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMP_4154 ES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM 4� PERS- CON -702 (AMENDMENT) (Rev. 10/92) day of , 19 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY Presiding Officer Witness Date _n Attest: - a Clerk IL SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. c2 c�-?(o MEETING DATE: March 17, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning "q AGENDA ITEM: 10/ L/ CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: UP -550.3 - Desert Petroleum; 12600 Saratoga Ave. Appeal of Planning Commission denial of 10 -year extension for gasoline service station Recommended Motion: Approve applicant's appeal and grant 10 -year extension of the gasoline service station Conditional Use Permit which will extend the permit to operate until January 25, 2004. Report Summary: Background - On January 28, 1984, a Conditional Use Permit was approved for a gasoline service station to continue its non - conforming use at the southeasterly corner of Saratoga Ave. and Bucknall Rd. The use permit was approved for a 10 -year period until January 25, 1994, at which time a new Conditional Use Permit application would be required to determine if the use should continue. In September, 1991, an application was submitted to change the service station sign from GASCO to ARCO as part of a product change. The Planning Commission requested review of the 1984 approval to determine if the operation of the station was in compliance with the original conditions of approval. The Planning Commission review was held on December 11, 1991 at a duly noticed public hearing. Following the hearing, the Commission allowed the station to continue with conditions that reiterated and clarified the January, 1984 approval. In addition, the following condition was included: The use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a yearly basis, to ensure compliance with all the use permit conditions for a period of two (2) years. Prior to the expiration of the use permit on January 25, 1994, the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine if this use should be allowed to continue. It is the applicant /owner's responsibility to apply for the application in a timely manner. Planning Commission Action - The applicant requested an annual review of the service station compliance per the condition of December 11, 1991. Since the December, 1991 review and approval was held at a duly noticed public hearing, staff's interpretation of the Planning Commission's intent was to hold the review at a duly noticed public hearing. However, the applicant chose to request a 10 -year extension of the use permit in lieu of an annual review at that public hearing. Therefore, staff advertised a public hearing for the "most restrictive request" ... a 10 -year extension of the use permit. At the meeting of February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request for a '10 -year extension. Admittedly, a full evaluation of the merits of the applicant's request was not given, in that the most appropriate review was for an annual compliance finding. Summary - The following is a summary of events in the review and approval of the gasoline service station: • January 25, 1984 - Approval of Conditional Use Permit to continue to operate the existing service station for a 10 -year period (expiration - January 25, 1994); • December 11, 1991 - Planning Commission required public hearing to determine if service station is operating in compliance with approved conditions; station found to be in compliance, but Planning Commission required annual review prior to further consideration of use permit extension scheduled for January, 1994. • February 10, 1993 - In lieu of an annual review at a public hearing, the applicant requests Planning Commission consideration of a 10 -year extension; (Note: The applicant has the right to request that the extension process be expedited; that is, request the Commission to consider the use permit extension at an earlier point in time than was specified in the original approval - at the end of 9 years, instead of 10 years in this case). Staff processed the application and advertised for a public hearing to consider a 10 -year extension; The Planning Commission considered the applicant's "early request" and determined that the original 10 -year (i.e. 1984 -1994) time period was still appropriate; The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request (albeit without an in -depth analysis) and allowed the original request to continue as it was previously approved in 1984 and 1991. Fiscal Impacts: None Public Notification: Public notices were mailed to 151 properties within 500 ft. of the subject property and a notice was published in the newspaper. Follow Up Actions: None Environmental Determination: The continuation of an on -going use is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Original 10 -year Conditional Use Permit approval granted in January, 1984 will expire in January, 1994. A new Conditional Use Permit application will be required at that time to determine if the gasoline service station can continue to operate. 1 Attachments: 1. Appeal Application 2. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/10/93 3. Resolution UP -550.3 4. Staff report dated 2/10/93 5. Correspondence Date Received: 3 1 4&J Hearing Date: r� Fee: $161.00 Receipt No.: APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Ebrahim Kaabipour Address: 1690 Saratoaa Avenue San Jose CA 95129 Telephone: 408 -379 -1929 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File.Number and Address: 12600.Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Decision Being Appealed:I requested a hearing for a ten year extension of the use Permit, it was determined by the staff that I requested a one -year review of the existing permit only. Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): On November 19th, 1992 I paid $962.00 to file an application for extension of the use Permit for the subject property for another ten years beyond the existing permit which expiers on 1/25/94. My application wap recived by the planning staff, was notified of the hearing date which was €eb.10th, 1993. The staff - reviewed the application and reported their findings to t e commi- ssion and recomended that the Permit should be granted based on the history of the site, all this was notified to the public. The Planning commission A ende was changed without notice prior to the meeting. I requested and paid for a hearing in regards to the extension of the use Permit and would urge the member. of this body to return this matter before the Planning commision to hear this matter now instead of 1994. *Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. Planning Commission M' !es ' Meeting of February 10, X993 Page 5 CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUD NING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL FOR THE APPLICANT TO REMO TWO MONTEREY PINE TREES IDENTIFIED AS TREES 1 AND 2 LANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO TH AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. S. DR- 92-044 - Van Dyke; 18774 Mc d Ave., request for UP -92 -015 - design review appr construct a 821 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,227 s gle story residence and to construct a 13, ft..2 in. tall . detached garage. Pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Co a permit approval is also requested to allow the detache ge to be located within the rear yard setback. The subje erty is approximately 10,000 sq. ft. and is located wit ' R -1- 10,000 zone district. Planner Walgren pr ed the Report dated February 10, 1993, to the Commission. CHAIRPERSO LDWELL OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Matthew V ke, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and offered to answer questio the Commission. WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:24 P.M. 5-0. ORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE DR- 92-044 AND UP- 92 -015. PASSED 5 -0. P -550.3 - Desert Petroleum; 12600 Saratoga Ave., request for a one -year review of an existing gasoline service station (ARCO) pursuant to Resolution UP -550.1 conditions of approval. The parcel is approximately 23,715 sq. ft. and is located within an R -M -5,000 P- C zone district. ---------- - - - - -- ------ .---- ;- - ----- ------------------ - --- -- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated Februa ry 10 1993 ; and answered questions from the Commission. c Planning Commission V". -tes ' Meeting of February 10, d93 Page 6 Chairperson Caldwell noted receipt of various letters from the public on . this item. She encouraged members of the public to submit all outstanding letters on the project so the Commission could review the letters. Chairperson Caldwell inquired about staff's comments on the letters which had been received prior to the meeting. Planner Walgren stated that most of the letters expressed concerns with the gas station being incompatible and the potential intensification of its use due to the opening of Highway 85. Chairperson Caldwell recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. to allow time for the Commission.to read the letters which had been submitted. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Per Chairperson Caldwell's request, Planning Director Curtis clarified the purpose of the public hearing regarding the site. Planning Director Curtis explained that the annual review of the gas station's use permit had come due. Since the site is currently in the process of being sold, the potential new owner requested that the Commission consider use permit approval /extension for a period of ten years and eliminate the original use permit condition which requires a second one -year review. However, Planning Director Curtis further explained, staff has recommended against the 10 year use permit extension and supports retaining the condition of the original use permit which requires the use permit to come before the Planning Commission for a second one -year review. Planning Director Curtis also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. Chairperson Caldwell noted receipt of letters from Marilyn and Bob Peterson, Mr. Johanson, Raymond and Beverly Sault, Paula Shulman, Mr. Baltz and Mr. and Mrs. Cross. Chairperson Caldwell also inquired about any complaints received by the City with regard to the use of the site. Planner Walgren reported that the City has not received any formal complaints on the gas station site. CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. John, 2060 Noel Drive, representing the applicant, Desert Petroleum, expressed disappointment in staff's recommendation that the second one -year review, as conditioned in the original use permit, be maintained. He explained that the present owner of the gas station is involved in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and has been required to sell a portion of its real estate. He explained that the prospective buyer of the gas station is only interested in purchasing the property if the 10 year use permit extension is granted. He noted that the gas station has operated at this c Planning Commission M' %es ' Meeting of February 10, -vdW Page 7 site for a number of years and has strived to operation in compliance with its use permit. He urged the Planning Commission to grant a 10 year extension of the use permit. Commissioner Moran asked about the noticing of the item. City Attorney Riback explained that the item had been properly noticed for the requested 10 year extension. Planner Walgren explained that the applicant had requested a 10 year use permit extension, but staff recommends that the original condition requiring two one -year reviews of the site be followed. Ebrahim Kaabipour, 1935 Schubert Drive, Saratoga, explained that he is the potential buyer of the gas station and that he is interested in pursuing his application for the 10 use permit extension. He noted that staff's recommendation to follow the condition for a second annual review of the use permit for the site is very upsetting to him. He Stated his inclination to cancel the deal to purchase the gas station should the Planning Commission decide not to consider the requested 10 year extension. Raymond Sault, 18867 Biarritz Lane, submitted a letter and spoke in opposition to granting an extension to the use permit. He expressed concern regarding increased traffic and health and safety issues. He urged the Commission to adhere to the original use permit expiration date of 1994 and not extend the use permit approval past that date. Richard Johanson, resident on Saratoga Avenue, submitted a letter and expressed concern regarding the possibility of gas product leaking into the soil causing health and safety and environmental hazards. He spoke in opposition to extending the use permit past the 1994 expiration date. He stated that the use is in conflict with zoning regulations, is injurious to surrounding homes, poses safety hazards to residents and the environment, and is a public nuisance because of the loitering, litter, and the increased traffic. Mr. Johanson also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the site. Mr. Kaabipour requested that the application fee be refunded should the Planning Commission decide not to consider the 10 year use permit extension request. MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:28 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Planning Commission N tes ` Meeting of February 10, x&93 Page 8 MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE OF UP -550.3 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESOLUTION NO. UP -550.3 (INCLUDING NEW WORDING FOR CONDITION #2 AS NOTED IN TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS). Commissioner Moran requested that for the next review of the use permit staff investigate the reports of traffic problems and be prepared to report on their findings. There was brief discussion regarding ways in which staff could address any traffic problems at the site. Chairperson Caldwell suggested a monitoring program be implemented. Planning Director Curtis stated that staff could check and make sure that proper signage exists at the site. Chairperson Caldwell asked for the Commission's feeling on refunding the applicant the application fee as requested by Mr. Kaabipour. Commissioner Moran expressed her concerns regarding setting a precedent for future applicants. She explained that the fee is an application fee and not a guarantee of a preferred recommendation or outcome. Planning Director Curtis explained that the application fee has been spent on staff time to prepare, research, and bring the application before the Planning Commission. Therefore, he recommended that the fee not be refunded. CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL RECOMMENDED THAT AN AMENDMENT BE ADDED TO THE MOTION WHICH WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT AN ON -GOING REVIEW OF THE GAS STATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH .THE USE PERMIT PROVISIONS SO INFORMATION REGARDING ANY VIOLATIONS OR PROBLEMS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF THE NEXT USF PERMIT REVIEW. MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION ACCEPTED CHAIRPERSON DWELL'S AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. S -007 - Page; 21751 Congress Hall Ln., request for modification of a site velopment plan to construct a pool, spa, decking and gazebo the Pamas subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City ximately 2.14 acres and is located within the HR zone Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 10, 1993 questions from the Commission with regard to the application. c RESOLUTION NO. UP -550.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA, APPROVING USE PERMIT Desert Petroleum; 12600 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application to extend the use of an existing gasoline service station (ARCO) for a period of ten (10) years, per Chapter 15 of the City Code; 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 Planning Commission determined that the gasoline service station use should be continued only until January 25, 1994, pursuant to Resolution UP -550; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds: a. That the proposed gasoline service station use permit is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. That the proposed gasoline service station use permit and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts. c. That the proposed gasoline service station use permit will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. . NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Desert Petroleum for use permit review be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution supersedes all previous use permit resolutions issued for a gasoline service station at this site. 2. Prior to the expiration of the Use Permit on January 25, 1994, the applicant /owner shall submit a complete application to the Planning Commission to review compliance with these conditions of approval and to determine if this use should be allowed to continue pursuant to Resolution UP -550. It is the appli- cant /owner's responsibility to apply for the application in a timely manner. 3. The service station shall be open and operated only between the hours of 6:00 "a.m. to 9:00 p.m. from Monday through Thursday; 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday; 7:00 a.m. to File No. UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue 10:00 p.m. on Saturday; and from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. All gasoline deliveries shall be made and completed within the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 4. Landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner in a good and orderly condition for the life of this use permit. All future landscaping shall emphasize native and drought tolerant species consistent with the City's xeriscape guide- lines. 5. The single driveway access onto Saratoga Avenue shall be designated and used as an "entrance only" driveway. Direc- tional signs shall be consistent with Section 15 -30 of the City Code. The effectiveness of marking the driveway shall be reconsidered in January of 1994. If marking only is not deemed to be effective, alternative measures shall be consid- ered. 6. All gasoline pumps and storage tanks shall comply with the regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area Pollution Control District and with the City of Saratoga's Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance. 7. Any office exterior lighting visible. from outside of the structure shall be turned off at the time of closing specified in condition #3. 8. Design Review approval is required for any price or identifi- cation signs for the gas station's use. 9. Any other exterior modification to the gasoline service station or use intensification will require approval by the Planning Commission. 10. The station shall be kept in good repair and free of dilapi- dated autos or other eyesores. 11. Per Section 15- 55.100 of the City Code, this application shall remain under the continuous jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Any violation of the above code shall constitute grounds for consideration of use permit revocation. 12. The Planning Director shall provide a regular status report to the Planning Commission regarding compliance with these Use Permit conditions of approval. 13. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. • File No. UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolu- tion or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met.. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 10th day of February, 1993, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CALDWELL, JACOBS, MORAN, NURARAMI, WOLFE NOES: none ABSENT: ASFOUR, BOGOSIAN Chair, P ning Commissio ATTES 7 Secretary, Planni g Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of Applicant Date REPORT TOv- THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue Applicant /Owner: Desert Petroleum Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: February 10, 1993 APN: 386-1.4-003 _ Director Approval: I Ft I KU LtUM; 12600 SARATOGA AVE. 4 File No. UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 11/19/92 Application complete: 1/25/93 Notice published: 1/27/93 Mailing completed: 1/28/93 Posting completed: 1/21/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for use permit approval to extend the use of an existing gasoline service station (ARCO) per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 23,715 square feet and is located within an R -M -5,000 P -C zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application, with conditions, by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP -550.3 3. Resolution UP -550.1 4. Resolution UP -550 5. Correspondence 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -M -5,000 P -C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Multi- Family (RMF) PARCEL SIZE: 23,715 s.f. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics: The subject property is occupied by a commercial use within a multi - family residential zone district. Presently existing on site are a 1,176 square foot one -story gasoline service station sales office, a gasoline service island connected with an overhead canopy, and a free - standing price /identification sign located at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. The canopy is detached and located perpendicular to the main structure. The remaining site is covered with asphalt pavement except for certain areas which are used as planter boxes. Surrounding properties consist of single - family residences to the north and west, and multi - family residences to the south and east. History: A gasoline service station has existed on the subject property since before the City's incorporation in 1956. Up to 1983, the parcel was zoned commercial which allowed for the conditional use of a gasoline service station. However, in May of 1983, the City's General Plan was revised which designated the subject property as Residential Multi- Family. Following the new designation, the site was rezoned from C -N to R -M -5,000 P -C in September of 1983. This rezoning made the service station use non - conforming. After the General Plan and zoning change amendments were adopted, the applicant applied for a use permit to continue operation and also requested exterior modifications to the existing structure (UP -550). The application was conditionally approved on January 25, 1984 with the condition that the use be reevaluated at the end of a ten year period in order to determine if the use should be allowed to continue. On September 25, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a request to modify the existing use permit in order to change the station's identification name from GASCO to ARCO. Due to numerous neighbor complaints regarding the station's operation, planning staff was directed by the Commission to oreview compliance of existing use permit conditions before the sign application could be considered. File No. UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue Staff's review indicated that there were no clear violations pertaining to the station's operation. In order to clarify the existing conditions of approval, several conditions were reworded and more restrictive conditions of UP -550 were adopted on December 11, 1991 (UP- 550.1). The identification sign change request was later approved on January 22, 1992 (UP- 550.2). Violation Report: Condition #2 of Resolution UP- 550.1 required that the use permit be reviewed on a yearly basis for a two (2) year period to ensure compliance with the amended conditions of approval. The applicant filed the application prior to the one -year deadline in order to comply with this condition. Staff's review of use permit compliance revealed that condition #10 of UP- 5.50.1 was violated when the applicant erected a second identification sign on the station's sales office without proper design review approval. The applicant was notified of the infraction and immediately removed the sign. No other complaints were received. Although the applicant did temporarily violate condition #10 of UP- 550.1, staff feels the infraction is not significant to constitute grounds for consideration'of use permit revocation since it was a one time offense and not a continuous problem. Rather, staff concludes the applicant has made an overall effort to comply with all conditions of approval. Landscaping: A landscape maintenance agreement currently exists between the applicant and the City. Presently existing on site are numerous mature trees and other ornamental landscaping located along the south, east and north property lines. Staff's review of the existing and relatively new landscaping revealed that the applicant has complied with condition #3, 4 and 5 of UP- 550.1. Structures: The size, shape and style of the existing garage and island /canopy will has not changed. However, the applicant is proposing to slightly alter the color scheme of the existing structures to reflect a redwood stain finish, tan colored metal finish and charcoal brown'colored trimming. USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting use permit approval to allow the continuation of the gasoline service station use. The applicant's request is in response to condition #1 of UP -550 which permitted the use to be continued for a ten year period. This ten -year expiration was necessary since the zoning ordinance in effect at File No. UP- 550.3; 12600 Saratoga Avenue the time did not allow the indefinite continuation of an existing non - conforming use. Therefore, the application was conditioned in order to review the use for compliance with future City Codes. Section 15- 65.140 of the City Code now indicates that "...the Planning Commission may authorize the continuation of a non- conforming use through the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15- 55 .... Upon the granting of such' permit, the use shall no longer be considered non- conforming and shall thereafter be continued in compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the use permit." Staff feels that the use should no longer be limited to a specific time period. Rather, the use should be allowed to continue indefinitely due to the facts that the use has existed on this property for the past 40 -50 years and that the city has permitted extensive improvements to the station as recently as 1984. If the use is abandoned in the future for any reason (as has occurred with the Chevron station near the Saratoga Village), a gasoline station would no longer be permitted with this residential zoning district. The City will retain continuing jurisdiction over the property and can consider the use permit at any time if it is determined the conditions of approval are not being complied. Staff is able to recommend all the required findings to support this application request. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application, with conditions, by adopting the attached resolution. RESOLUTION NO. UP -550.1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Desert Petroleum; 12600 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has reviewed compliance with existing use permit conditions which allows the operation of a gasoline service station in the R -M -5,000 P -C zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full. opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning• Commission has initiated its investigation on use permit compliance; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of all the factual information in connection with this matter, the use permit of Desert Petroleum for operation of a gasoline service station is allowed to continue subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution supersedes all'previous use permit resolutions issued for a gasoline service station at this site. 2. The use permit.shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a yearly basis, to ensure compliance with all the use permit conditions for a period of two (2) years. Prior to the expiration of the use permit on January 25, 1994, the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine if this use should be allowed to continue. It is the applicant /owner's responsibility to apply for the application in a timely manner. 3. A new landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval within thirty (30) days after accepting the terms of this resolution. Landscaping shall include eight (8) 24" box trees emphasizing native and drought tolerant species consistent with the City's xeriscape guidelines. The landscaping shall be installed around the property's perimeter within sixty (60) days after accepting the terms of the permit. 4. Landscaping shall be maintained by the property owr)er in a good and orderly condition for the life of this use permit. 5. Within thirty (30) days after accepting the terms of this permit, the property owner shall enter into a new landscape maintenance agreement with the City, to include all landscaped areas on the site. File No. UP- 550.1; 12600 Saratoga Avenue 6. The service station shall be open and the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Thursday; 6:0.0 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on 10:00 p.m. on Saturday; and from 7:00 Sunday. All gasoline deliveries shall within the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 operated only between from Monday. through Friday; 7:00 a.m. to a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on be made and completed. p.m. 7. The single driveway access onto Saratoga Avenue shall be designated and used as an "entrance only" driveway. 8. All gasoline pumps and storage tanks shall comply with the regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area Pollution Control District and with the City of Saratoga's Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance. 9. Any office exterior lighting visible from outside of the structure shall be turned off at the time of closing specified in condition 06. 10. Design Review approval is required for any price or identification signs for the gas station's use. 11. The station shall be kept in good repair and free of dilapidated autos or other eyesores. 12. Per Section 15- 55.100 of the City Code, this application shall remain under the continuous jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Any violation of the above code shall constitute grounds for consideration of use permit revocation. 13. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within thirty (30) days of the passage of this resolution, or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, become effective fifteen (15) days from th PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission, State of California, this 11th by the following roll call vote: to the requirements of this resolution -shall e date of adoption. of Saratoga Planning day of December, 1991, File No. UP- 550.1; 12600 Saratoga Avenue AYES:. BOGOSIAN, DURKET, MORAN NOES.: FORBES ABSENT: CALDWELL, FAVERO, TUCKER • Chair, Planning Commi s ATTEST': S�am Gfvmmov I A-[A) Secretary, Planninj Op AmIssion The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of Applicant Date 2. The location of this existing service station and the. conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,.safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The appearance of the site will be greatly improved by additional landscaping which, with the 6' high slumpstone wall, will buffer adjacent future residential development from some of the impacts of the existing use. Hours of operation and lighting will be strictly controlled to protect adjacent residents. 3. The existing service station does not comply with the setback provisions of the R -M -5000 P -C district in that it maintains a 13' front yard setback where 25' is normally required and the canopy overhang into this required setback is greater than the permitted. However, since this use has operated on this site for a considerable period of time under this existing condition without significant adverse impact, it is recommended that these setback variations be allowed under this use permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated 1/18/84 and Exhibits 'B ", 'C and "D" subject to the following conditions: 1. This use permit is granted for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this use permit and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the expiration of its fifth year to review compliance with the conditions of this use permit and the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Prior to the expiration of the tenth year of this use permit, it shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine if this use should be allowed to continue. 2. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan, shall be installed within 90 days of the effective date of this use permit. Landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner in good and orderly condition for the life of this use permit. 3. The property owner shall enter-into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City for those landscaped areas on the site within 60 days of the effective date of this use permit. * 4. The service station shall be open only between the hours of 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. from Monday through Thursday, 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on Saturday, and From 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on Sunday. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits the following shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval: a. Detailed grading and drainage plans. b. Design and materials for proposed 6' high slumpstone wall. Elevations required. C. Revised site plan showing the northernmost Bucknall Road Driveway relocated 50' from the intersection and other changes required because of that relocation. UP -550, Desatt Petroleum Page 6 o. The single driveway access onto Saratoga Avenue shall be designated and used as an "entrance only" driveway. * 7. All gasoline pum->s and storage tanks shall comply with the regulations of the San Franciszo Bay Area Pollution Control District and with the.City of Saratoga's Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance. * 8. Any office exterior lighting visible from outside of the structure shall be turned off at the time of closing specified in condition #4. The existing yard light at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road shall be removed and replaced with low level lighting. 9. Any new outside lighting program shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of any electrical permits to install this lighting. 10. Design Review approval is required for any price or identification signs for the use. 11. A new public telephone is required to replace the telephone booth to be removed. The location of this public telephone shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to its installation. 12. Construct a 6' wide sidewalk in conformance with City standards along the Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road sides of the property. Plans to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. * 13. The station shall be kept in good repair and free of dilapidated autos or other eyesores. COMMENTS: As per Section 16.6 -1 this application shall remain under the continuous jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Any violation of the above shall constitute grounds for use permit revocation. APPROVED Mi ael Flores Assistant Planner MF/bjc P.C. Agenda 1/25/84 *as amended at Planning Commission meeting 1/25/84 BEN O. GRINER 18919 Sara.Park Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 March 6, 1993 1777ofFruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Councili RE: A.P.N- 386 -58 -007 The Planning Commission was correct in denying a ten -year extension of ube permit to operate this Gasoline Service Station. This commercial business is operating in an area. zoned for residential use. We fear that it will be a magnet to pull more traffic off the freeway (85) onto Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Avenue is already terribly over - crowded and is projected to have more than 30,000 vehicles per day, when I -85 is completed. We strongly urge you to deny this "use permit request." Yours truly, BEN 0 GRINER 18919 Sara Park Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 February 1, 1993 E C E D FEB 2 1993 City of Saratoga PANNING DEPT. 13777 Fruitvale Ave. T Saratoga, CA 95070 Notice of hearing RUs UP -92 -014 (APN.386 -14 -003) Desert Petroleum: 12600 1 Do not extend use permit 2 It is the only commercial business in a residential zone. 3 It generates more traffic in a "T00 HUSr" area. 4 They are the source of unwanted noise, during the ear],y morning hours. 5 We can hear loud noises frequently at about 500 A.M. and we are about a block away. (Probably gas delivery.) 6 They have not been good for the area. 7 .Restore us to a fully residential area. /' y7 cc7d February Dear Members of the Planning Commission; Please deny the use permit requested by Desert Petroleum to continue operation of a gas station in a residential neighborhood. The gas station is surrounded by both single family homes, quality townhouses and an elementary school which are impacted by the noise and fumes that this business generates. There have been several situations of late night deliveries by tanker trucks which is prohibited and we have had to complain many times before the bright lights shining in our homes was stopped. The hazard to our families health from spilled fuel will increase as the volume of cars increase with the completion of the access to highway 85. It seems self- service stations have a high incidence of spills due to drivers not knowing how to use the equipment. More cars more spills more noise more danger to us all. It just doesn't seem right that in addition to more traffic flowing south on Saratoga Ave. to the freeway we should also have to endure the gas station and its screeching tires from angry patrons. We understand the need for the freeway but here is a chance to correct the mistake of allowing the station in the -first place. There is a gas station at the corner of Saratoga and Quito road and this station is, surrounded by business', not homes. Drivers can get gas,at that Shell station or the Cheveron or Union Oil one block'north of the Shell station. ARCO has taken over and next they will want a food mart. Please represent us and our neighbors when we ask that the station be removed forever. Gas is available nearby and the only interest you can protect by allowing the station to remain is the oil company's profit line. with the increased traffic the situation can only get worse Please deny the use permit and get this health hazard out of our backyards. Sincerely, /t837 /�c.«4 C,�j 45070 February 10, 1993 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Members: As you are aware the Desert- Petroleum Corporation operates a service station at 12600 Saratoga Avenue, and they are requesting a 10 year use permit. I urge you to deny this permit. Your denial should relate to the following facts: 1) The operation of this service station is in direct conflict with the zoning ordinance for our residential community. 2) The operation of this service station within our residentially zoned community is materially injurious to our property valves and can be substantiated by real estate consulting firms. 3) The operation is in conflict with the city zoning code as related to a conforming property. This property is non - conforming. 4) The Service Station poses a safety and health risk to the immediate neighborhood. a) Large tanker trucks pull in during the day and present a danger to small children who may wonder onto the site from neighboring homes as well as an adjacent school. b) Underground storage tanks are not double walled vaults to detect leaks. C) Customers pulling in and out of the service station from 4 accesses, present a hazard to pedestrians as well as other cars traveling at 45 miles per hour on Saratoga Avenue. d) Gasoline spills that occur from the delivery trucks are a potential source for contamination or explosion in a residential community. e) The property represents a public nuisance, whereby unidentified persons have been observed behind the station in parked cars. f) Trash is often dumped behind the building. The.city has made mistakes in the past as related. to this facility. You on the commission are our representatives to insure that proper zoning, general plan and the safety to the community are maintained. Last year in a similar planning commission meeting the permit for this property was discussed. Clear evidence of the aforementioned problems plus photos were provided to the commission by the residence and the staff was asked to survey residence and investigate the complaints. The staff did not take action as related to surveying the residence. Commission members at that time stated that they would recommend revocation' of the permit when it comes due for renewal. Again, I urge you to deny the permit at this time, it is up for renewal in 1994. At that junction I would urge you to revoke the permit, putting the owner on notice at this time would allow the owner ample planning time. Sincerely, . Richard A. Johanson 12537 Saratoga Avenue Mr. and Mrs. B. Cross 12601. Paseo Cerro Saratoga, California February 4, 1993 Dear Members of the Planning Commission;. Please deny the use permit requested by Desert Petroleum to continue operation of a gas station in a residential neighborhood. The gas station is surrounded by both single family homes, quality townhouses and an elementary school which are impacted by the noise and fumes that this business generates. There have been several situations of.late night deliveries by tanker trucks which is prohibited and we have had to complain many times before the bright lights shining in our homes was stopped. The hazard to our families health from spilled fuel will . increase as the volume of cars increase with the completion of the access to highway 85. It seems self- service stations have a high incidence of spills due to drivers not knowing how to use the equipment. More cars. more spills more noise more danger to us all. It just doesn't seem right that in addition to more traffic flowing south on Saratoga Ave. to the freeway we should also have to endure the gas station and its screeching tires from angry patrons. We understand the -need for the freeway but here is a chance to correct the mistake of allowing the station in the first place. There is a gas station at the corner of Saratoga and Quito road and this station is surrounded by business', not homes. Drivers can get gas at that Shell station or the Cheveron or Union Oil one block north of the Shell station. ARCO has taken over and next they will want a food mart. Please represent us and our neighbors when we ask that the station be removed forever. Gas is available nearby and the only interest you can protect by allowing the station to remain is the oil company's profit line. With the increased traffic the situation can only get worse Please deny the use permit and get this health hazard out of our backyards. Sincerely, RECEIVED 1 FEB 10 1993 PLANNING DEPT. CC February %, %� % _D Dear Members of the Planning Commission; Please deny the use permit requested'by Desert Petroleum to continue operation of a gas station in a residential neighborhood. The gas station is surrounded by - both single, `\ family homes, quality townhouses and an elementary school which are impacted by the noise and fumes that this busiliess � generates. Ther.e..have. been several situations of late night deliveries by tanker trucks which is prohibited and we have had to complain many times before the bright lights shining in our homes was stopped. The hazard to our families health from spilled fuel will increase as the volume of cars increase with the completion of the access to highway 85. It seems self- service stations have a high incidence of spills due to drivers not knowing how to use the equipment. More cars, more spills, more noise. more danger to us all. It just doesn't seem right that in addition to more traffic flowing south on Saratoga Ave. to the freeway we should also have to endure the gas station and its screeching tires from angry patrons. We understand the need for the freeway but here is a chance to correct the mistake of allowing the station in the first place. There is a gas station at the corner of Saratoga and Quito road and this station is surrounded by business', not homes. Drivers can get gasat that Shell station or the Cheveron or Union oil one block ,aor-th of the Shell station. ARCO has taken over.and next they will want a food mart. Please represent us and our neighbors when we ask that the station be removed forever. Gas is available nearby and the only interest you can protect by allowing the station to remain is the oil company's profit line. With the increased traffic. �..� the situation can only get worse Please deny the use permit ti and get this health hazard out of our backyards. Sincerely,. pp � RECEIVED E B 8 1993 February PLANNING DEPT. Dear Members of the Planning Commission; Please deny the use permit, requested by Desert Petroleum to continue operation of'a gas station in a residential neighborhood. The gas station is.surrounded by both single family homes, quality townhouses and an elementary school which are impacted by the noise and fumes that this business generates. There have been several situations of late night deliveries by tanker trucks which is prohibited and we have had to complain many times before the bright lights shining in our homes was stopped. The hazard to our families health from spilled fuel will increase as the volume of cars increase with the completion of the access to highway 85. It seems self- service stations have a high incidence of spills due to drivers not knowing how to use the equipment. More cars more spills more noise more danger to us al It just doesn't seem right that in addition to more traffic flowing south on Saratoga Ave. to the freeway we should also have to endure the gas station and its screeching tires from angry patrons. We understand the need for the freeway but here is a chance to correct the mistake of allowing..the station in the first place. There is a gas station at the corner of Saratoga and Quito road and this station is surrounded by business', not homes. Drivers can get gas at that Shell station or the Cheveron or union Oil one block north of the Shell station. ARCO has taken over and next they will want a food mart. Please represent us and our neighbors when we ask that the station be removed forever. Gas is available nearby and the only interest you can protect by allowing the station to remain is the oil company's profit line. With the increased traffic. the situation can only get worse Please deny the use permit and get this health hazard out of our backyards. sincerely, SARATOGA AVENUE RESIDENTIAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE March 9, 1993 HAND DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Addressed to the members of the Saratoga City Council Subject: Request that the board deny a ten -year extension to the use permit for an existing gasoline station for the following reasons: 1. The Planning Commission has already approved a one -year extension period for the proposed new owner to demonstrate compliance with the use permit provisions. The following is a quote from the Planning Commission Minutes of the Meeting of February 10, 1993: CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL RECOMMENDED THAT AN AMENDMENT BE ADDED TO THE MOTION WHICH WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT AN ON- GOING REVIEW OF THE GAS STATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE USE PERMIT PROVISIONS SO INFORMATION REGARDING ANY VIOLATIONS OR PROBLEMS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF THE NEXT USE PERMIT REVIEW. The following is another quote from these same minutes: COMMISSIONER MORAN REQUESTED THAT FOR THE NEXT REVIEW OF THE USE PERMIT THAT STAFF INVESTIGATE THE REPORTS OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AT THE SITE. CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL SUGGESTED THAT A MONITORING PROGRAM BE IMPLEMENTED. 2. Fifteen days after this concern was expressed by your Planning Commission, there was a serious injury accident at this unique intersection. Three people were transported by ambulance to the hospital. Although the Sheriff's Department will not release a copy of this accident report, we are certain they will release a copy to the monitors on the Planning Commission staff. One of the many photos taken of this accident at this dangerous intersection of Bucknall and 1 Saratoga Avenue is attached to this copy. The remaining photos and a video tape of the emergency vehicles clearing this accident will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Free copies of pictures, or the video tape are available for council members on request. 3. THE CREATION OF A HIGH VOLUME MAGNET STATION This station was operated for many years by Desert Petroleum as a low volume unbranded "GASCO" catering to the local trade. During this time this business presented no unusual traffic or environmental problems. Recently Desert Petroleum leased this station to the (appellant /applicant) E. Kaabipour, who intends to increase the traffic to match other high - volume stations that he runs, all of which are in commercial zoning. The first problems developed when the Planning Commission granted Desert Petroleum a sign variance that permitted the applicant to convert to ARCO, a low - priced high volume national brand. This has turned the station from a low traffic station to an estimated 300% increase in volume, and created great traffic problems in this residential area. This station has become a magnet station attracting customers from miles around. This traffic is being imposed on a unique intersection that does not have traffic signals or lighted left -turn lanes to handle the increase. 4. The applicant, E.- Kaabipour, is pressing for a multi -year permit, since he intends to install new tanks to meet the State of California standards despite the fact that the deadline for installing new double wall tanks is not until the year 1997. He also wants to install new state- of -the- art pumps which operate .off of credit cards. The applicant does not own this station. His agreement to purchase is conditional upon the City of Saratoga granting a multi -year permit before he will complete the escrow. He is asking this Council to give him a blank check - a multi -year permit, in order that he can impose on this area, which is zoned residential, a MAGNET STATION, which the infrastructure is not designed to support. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SARATOGA AVENUE RESIDENTIAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE We recommend that the City Council of Saratoga not override the years of reflection and work that the Planning. Commission and it's staff have given to this problem station. The Commission voted unanimously to monitor the situation for one year while a new possible owner complied with Planning Commission Resolution # UP -550 which has governed the operation of this station since January 25, 1984 without causing the traffic and environmental problems 2 that are now developing with recent changes. We recommend that in the unlikely event that you do overturn this thoughtful and fair decision of the Planning Board, that the City Council monitor the traffic situation which is developing into the most dangerous for the whole length of Saratoga Avenue, and start the planning of the engineering and budgeting decisions that will have to be done to install traffic lights at this intersection to accommodate a high volume magnet station in a residential neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Raymond M. Sault Beverley M. Sault 18867 Biarritz Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 3 18831 Biarritz Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 March 7, 1993 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: A.P.N. 386 -62 -012 Appeal of denial of extension of use for ARCO gas station We will not be able to attend the City Council hearing regarding the above referenced zoning issue. However, we want you to know that we favor upholding denial (ie we are opposed to the extension). Our reasons are as follows: The property owners had full knowledge that their business was subject to the zoning exception and that exception was for a limited time. Therefore, we feel that their business need is not the important factor in determining the best action to take. The important factor is what best serves the community . 2. The community is best served by denying the extension because of the following factors: a. As the original zone designed, this is an entirely residential area. The gas station is clearly inconsistent from the general viewpoint of area use, appearance, desirability, etc. b. As nearby residents, we can attest to the fact that the gas station adds considerable traffic congestion, noise, and odors while in use. The station is also used after hours by "parking" there and leaving trash (ie beer cans and bottles, food wrappers, etc.) This is in direct odds with the zoning goals of residential use. The traffic alone is becoming a considerable safety issue. c. The concerns mentioned in item b will increase with the Route 85 interchange. The effect of the route 85 interchange exacerbating this gas station's impact on the area is the most compelling reason for us to support the extension denial. d. There are other gas stations within convenient distance to support the Saratoga residents' needs.. Thank you,, _ Curtiss and Barbara Komen • SARATOGA AVENUE vvvvv �''1 .. T� -- —�� 4. Befell' I v �vvv�ulvevv #Ivmv --z ; ; z : vvv vevvvvv \ •.lsm \ >O(rYr vat +� L.11.4 °rye- ----- -- — r --------- -- -- a •° ° e.4Telr[ Isw � ° ° ` \ 1 + I a0000 �J maw� r ► � I A� l 000013 I 11 r aw aoo� efYA o 1 - sOfleaLeq - I ! I I I II �\ I I 0 I rawly -1 `" - - - - - - raw . 1 I _ -I I LsAfJ lu,, i 00 Ae�evaE31 1 �w,lNa I I 1 1 1 II II I A cm I 11 6 °a �ev �ave > =e ----- -- -� e 4-R] = I �. a as . --^�,° v I v raw aaox 1 1 � rAll DESERT PETROLEUM, INC. 1 2080 KNOLL DRIYE VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003 TELEPHONE 805/844 -8784 SITE PLAN i #779 12600 SARATOGA AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA. Mr. O m VICINITY MAP O aT1 nMdone Project no. date JANUARY 1991 sheaf no. 1 0 0 02 -fAaers - Oy!!s4 Irg— 0.x Tv I 'I eh Wt I o �f RECEIVED FEB 111992 nWlkG DEPT. f MAR 18 1993 PLANNIIVD DEPT Brett and Millie Cross 12601 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, CA 95070 March 16, 1.993 Dear Members of the City Council; This letter is to REENFORCE the decision to DENY THE EXTENSION OF USE FOR THE EXISTING GAS STATION (ARCO). The gasoline station area is zoned residential. The station bring noise, traffic, environmental hazard and an eyesore for the surrounding residential area which already is congested and will only INCREASE with the opening of the Saratoga Ave. exit from Highway 85. The existing gasoline station which is currently occupying the property on 12600 Saratoga Ave. is INCOMPATIBLE with the RESIDENTIAL ZONING for that area. We want the members of the City Council to deny the appeal to E. Kaabipour. I would like to suggest that residential structures compatible to the area would be more appropriate. Sincerely, BRETT AND MILLIE CROSS MAR 16 1993 PLA"" "V(, DEPT J.R. and Fay J. Miller 12600 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, CA 95070 March 16, 1993 Dear Members of the Saratoga City Councils Our letter is to reenforce the decision to deny the extension of use for the existing gas station ARCO). The gasoline station area is zoned residential. The station bring noise,traffic hazard, qnd an eyesore for the surrounding residential area which already is congested and will only increase with the opening of the Saratoga Ave. exit from Highway 85. The existing gasoline station which is currently occupying the property on 12600 Saratoga Ave. is incompatible with the residential zonning for that area. We want the members of the City Council to deny the appeal to E. Kaabipour. We would like to suggest that residential structures compatible to the area would be more appropriate. Sinker 1 , J,: Miiier J. Miller N N V MAR 16 1993 PLANNING DEPT t �► 14 �3 Rau, 44,01 AAA� . A44e-X&Xt, 1� /i oil iza &A JA4,4� I OA-, jj-o;o-1t4 gC. 0 46 Edwin OWr!�fit, '4(. P. 16936 Sara Park Circle Saratoga, California 95070 77 70 g"Ime2 75 r'r-.! 74 -- et�t/� iu.L pig :A CITY MMAGER;`- � a n��: ,Cti��K,� �� D 0 Z)