Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA\1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. v �O MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS 4t� AGENDA ITEM 7 CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Warner Hutton House Improvements, Capital Project No. 9301 - 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 Warner Hutton House Improvements, Capital Project No. 9301, has been completed -by the City's contractor, Progressive Pacific, and inspected by City staff. The final construction cost for the project was $24,318, which is 28.2% above the awarded contract amount of $18,975. The additional costs were primarily due to extra plumbing and electrical work arising from unknown conditions which became exposed during the remodelling process. 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. 9301, 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. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: None required. Attachments: 1. Contract Summary. 2. Notice of Completion. CONTRACT SUMMARY PROJECT: Warner Hutton House Improvements - C.I.P. #9301 CONTRACTOR: Progressive Pacific CONTRACT DATE: 07 /07/93 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $18,975 C.O. AUTHORITY: $5,350 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 02/02/94.: TOTAL C.O. AMOUNT: $5,343.43. FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $24,318.43 PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +28.2% r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 AGENDA ITEM: V MEETING DATE: February 2, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development APPROVAL ' SUBJECT: DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 E1 Camino Grande Appeal of Design Review approval limiting the size of a new two -story residence and denial of a Variance to allow the proposed structure to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area. (NOTE: THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION OF THIS APPEAL, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 5, 1994.) Recommended Motion: Deny the appellant's request and uphold the following Planning Commission decisions: 1. Approval of Design Review request to construct a new residence with the condition that the size of the proposed residence be reduced from 6,277 sq.ft. to 5,685 sq.ft. (Passed 5 -0) 2. Denial of Variance request to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area of 5,688 sq.ft. by 589 sq. ft. (Passed 4 -1) Report Summar On January 5, 1994, the City Council denied the applicant's appeal by a 3 -2 vote (Burger,Kohler) upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. On January 11, 1994, the applicant requested that the City Council reconsider its denial of his appeal and submitted a letter from his attorney substantiating his request. The City Council voted 5 -0 to reconsider the appeal and directed staff to readvertise. a public.hearing'for February 2, 1994.. Attached along with the complete staff report package presented to the City Council 'at the January 5 public hearing are the minutes of the January 5 and January 11 City Council meetings and the applicant's letter requesting the reconsideration. Public Noticing: This item was readvertised for the February 2 public hearing by notice in the Saratoga News, mailing notices to property owners Ebrahimoun Appeal (Reconsideration) DR-93-630.6 V -93 -026 February 2, 1994 Page 2 within 500 ft. of the project site and posting of a notice at City Hall. Fiscal Impacts: None. (Note: No application fees were required for the reconsideration public hearing.) Follow -up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motions: The applicant would be permitted to construct a house larger than allowed by City Code. Attachments: 1. Letter requesting reconsideration, dated January 10, 1994. 2. , City Council minutes of January 5 and January 11, 1994. 3. City Council Executive Summary dated January 5, 1994. 4. Appeal Letter from Planning Commission decisions. 5. Resolutions DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026. 6. Planning Commission minutes of November 22, 1993. 7. Planning Commission minutes of December 8, 1993. 8. Staff Report dated November 22, 1993. 9. Plans, Exhibit "A ". RMIT Nafida A W Y F R S SENT BY FAX 741 -1132 January 10, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 a �Jq nj 1994 -j CI ,l 1'T DICE Re: Request for.Reconsideration (V -93 -026; 15170 E1 Camino Grande) Dear Mayor Tucker and Members of the Council: Kodak Center 1740 Technology Drive State 250, Sat lose, CA 95110 408 441 -7800 FAX' 408 441 -7302 Norntan E. Mattconi Allan Robert Sax,- Margaret Ecker Natda Peggy M. O'Laughlin Debra L.Cauble ,Jtuh• C. Tsai I3radlev M. Matte uni On January 5, 1994, the Council upheld denial by the Planning Commission of the request from Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimoun for a variance to allow construction of a new home which would exceed the allowable floor area by 589 square feet. The purpose of this letter is to request that the Council reconsider its action and set the appeal for further hearing. Mr. Ebrahimoun believes that you were prevented from receiving an accurate understanding of the facts surrounding his variance request because of the unexpected direct.involve- ment of a Planning Commissioner at his appeal hearing. It is Mr. Eb'rahimoun's contention that the testimony of the Planning Commissioner distorted the action taken by the Commission, but without the benefit of testimony from the Commissioner who supported his application or at least .a neutral representative of the Commission, it was impossible for him to overcome the presumption that the Commissioner appearing to testify was, in fact, speaking for the entire Commission. It is my understanding the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance requires that appeals from Planning Commission actions be heard de novo by the Council. Obviously, the decision of the Planning Commission - as opposed to the views of an individual Commissioner or Commissioners - is an important factor to be considered by the Council in acting on an appeal. However, I bw the appellant is entitled to a clean slate in terms of presenting the merits of his or her proposal to any reviewing body acting in a de novo capacity. The intrusion of Planning Commissioner Kaplan into the presentation and consideration of Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimouns' appeal deprived them of that clean slate. It is respectfully requested that the Council reconsider its action on January 5, 1994, denying the Ebrahimoun appeal and further that you set the appeal for further hearing at one of your meetings during February. Because of a prior commitment, I will be unable to attend the Council meeting on January 11, 1994, but Mr. Ebrahimoun will be present should you have any questions regarding this request. i Thank you very much. VeerryD truly yours, ALLAN R. SAXE ARS:md cc: Ms. Karen Anderson Ms. Ann Marie Burger Mr. William Kohler Mr. Victor Monia Mr. Harry Peacock Mr. Michael Riback Mr. and Mrs. David Ebrahimoun City council Minutes 10 January.5, 1994 Mayor Tucker stated new and old business owners should be put on notice regarding the City Council's decision. i B. Ordinance amending Various Sections of.chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to Business Regulations and Business License Fees (first reading and introduction) Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance by title only, waiving further reading. BURGER /MONIA MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Councilmember Anderson noted she was approanhed by Eric - Morley who asked that "grc�;s receipts" in the definition section be removed, because gross receipts is no longer part of the business license. City Manager Peacock stated if the Council want to :change the business license or they must go through two public hearings. He believes it does no harm to keep the definition as is. The above motion was carried 5 -0. C. Appeal of design review approval limiting the size of a new two -story residence to 5,685 sq. ft. and iienial of a variance to allow the proposed residence to1exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area by 589 sq. ft. (for a total of 6,277 sq. ft. of floor area where the maximum floor area permitted is 5,688 sq. ft.) The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. in an R- 1- 40,000 zone district at 15170 El Camino Grande (Appellant /applicant, Ebrahimini) (DR93- 030;!V93 -026) Planning Director Curtis presented the staff report dated January 3, 1994 and noted the applicant initially submitted a plan that conformed to code, but requested changes that require a variance. He stated on November 22, 1993 the Planning Commission denied both the variance and the design review. He stated the applicant requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the design review, and this was approved with the restriction on'the square footage allowed, but did not approve the variance. He stated staff recommended to the Planning Commission that findings could not be made and there were no special circumstances on the lot which would warrant the variance. In response to Councilmembers' questions, Mr. Curtis stated the calculations were based on the slope of the property and the second story element' is within, code. He stated if the formula used to calculate the slope was rounded down as opposed to rounded up, the applicant would ,still need a variance. He pointed; out that, although the garage is partly underground the square footage of the garage is still counted. Councilmember Burger noted she did visit the site.as dib the other Councilmembers. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, Mr. Curtis explained the square footage allowed if there was no slope on the property. He noted the Heritage Preservation Commission did not look at this property. Mayor Tucker opened the public hearing at 11:10 p.m. Mr. David Ebrahimini, 15170 E1 Camino Grande, stated he is requesting the variance for the following reasons: 1) environmental impacts, thick walls better for energy conservationC 2) slope calculation was rounded up, and staff considers this property in the hillside zoning, it is not in the hillsides; 3) there has been considerable effort to design the house. He noted a large as of the garage is underground and should be considered basement. i city council Minutes 11 January 5; 1994 He noted he requests the variance so his family can have a desirable home to live in and he has full support from his neighbors. He noted there is no visual difference between the plan before the Council and the plan approved by the Planning Commission. He stated the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood and urged approval of the plan before the,Council. i Ms. Mary Ellen Comport, 15242 E1 Camino Grande, statedishe looked at the request for the variance for several reasons. :She stated the neighborhood is going through a transition and some homes need to be remodeled from ground up. With regards to the proposed plan, only one tree has to be removed and the footprint is increased because of the thicker walls. She stated the house is unobtrusive and believes the variance should be c? ranted.. She added this is the house of the Ebrahimini's dreams. i Ms. Jean Ebrahimini; 15170 E1 Camino Grande, stated she requests approval of the variance. She noted the exterior elevation will not be affected with the change in plans. She requested approval for several reasons. She noted the underground two car garage is best for the neighborhood and the environment,. even though it is more costly. Also the neighbors are supportive of the request for the variance and it will have no effect on the exterior elevation which has been approved. Mr. Maurice Camargo, 3953 Yolo Drive, San Jose, Architect, stated the property owners occupied the house 13 years ago and have been working to obtain their dream home. He stated they have made compromises to reduces the square footage. He pointed out that the walls are 12" thick for a total of 245,sq. ft, also the windows are double pane. - I Councilmember Monia asked if Mr. Camargo consulted with the City code regarding the maximum square footage allowed, and if so why design a home which does not meet the zoning regulations. Mr. Camargo stated he did consult city codes, and submitted plans with some compromises. He stated they originally went through the process thinking. the square footage of the garage w uld not be counted, as it is partially underground. In response to Councilmember Burger's question, Mr. Camargo stated the double pane windows will.provide the best insulation, but part of the depth of the walls is for architecture and also fbr shading. Mayor Tucker asked if there is a substantial increase in energy conservation with the 12" walls as opposed to the 6" walls. Mr. Camargo stated any insulation in the walls is good, but they are also shading the windows. Councilmember Anderson asked for the plan which was approved by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Monia stated the Planning Commission approved the plan, presented to the Council, in concept but the size is to be reduced. r Ms. Nickie Kovac, 15150 E1 Camino Senda, stated the neighbors are concerned about the neighborhood, but do support the pr posed plan as it will add.to the neighborhood and is compatible. { Ms. Betsy Mace, 15195 E1 Camino Senda, spoke in support of the request for the variance. She noted the design is compatible with the neighborhood and the 12" walls do add to the quality of the homes. i Ms. Marcia Kaplan, Planning Commissioner, speaking on behalf of Sami.Asfour, explained the reconsideration the applicant requested at the end of the Planning Commission meeting. Sheistated the approved plan was to save costs with regards to submitting a new application. She stated, as a Commissioner she goes by the rules City Council Minutes 12 January 5, 1994 and to grant variances, findings must be made. She stated visual impact and neighborhood support are not. legal findings bo grant the variance. Councilmember Monia stated it his understanding that the applicant asked for reconsideration under oral communications and'a proposal was made by the applicant to try to move the process forward and approve the design review if the maximum square footage allowed was met. ` Ms. Kaplin stated the original plans conformed and this 'is what she . believes was approved. She noted the design was acceptable. Mr. Camargo stated the property owner was not present at _the Planning Commission meeting and it was his understandt7•.g tha: if they choose to go with the application the fees forlthe review would be continued so they asked for approval for the plan and he would talk to the owner about this. He stated they are!now before the Council requesting approval for the variance. Mayor Tucker closed the public hearing at 11:40 p.m. Councilmember Anderson stated it is compelling to approve a project when there is full neighborhood support, but did question the findings. I In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, City Attorney Riback stated the applicant has to show extraordinary circumstances existing on the property, if not taken into consideration, would result in hardship to the property owner. He stated the findings must be unique circumstances that would prevent property owners enjoying the benefit of one's property. He added the findings must be related to a practical difficulty that would prevent the property owner enjoying his property as other propertyjowners do. Councilmember Kohler stated the home is built on a slope and the calculation was rounded up and believes this is a ponalty. He noted the thick walls are not livable space and the ent�ance,to the garage is underground and believes this should be co sidered as part of a basement structure. He believes all penaltie6s add up to 500 ft.. j KOHLER /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF!THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY. Councilmember Burger stated she would support the motion because of the hardship imposed on the property owner such .ash the slope calculation. She stated trees are being preserved and the neighborhood is in full support. She stated the City is making a mistake when penalizing the applicant for showing sensitivity to the environment. She stated one of the findings is that. the design is environmentally sensitive because of the thickness of the walls, which provides insulation.. She noted the perception of bulk has been removed by placing the garage partly underground. She stated there-is no visual impact. ,.Councilmember Monia stated he is in support of the design and being sensitive to. the environmental concerns are complimentary to the neighborhood. He stated the problem is, making the tindings to grant a variance. He noted this is a very large home a few homes in this zoning district are this large. He believes t e property owner is benefitting from the slope because of the ba ement etc', but cannot make the findings to grant the variance. City Attorney Riback stated he did review. the variance ordinance and noted that the conditions set forth in the ordinance can take into consideration physical conditions of the property, but the Council can not use the applicant's design as a basis; for making the findings or hardships. He noted conditions must be; identified and they must be identified as to how they are icreating a difficulty. city council Minutes 13 January 5, 1994 Councilmember Anderson stated the only physical.difficulty is the slope, and does not believe this is a physical constraint. She noted she can not make legal findings to grant this var�.ance. She also expressed concern about setting a precedent, if 1he Council approves this project. Mayor Tucker asked the Councilmembers who made they motion to identify the findings. Councilmember Kohler stated the rules and regulations of the City are to avoid obtrusive homes. He stated in this caseione of the findings is the underground garage and believes part of this should be considered basement. Mayor Tucker stated the slope density was developed :to protect hillsides and views and noted she can not make any legal findings to support the project. The above motion was denied 2 -3 (Tucker, Anderson, Monia No). i jCity Manager Peacock stated the design review has been approved with the condition that the house size be reduced and the applicant can now submit plans to staff and receive approval, as long as the square footage meets the Planning Commission's approval. MONIA /ANDERSON MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL: PASSED 3-2 (Burger, Kohler No). 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current "oral communications - None. B. Agency Assignment Reports 1. ABAG - Anderson 2. Cable TV Board - Monia 3. HCD Policy Committee - Tucker 4. Transportation Commission - Anderson 5. Hakone Foundation - Kohler 6. Flood Control Advisory Board - Burger 7. League of Cities Peninsula Division - Tucker 8. Water District Commission - Anderson 9. Santa Clara County Cities Association - Tucker 10. Sister City Committee - Burger 11. Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Boardi- Tucker 12. Transit Assist Board - Burger 13. Senior Coordinating Committee - Burger 14. West Valley Sanitation District - Burge 15. County Cities Assn. Legislative Task Force - Monia 16. Emergency Planning Council - Kohler 17. Congestion Management Agency Advisory Board - Burger /Tucker 18. Local Transportation Authority Policy Advisory I Board -Kohler/Anderson Councilmember Burger stated the Senior Coordinating Committee is in the process of doing their planning for their annual retreat. Councilmember Anderson stated she received a phone call from Michael Collishaw and they are planning another Jazz festival, but would like to do it for three days. She noted they will be entertaining applications from other charities or non- profit agencies in the community who may want to benefit from the other two days. She suggested that the Councilmembers pass this on. C. General Council Items 1) Agenda items for January meeting (Joint Meeting with a. Commission's Response 11 adjourned regular Library Commission) to December 9 Community MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, January 11, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting /Jt. Meeting with Library Commission 1. Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. Councilmembers Burger, Kohler, Monia and Mayor Tricker were present; Councilmember Anderson was absent (arrived when noted below). 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 7. The notice of adjouXnment from the January 5 Council meeting was properly posted on ,anuary 6. ADDED TO AGENDA: The Council considered taking up a Request for Reconsideration I (Ebrahimoun) - see 1/10/94 letter from Allan R. Saxe." The Council read the letter. j Councilmember Anderson arrived at 7:40 p.m. The denial was without prejudice so the applicant can reapply iwithout paying full fees. Councilmember Kohler felt that statements by Commissioner Kaplan create a due process problem in his mind. The City Attorney opined that after reviewing the comments he found no violation of due process. Remaining question is whether her comments, which were contrary to Council tradition, unduly influenced the vote. ANDERSON /KOHLER MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE APPEAL. Passe .5 -0. 3. Adoption of Urgency Ordinance to Establish Weight Limit i Restriction for Pierce Road Bridge BURGER /ANDERSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. Passed 5 -0. I 4. Crossing Guard Funding Get current .Public Safety Commission listing of recommended crossing guard locations and current locations filled. Question is whether City should require district schools to provide car pool services in exchange for,crossing guard funding as recommended by Anderson. Burger would like to know whether schools now have the money to pay for their own crossing guards. Councilmember Kohler .)said schools should come to the City and offer services or facilities in exchange for crossing guards. :He doesn't feel requiring car pooling will work. There was consensus to place districts on notice of Ci y's intent to not continue funding without some consideration in eturn from the schools. 5. Annual Joint Meeting with Library Commission a. Commission's Response to December 9 Community Forum SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: January 5, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development APPROVAL SUBJECT: DR -93 -0304 V -93 -026 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 El Camino Grande Appeal of Design Review approval limiting the si - ;e of a new two -story residence and denial of a Variance to allow the proposed structure to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area. Recommended Motion: Deny the appellant's request and uphold the following Planning Commission decisions: 1. Approval of Design Review request to construct a new residence with the condition that the size of the proposed residence be reduced from 6,277 square feet to 5,685 square feet. (Passed 5 -0) 2. Denial of Variance request to exceed the site "s maximum permitted floor area of 5,688 square feet by 589 square feet. (Passed 4 -1) Report Summary: Planning Commission Review: This proposal for a new single - family residence at the corner of El Camino Grande and E1 Camino Senda was presented to the Planning Commission at the November 22, 1993 public hearing. The proposal includes a request for Design Review approval to allow the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new two -story 6,277 square foot residence. Variance approval was also requested to allow the proposed residence to exceed the maximum permitted floor area of 5,688 square feet by 589 square feet. Initially the Planning Commission denied the applicant's requests for Design Review and Variance approval. The Commissioners were supportive of the overall design of the residence and felt they could make the necessary Design Review findings. However, since the Design Review approval was contingent on the Variance application being approved and the could not make the findings to support the Variance, both requests were initially denied per staff's recommendation. Later in the meeting under Oral Communications, the applicant's representative requested the Planning Commission to reconsider their decision. He stated that the applicants would like to present their original plans to the Planning Commission, which conformed to the maximum permitted floor area requirements and did not require Variance approval, and move forward through the process. The Commission voted 5- 0 to reconsider the vote and again denied the Variance request (4 -1). Ebrahimoun Appeal . DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 January 8, 1994 Page 2 However, the Design Review request-was approved (5 -0) with the condition that the proposed floor area be reduced to conform with the City's requirements. Appeal Letter: The applicants are now appealing the Planning Commission's decision. In their letter dated December 7, 1993, the applicants state several reasons why they feel they should be granted a Variance to exceed the site's maximum permitted floor area. Each of these reasons are summarized below followed be staff's response. • Desire to enlarge underground garage by 225 square feet. Staff's Response: The applicants do not feel this area should be counted as floor area since it is not visible from the exterior of the house. However, the ordinance requires that all underground area be counted as floor area unless no portion of the room is more than two feet above grade. Desire to increase the thickness of exterior walls from six inches to 12 inches to provide energy efficiency. This also complements the proposed "Mediterranean" architectural style of the home. Staff's Response: Section 15- 06.280 states that floor area shall be measured to the outside surface of exterior walls. Requirement to round -up the average slope calculation of 19.3 to 20 percent for the floor area slope adjustment requirement. The applicants feel they were penalized since the average slope was rounded up, which requires the net site area to be reduced by 30 percent versus 28 percent (if they were permitted to round down). Staff Response: Section 15- 45.030 states where the average slope is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next .whole number. All applications are reviewed under this provision. Therefore, the applicants were not penalized. • _ Fact that an adjacent property was permitted to build a larger home than the applicants are proposing on a parcel smaller than the applicants'. Staff's Response: The subject residence was approved in 1983 prior to the adoption of the current floor area standards. In addition, the average slope of the adjacent property is less than 10 percent which exempts it from the slope adjustment requirement. The majority of the Commissioners felt that the applicants should have taken into consideration the requirement for a garage and their desire for thicker walls earlier in the planning process. The Planning Commission could not make the findings necessary to support the applicants' Variance request. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow -up Actions: None Ebrahimoun Appeal DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 January 81 1994 Page 3 Conseguences of Not Acting on Recommended Motions: The applicants would be permitted to construct a house larger than allowed by City Code. Attachments: 1. Appeal letter 2. Resolutions DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026 3. Planning Commission minutes date 11 /22/93 4. Staff report dated 11/22/93 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" Date Received: '7 Hearing Date: Fee: 450 Receipt No.: -- APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Jean Ebrahimoun Address: 15170 El Camino Grande, Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone: Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant:_ Project File Number and Address: 97_0615170 R1 Camino Grande Decision Being Appealed: yes Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): i See Attached i i I ,*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 TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY.5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN ( 5) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. I File No. AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I Ig -a-n�i )a- as appellant on the above file, hereby authorize Engir:eering.Data Services to perform the legal fioticing on the above file. .r\ Date: Y���'T -t i �� 1 % 3 Signature December 7, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: 15170 El Camino Grande Variance V93 -026 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: The purpose of this letter is to appeal the Variance V93 -026 by the City. Planning Commission, although the Staff and Planning Commission highly supported the design of the home. The reasons we and our neighbors believe we should be granted the variance are as follows.- Years of study and planning went into our home as.preserving all our natural surroundings were our major concerns. We decided to invest a considerably larger amount of money to convert an otherwise, crawl space into. a two car, underground garage rather than having a detached, two car garage. This decision saved us from cutting any oaks and also, reduced bulk considerably. This additional square footage of 224.5 square feet will NOT be perceived from the exterior elevation but will provide us with an adequate garage we can comfortably park two cars. With a home of this size we really need to take into consideration energy efficiency. This 238.5 square feet will NOT allow us additional liveable square area but provide enormous energy conservation in addition, to architecturally provide deep set fenestration typically found in our chosed "Mediterranean" architectural style. We should not be penalized for wanting to conserve energy! The 18" we are requesting on our bedroom wing would allow us 126 square footage. According to mathematics a 19.3 slope should be rounded to 19 instead of 20. As a result we were penalized 78 square feet. Again, I can only elaborate our lot is unique and this 18" will have no impact on bulk in our special circumstance. I have enclosed information from our immediate neighbors whom were granted additional square footage beyond what the city ordinances allowed on, a lot size less than ours at 51,400 sq. ft. Our secluded and unique parcel of land with the grove of redwoods and numerous, manicured, mature oaks provides us isolation from everywhere. There is not another lot in Saratoga hillside like ours. Our natural environment took precedence over all our planning and design. Direct contact was made with ALL our neighbors whom all favored the design along with our moderate variance. This included more than 30 supportive neighbors. We are extremely happy to finally be able to contribute to our neighborhood by preservation of all our natural environment, by planting mor-3 trees. and making Saratoga a more beautiful place to live. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours truly, David & Je`an Ebrahimoun 11*� ,y. I i� 1iS) N!i7:bl:f2i ' OFFICE: Community Development 0W.W11• \►R,\►Jt►:It44 ! -*W4 1 .'R.. �V•Ih., i wv•,r April 14, 1983 v..,,..•,��... Mr. Michael Elder 19208 Panorama Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Tentative Building Site Approval SDR -153S and Design Review A -862 Dear Mr. Elder: At its meeting of April 13, 1983, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission gave, consideration to your request for Tortativo Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval to construct a second -story addition to an existing single story structure at 19208 Panorama Drive. After careful review of this request, the Commission granted approval to application SDR -:535 per the Staff Report JatoJ February 6, 1983 and Exhibit "B ". The Commission also grant.eJ approval to application A -862 per the Staff Report and Exhibits "B" and "C ". Copies of the Staff Report and Resolutions SDR- 1535 -1 and A -862 -1 are enclosed for your records. These decisions arc subject to a 10•Jav (calendar) appeal porlod, during which time you may appeal, and a 1S -d3y appeal perioJ during which the City Council may appeal the decisions, The Tentative Building Site Approval for SDR -lS3S is valid for •ightwoe. (18) months. Before a buildin ermit can he issued Final A ror of the ma must e o tame from the- 1tv r�-` i the ouncil or inal Approval can a ma dc w cn have no the Td conditions established "by the Planning Commiss.lon�uora%honet th• posted the necessary bond or cash deposit with the City o you Asly that the conditions will be met. Y g�.tsote• If you have any questions concerning this matter, ples.o Jo @jot hesitate to contact our office. Very truly you• s , `L obert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosures - cc:" Oscar Sohns, 2S3 klmendr2 Ave., Los "too, CA 9f13# RESOLUTIdt �. A - A 6 : • 1 CITY OF SAR %t=% CQ'rIISSICI STATZ-OF CALL OXNLIl the City of Saratoga Planning CaCaission has rweivW an aR►iltalleM :..for Design Review Approval of a second .torn .0,11 t (an to ,� o• .� � � � story -structure at 19208 Panorama Drive (near l'in ('nl ina j (n t„� � -1- zoning district ` MEREAS, the applicant (has) (k= =t) not the burdem of • -support his said Pte- *�� � application., M"' hIE UORE, BE TT RFSOL'M that after careful oonsiciatt;tion of &10 sit* '-plan, architectural drnrings, landscape pleas and other exhibits suWttwi•Lc OW&J", •- tion with this matter, the application of MICHAEL 1:1.111:8 • -.for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (!,ranted ) (jsat0i,) MA)mCt tv the following conditions: I . I Per Staff Report dated April G, 1.153 and I.x1jil1116 -p- ,ed ••r.. �pSSID AI ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga P2 anning Ccesai ss ion. Su w K = California, this 13th day of April by Ow follo• -•ing roll call vote: AM: Commissioners hllava, Mc GoIdrick, Xelli%. -NOES: None .A>iSEN7: Commissioners Bolger and CI'Owther 1 :1t1, �•71t� s��M 7 creLlr) , aIL'i1:IL Q::LI115�1On RESOLUTION NO.. DR -93 -030 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA .Ebrahimoun; 15170 E1 Camino Grande WHEREAS, the, City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,277 sq. ft. two -story home ar.d pool and demolish an existing residence; 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 associated. Variance application to exceed the allowable floor area was denied and the Design Review approved with a condition that the floor area not exceed 5,685 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the design of the proposed residence utilizes varied roof heights and lines to minimize the building areas of maximum height and bulk. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. and undeveloped areas, in that the applicant's are providing replacement trees for the trees proposed to be removed per the City Arborist's recommendation and the proposed grading will not impact. any of the surrounding properties due to the isolation of the subject property. -The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the design of this residence is well massed and articulated to avoid the perception of excessive mass. -The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent DR -93 -030; 15170 E1 Camino Grande properties to utilize solar energy, in that the areas of maximum roof height ate' limited. and ar-e- stepped back well in excess of the minimum required setbacks and the structure is located a signifi- cant distance from the nearest adjacent residence. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. -The proposed two -story residence is located within a neighborhood where there is a predominance of two -story structures which supports the request for an exception to the floor area reduction requirement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga .does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of EBRAHIMOUN for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and designed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, revised plans shall be submitted for Community Development Director approval indicating that the floor area has been reduced to no more than 5,685 sq.,ft. No additional floor area shall be permitted unless a Variance application is approved to do so. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, the following shall be submitted to Planning Department staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Three (3) sets of complete construction plans incorporat- ing this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans (including erosion control measures), also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution (e.g. modifications to plans) and requirements/ conditions of the City Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing) shall be noted on the plans. DR -93 -030; 15170 El Camino Grande 3. No retaining wall shall have a height that. exceeds 5 ft. measured from either the -existing natural grade or the finish grade,. whichever is greater. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three (3) feet in height. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain- ing a Tree Removal Permit except for tree #2, #12, #13, and #18 as described in the City Arborist Report dated 8/31/93. 6. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated 8/31/93 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Provide supplemental. irrigation as described in the above referenced report. Four weeks prior to the start of grading all trees in the vicinity of construction shall be irrigated weekly. Verification that this has been completed shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance.of a grading permit. b. Install chain link protective fencing around each tree that is to be retained as described in the above referenced report. Planning staff shall inspect all fencing prior to the issuance of any permit. C. Prior to zone clearance, the locations for trenching required to install any utilities line shall be indicated on the site plan. Trenching must be. planned to avoid travelling beneath tree canopies. d. Sub - surface fertilize on -site trees per the direction of the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a zone clearance. e. Remove the paving surrounding tree #4 prior to. issuance of a building permit. Verification that this has been completed shall be submitted to the Planning Department. f. Install pervious' paving in the area indicated on the City Arborist's exhibit near tree #9 and #10. - This shall consist of either interlocking pavers or bricks on gravel and sand. Prior to zone clearance, this shall be indicated on the site plan. 7. Prior to zone clearance, the applicant shall submit to the City in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director security in an amount of $6,500 pursuant to the City DR -93 -030; 15170 E1 Camino Grande Arborist's report. The security will be released to the applicant once construction is completed and a final inspection by the City Arborist has been conducted and it is determined that the protective procedures outlined in the Arborist report and the above conditions have been followed. 8. Landscapinq per the Landscape Plan in Exhibit A and irrigation shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 9. All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. 10. Provide automatic fire sprinkler protection throughout per the Uniform Fire Code and Central Fire District's requirements. 11. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. a. Slopes from 114; to 15% shall b surfaced using 2.5 inches of A. C. or better on a 6 inch aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4 inch PCC concrete rough surfaces on a 4 inch aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. 14. 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. 15. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of. the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City. could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable.to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these` conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. DR -93 -030; 15170 El Camino Grande Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. -- Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section S. The applicant sbet1l affix a copy of this re .olution to each bet of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the. Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 22nd day of November, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan & Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Moran & Murakami Chairperson, lannin Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date RESOLUTION NO. V-93 -026 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ebrahimoun; 15170 El Camino Grande WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for the Variance approval to allow the proposed residence to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,688 squara feet. by '589 square feet. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings do not exist which would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the applicant's own desire to build a larger house then permitted does not constitute a special circumstance. (b) That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that no special physical circumstances exist applicable to the property to support a Variance and the floor area formula specifically takes into account the size and topography of each parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as. follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Ebrahimoun for Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 22nd day of November, 1993 by the following vote AYES: Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs and Kaplan File No. V -93 -026; 15170 E1 Camino Grande NOES: Commissioner Wolfe ABSENT: Commissioner Moran and Mur Chairpe on, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 5 JACOBS /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M. PASSED 5-0. ` JACOBS /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR- 93-006 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDING THE NEWLY ADDED CONDITION #8. Commissioner Caldwell explained that even though she was not present for the August 11, 1993, review of this project, she had reviewed the initial staff report, visited the site, reviewed the minutes of the last public hearing and is prepared to vote on the application. Chairperson Asfour thanked the applicant and architect for following the direction, of the Commission during the last review of the project. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. mom 3. DR-93-030'- Ebrahimoun; 15170 Ell Camino Grande, request for V -93 -026 - Design Review approval to construct a new two- story 6,277 sq. ft. residence. and a swimming pool per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed residence to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,688 sq. ft. by 589 sq. ft. The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zone district (cont. from 11/10/93 at the applicant's request; application expires 3/29/94). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 22, 1993, and answered questions with regard to the project. ACTING CHAIRPERSON ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. Gene Zambetti, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had -not yet arrived and asked if the Commission could move on to the next application and then come. back to this application when the applicant arrives. At this time the applicant arrived and Mr. Zambetti was requested to proceed with his .presentation. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 6 Gene Zambetti, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He submitted pictures of the subject lot and used a transparency to aid in his, presentation. Mr. Zambetti explained that the lot has a 19.3% slope,, but when calculating the allowable floor area the code requires the slope of the lot to be rounded u�) to 20 %. He explained that floor area was lost due to this code requirement and presents the applicant with an undue hardship. He stated that there are other homes in the area built on a sloping lot and exceeding the allowable floor area. Mr. Zambetti explained that the structure would have 12 inch walls opposed to the standard 6 -inch walls. He stated that the floor area calculation is taken from the outside of the walls and not from the inside. He stated that this also reduces the floor area and that the thickness of.the walls takes up some of this allowable floor area. He noted that the neighbors are in support of this project and have written letters expressing their support and the absence of any concern with regard to potential impacts of the project on their properties. He also stated that the neighbors do not feel that granting'the variance would be a granting of a special privilege. Mr. Zambetti explained that the lot is well screened and is unique because of its slope and because of the location of the proposed home (on the lot) due to the existing gorge on the property. He discussed the placement of the garage in the basement and other architectural /design features of the proposed home. He urged the Commission to approve the project and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. Planner Walgren, in response to questions from the Commission, explained. that the. requirement to round -up the slope percentage was consistent with the code requirement. implemented in 1987. He also explained that the square footage of the garage is required by code to be counted.in with the allowable floor area. He stated that all applicants are subject to this regulation. Planner. Walgren stated that another letter was received this evening from Mr. and Mrs. Comport supporting the applicant's request. Jean Ebrahimoun, applicant, spoke in favor of the applications. She stated that the design process has taken three times as long as expected. She explained that they had many issues to address such as bulk and that the garage was purposely placed underground to lessen any perception of bulk. She stated that she and her family were interested in maintaining a one story home and retaining much of the existing vegetation. With regard to the extra thick walls, she explained that these were chosen for their energy- efficiency. She stated that she feels the lot is unique and noted that the neighbors are in support of the project. Dave Ebrahimoun, applicant, urged the Commission to approve the applications. He explained that many different options /design were looked at and, in consideration of the City codes and the needs of his family, the design proposed is Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 7 the one which best meets these needs and is within the spirit of the code. He explained that much effort had been spent on trying to minimize mass and bulk. He explained that due to the requirement to round the slope of the lot up to 20% he is penalized. He stated that because of this r -.quirement, he would be forced to reduce the size of the master bedroom and reduce the thickness of the walls. He stated that he feels the lot is unique and that the variance would not adversely impact anyone in the vicinity. Maurice Camargo, project architect, 3953 Yellow Drive, stated that in designing the proposed structure he tried to balance the owners wishes while working with the City codes. He explained that he had tried to design a suitable home without the need for a variance, but because of the uniqueness of the lot was unsuccessful. He discussed various features such as the thickness of the walls, the proposed square footage, and the underground garage. He explained that originally the house was designed with only a carport,but due to the City's requirements for two fully enclosed parking areas the applicant was forced to add a garage. He explained that the garage was added underground. He again urged the Commission to approve the applications and stated that the lot is fairly isolated and the granting of the variance would not impact other residents in the area. Mr. Camargo also answered questions from the Commission. Ann Bogan, 12228 Morelia Drive, stated that she is a local real estate agent and spoke in favor of the application claiming that the new structure would enhance the area. She stated that the easement would not be visible to anyone in the area. Gene Zambetti, stated that all the neighbors were in support of the application and that the granting of the variance would not grant the applicants a special privilege. There was no one else wishing to speak. CALDWELL /KAPLAN .MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Commissioner Caldwell verified that there was no easement on the subject property. Planner Walgren stated that there was no easement on the property which effects the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Caldwell noted that the Commissioners had been given some written information (the same diagrams /transparencies presented by Mr. Zambetti during his presentation) when they had visited the site earlier in the. day. She asked if Commissioner Jacobs had also been given this information. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Commissioner Caldwell and stated that he had visited the site on his own and had indeed received the written information. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she felt, staff did an excellent job on the staff report and that she agrees with staff's recommendation. She stated that she could not make the variance findings. She stated that the applicants should have taken into consideration the requirement for a garage and their desire for thicker walls earlier in the planning process. She stated that'she could find no special circumstance that would warrant the need for a variance. She stated that she would not be voting in favor of the applications. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he was impressed by the out pour of letters from the neighbors in support of this application. He noted that the neighbors found nothing wrong with the design. He stated that the fact that the house was designed.with energy saving walls is environmentally conscious and saves energy. He stated that the variance is no more than about 5% of what would be allowed on the property when the "peculiar" calculation (of the slope and floor area) is not taken into consideration. He stated that he found the design acceptable and the variance request reasonable. WOLFE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF DR -93 -030 AND V -93 -026 AS PROPOSED. COMMISSIONER JACOBS SECONDED THE MOTION SO THE ISSUE COULD BE BROUGHT TO A VOTE. Acting Chairperson Asfour stated that he would like to continue discussions on the application before voting. He explained that a vote could be taken at this point or discussions could continue and Commissioner Jacobs could withdraw his second so the motion would die for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER JACOBS WITHDREW HIS SECOND. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Jacobs stated that on one hand he is in agreement with Commissioner Wolfe - he feels the design is an excellent design. Commissioner Jacobs explained that although he liked the design, he could not support the Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 9 variance because he could not make the findings. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not feel that the square footage allowed for this lot deprives the applicants of enjoyment of the lot. He read the required variance findings aloud and stated that the site would be an empty site and he does not find any physical constraints that would force the applicant to build a. house which exceeds the -allowable � floor area. He explained that there is nothing topographical about the lot itself which warrants a variance. He explained that if the variance was granted based on -the fact that the design is nice and because everyone likes it, the Planning Commission would be violating the code. He stated that he feels he has no choice but to vote against it. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she seconded the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs. Acting Chairperson Asfour commended the applicants and the architect on the design. He stated that even though the design is excellent, it does not change the requirements of the code. He stated that the applicants should have taken into consideration the special design features (thicker walls and etc.) earlier in the planning process. He stated that he could not make the necessary findings and therefore would not be supporting the applications. KAPLAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DR -93 -030 TO DENY THE APPLICATION. PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED). Commissioner Caldwell asked about a motion regarding the variance application. Acting Chairperson Asfour stated that he thought the applications were to be voted on together. KAPLAN /CALDWELL AMENDED THEIR MOTION (ABOVE) TO INCLUDE BOTH DR -93 -030 AND V -93 -026 - ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS DR -93 -030 AND V -93- .026 FOR DENIAL. THE VOTE WAS THEN RETAKEN AND PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED). Mr. Zambetti asked about the time line for resubmitting plans for another design review. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it is her recommendation that the denial be without prejudice. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 10 COMMISSIONER KAPLAN INDICATED THAT A DENIAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WAS ACCEPTABLE TO HER. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL, AS SECONDER OF THE MOTION, STATED THAT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WOULD ALSO BE HER PREFERENCE. THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOUND THIS TO BE ACCEPTABLE. 4. V -93 -023 - Orin; 13770 Beaumont Dr., request for Variance approval to allow a six foot high fence to be constructed on top of a two foot high retaining wall, effectively creating an eight foot tall fence. Chapter 15 of the City Code limits fences and walls to six feet in maximum height. The subject property is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 22, 1993. Planner Walgren announced that staff had received a letter from the adjoining property owner to the south requesting that the hearing on this issue be continued until the first meeting of December so that the neighboring property owner can be present. Planner Walgren explained that the applicant had been informed of this request. Planner Walgren explained that the Planning Commission could either open the public hearing, take testimony and act on the application or open the public hearing, take testimony and then continue action on the item until the 1st meeting in December when the adjoining property owner can be present. Planner Walgren also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. Acting Chairperson Asfour and Commissioners Kaplan and Wolfe expressed a desire to proceed with the application and resolve the issue at the current meeting. Acting Chairperson Asfour and Commissioner Kaplan stated that they felt that the adjoining property owner(s) had been given enough time to at least submit a written detail expressing their concerns. Commissioners Jacobs and Caldwell expressed their preference to continue the application to the 1st Planning Commission meeting in December so that the adjoining property owner could be present. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:40 P.M. BY ACTING CHAIRPERSON ASFOUR: Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 15 Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would check with the City Attorney with regard to the use of the language she suggested (and used on two of the variance approvals) therefore, pending the City Attorneys opinion on the use of this language there may not need to be a discussion at a worksession. Commissioner Caldwell stated that if the City Attorney agrees that this language should be ussd,- the _language car. - simply be incorporated into the standard "boiler plate" language used when approving variances. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Notices for the 12/8/93 public hearing Oral Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, representing the Ebrahimouns, applicants - DR- 93 -030 and V- 93 -026, stated that in talking with the applicants, they expressed a desire to take their original plans that were previously placed on the consent calendar (prior to making the modifications which were reviewed earlier in the evening) and moving those plans through the process. He asked if this evening's denial without prejudice would allow the applicants to take the original plans back through the process without having to re -pay the application fee. Planner Walgren explained that. technically the denial closed out the original application and therefore a new application would need to be made and another application fee would need to be paid. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Planning Commission could re- consider applications at the q3MXneeting at which the application had ' originally been voted on. Planner Walgren stated that he thought that re- consideration could only take place when there is a tied vote. He stated that he would look at the code to make sure his. understanding was correct. Commissioner Caldwell stated that if the applicant wishes to have the Commission review the design (as it was prior to {Waking the modifications which required the variance), she feels that it would be within the Planning Commission's capacity to approve the design review with the condition that it conform to the original design or that the applicants remove the three elements that require the variance. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 16 She stated that a reconsideration would be a simple matter instead of having the applicant re- submit the same design, re -pay an application fee, and then wait until the new application can come up on the Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Kaplan expressed agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Caldwell. Acting Chairperson Asfour stated that he did not know whether the Planning Commission could re- consider the item. Planner Walgren suggested that the Commission take a brief break to allow him time to check the Code to see if the Commission could re- consider the action taken. AT 9:07 P.M. ACTING CHAIRPERSON ASFOUR RECESSED THE MEETING. THE MEETING WAS THEN RECONVENED AT 9:14 P.M. CALDWELL / KAPLAN MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE TAKEN ON DR -93- 030 AND V -93 -026. PASSED 5 -0. KAPLAN /JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION V -93 -026 (DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST) PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE OPPOSED). ASFOUR / KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -93 -030 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE DESIGN BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE, BUT THAT THE NEW DESIGN BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN PRESENTED THIS EVENING. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. Planner Walgren asked if the Design Review Resolution was being adopted based on the design review findings that were expressed during the original discussion in support of the design. Commissioner. Caldwell explained that the Design Review Resolution was indeed being adopted based on the design review findings expressed during the original discussion in support of-the design and on the findings made in the staff report. Commissioner Caldwell explained that normally the Planning Commission would move to direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of the design review application and that resolution would then come back before the Planning Commission at the next public hearing on the consent calendar. Planning, Commission Minutes Meeting of November 22, 1993 Page 17 Planner Walgren stated that he felt that the Commission should take this action (explained by Commission Caldwell above) instead of trying to provide language to make all the necessary findings this evening. AS�OUR /KAPLAN MODIFIED THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO BE PLACED ON THE DECEMBER 8, 1993 CONSENT CALENDAR TO APPROVE DR -93 -030 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE DESIGN BE MODIFIED IN R A WAY WHEREAS TO A VARIANCE AND MEET THE CITY CODES AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STILL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE DESIGN PRESENTED THIS EVENING.. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. COMMUNICATIONS (continued) City -Council ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 p.m., Acting Chairperson Asfour adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on December 7, 1993, in the Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Andrea ' M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T'iere was no one wishing to speak. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 3, 1993. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were two technical corrections. Planner Walgren announced that staff had removed Item #1 from the Consent Calendar and placed it. under the Public Hearing section for discussion. With regard to Item #2, Planner Walgren explained that a draft arborist report had been sent out with the packet and that the final arborist report has been distributed (this evening) to the Commissioners for reference. He noted that there were no substantive changes from the draft report to the final report. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR As announced previously Item #1 was moved to the Public Hearing section for discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR -93 -030 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 El Camino Grande, request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,685 sq. ft. residence and a swimming pool per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished. The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zone district (cont. from 11/22/93 to revise the plans and prepare and adopt an approval Resolution; application expires 3/29/94). -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis explained that at the November 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting the Commission denied the variance application (V- Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 3 93 -026) that was filed along with this design review application. He further explained that the Commission had directed staff to prepare a Resolution for approval of the design review application with the condition that the design be modified to conform with the requirements of the code. Director Curtis explained that since that meeting, the applicant has decic'ed to proceed with the plans for the larger house (for which a variance is need) and has appealed the variance denial. Director Curtis explained that the design review and the variance .application are essentially tied together. He explained that procedurally, because of the applicants desire to pursue approval for the larger house, staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution for denial of the design review application. Director Curtis further explained that a denial would allow the applicant to appeal the decisions made on both applications and, thus, the two applications could be kept together as a package. Commissioner Jacobs stated that at the November 22, 1993 meeting, the Commission had approved the design review application with the condition that the plans be modified to meet the relative codes. He further explained that the applicants had expressed a desire to modify the plans to meet code so the design plans could be approved. Commissioner Jacobs stated that the Commission then re- considered the original motion to deny the design review and as a result of the applicant's testimony that they would modify the plans to.eliminate the need for a variance the Commission then approved the design review. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he understood that the application was continued to tonight's meeting where the Planning - Commission would act on the resolution to approve the design review with the condition that the plans be modified to meet the code. There was discussion among the Commission and the staff with regard to the Commission's action on this item at the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. There was consensus among the Commissioners that a decision had been made at the November 22, 1993, meeting to approve the' design with modifications to the plans which would eliminate the need for the variance. The commission also agreed that this action was taken per the applicant's expressed desire to modify the plans so they could be approved and so the applicants could proceed with the project. The Commissioners referred to the minutes (Specifically Pages 15, 16 and 17) of the November 22 meeting and explained that they had unanimously approved (5 -0) the design (with the condition that the plans be modified to eliminate the need for a variance). They (the Commissioners) stated that the application had not been continued, but that staff had been directed to prepare an appropriately worded resolution to be placed on the December 8th Planning Commission Consent calendar and that it was the language of the resolution that was to be reviewed and approved - the decision to approve the design had been made on November 22, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 4 There was further discussion and question from the Commission with regard to procedural matters. The Commissioners maintained that at the November 22, 19.93 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had offered to modify the plans to eliminate the need for a variance, requested the Commission to re- consider the original motion to deny the design application, and urged the Commission to move for approval of the design review application with a condition that the plans be modified to meet the code. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not feel as if the Commission should have to reverse their decision because the applicants had since that time changed their mind about modifying the plans. She (Commissioner Caldwell) stated that the applicant could just as easily appeal the conditional approval of the design review application as they could a design review denial. Community Development Director Curtis agreed with Commissioner Caldwell with regard to the applicants' ability to appeal the design review approval. He explained the staff had misunderstood the actions that took place at the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the date on the resolution for approval (of a 5,685 square foot house) would need to be changed to November 22, 1993 and, that staff and the applicant could meet the next day to add the design review approval to the appeal. Chairperson Moran noted that she had been absent on November 22, 1993, but that her understanding of the action and interpretation of the minutes concurred with the explanation of events offered (above) by the Commissioners. She stated that she would be abstaining from voting on this matter, but that she understands that the vote would be just an affirmation of the action taken at the November 22, 1993 meeting to adopt a resolution for approval of the design for a 5,685 square, foot house. At this point the applicant was allowed to address the Commission. Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way,, representing the applicant, stated that the applicants agree with Director Curtis with regard to having the Commission re- confirm approval of the smaller house plan so the applicants can have the opportunity to appeal the application to the City Council along with the variance application. Commissioner Asfour explained to Mr. Zambetti that the Planning Commission was under the understanding that it was the applicants' desire to modify the plans to eliminate the variance and. that the applicants were receptive to the necessary modifications,. which they offered to make, and would not pursue an appeal. He stated that if the Commission had known that the applicants intended on ,appealing the approval of the modified design, the Commission would not have re- considered the original motion and would have left the design denial in place. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 5 Gene Zambetti stated that when he had asked for the separation, it was his understanding that the applicant was not going to appeal the decision and that construction of the house would then proceed. He thanked the staff for the amount time spent on clarification of this issue. Commissioner Wolfe commended staff for the time spent and the work done on this application and apologized for any confusion with regard to the Planning Commissions actions. Mr. Ebrahimoun, applicant, thanked the staff and the Commission for the time spent on this application and explained that after further consideration it was clear that a larger house was needed. He stated that if the Commission had no problems with the larger house. then an approval should be granted tonight. Director Curtis stated that the Commission really did not need to vote on the resolution because the resolution had actually been adopted on November 22, 1993. He explained that all that was really needed was a concurrence that the resolution is correct. Commissioner Caldwell pointed out that the Council takes this type of opportunity to have another vote on the issue. Their was brief discussion with regard to whether the Commission should or should not vote again on this issue. Director Curtis stated that the Commission could take a vote that this resolution reflects the Commission's decision. ASFOUR /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -93 -030. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if items /conditions 9 and 13 are the same. Planner Walgren stated that the two conditions are basically the same except that Condition 13 provides for more detail. Chairperson Moran suggested that the two Conditions be left in for now and that the duplicate condition (if it appears) could be removed from the next application. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0 -2 (MORAN AND MURAKAMI ABSTAINED). I d cn ;w- z:P:,: b b b A A � ko 09< °a (D ct s z c, 5 1 o OD r R �. N p W e+� . b 0 m rt W O p H ~ to m m to `A, rt H :3: a c , O �r z w N• o LA) x a o C Lo . L Z o N 01 P..q y I-' Ml • Ln I-� n J O I-' P--4 cn 't7 . n a c O e �J o Z (7) a w m File No. DR -93 -030 V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande EXECUTIVE SUIIIaRY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 08/17/93 Application complete: 09/29/93 Notice published: 11/10/93 Mailing completed: 11/11/93 Posting completed: 11/04/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,277 square foot two -story residence and a swimming pool per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed residence to.,exceed the .site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,688 sq. ft. by 589 square feet. The property is approximately 51,400 square feet and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolu- tions DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026 3. Correspondence 4. Arborist Report dated 8/31/93 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" z File No. DR -93 -030 & V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) PARCEL SIZE: 1511400 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 19.3% GRADING REOUIRED: CUT FILL House 307 cu. yds. 0 cu. yds. Driveway 546 cu. yds. 177 cu. yds. Landscape 233 cu. yds. 508 cu. yds. TOTAL 1,086 cu. yds. 685 cu. yds. Maximum Depth 7 ft. (basement) 5 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior plaster finish with a clay tile roof and cast stone balustrades per the submitted material board. The material board includes three different color schemes all of which are acceptable to staff. LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 130 ft. (including the carport /terrace) WIDTH OF STRUCTURE: LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 55 ft. Garage: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: TOTAL: PROPOSAL 24% (12,379 s.f.) 26 ft. 576 sq. ft. 4,128 sq. ft. 1,573 sq. ft. 6,277 sq. ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 30% 26 ft. 5,688 sq. ft.* Basement: 1,391 sq. ft. (not included in floor area) Carport: 880 sq. ft. (not included in floor area) * This is the allowable floor if the exception to the floor area reduction requirement for structures over 18 feet in height is granted by the Planning Commission per Section 15- 45.030 of the City Code. File Rio. DR -93 -030 6 V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ .ALLOWANCE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 33 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Exterior Side: 25 ft. Exterior Side: 25 ft. Interior Side: 115 ft. Interior Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics: The subject property is located on El Camino Grande at the corner of E1 Camino Senda. There is an existing mediterranean style house on the property which is proposed to be demolished. The site has a moderate slope downhill towards the rear of the property.. There are several ordinance size trees on- site as well as other mature vegetation. Due to the. site's topography and the amount of existing vegetation the property is well screened from surrounding properties. Design Review: The applicants are requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing two -story home to construct a larger two -story residence in its place. The proposed residence is 6,277 sq. ft. The design includes a full basement, a carport, and several terraces which are not included in the floor area calcula- tions. Staff's initial review of the proposal revealed that the proposed design satisfied the required Design Review findings in terms of being.compatible with the neighborhood, minimizing the perception of bulk and mass, and not impacting the views and /or privacy of surrounding properties. The proposed design of the residence is also consistent with the design policies and techniques outlined in the Residential Design Handbook. During the initial review of the project staff was concerned with the following items: Amount of grading proposed for the new driveway that accesses.the carport and garage. • Number of areas, such as the carport and patio terraces, which contribute to the mass and bulk of the building, but are exempt from the floor area calculations. • Proposed removal of six trees. However, after visiting the site and seeing the amount of mature vegetation and the orientation of the property in relation to surrounding properties, staff's concerns were minimized. In File No. DR -93 -030 6 V -93 -026; 15170 B1 Camino Grande addition, the City Arborist visited the site and evaluated all of the significant trees. He stated that only two of the trees proposed to be removed had a dollar value higher than zero and recommended that six trees (two each of 36" box, 24" box, and 15 gallon) be planted to provide replacement value for the two trees in good health. These replacement trees are included on the proposed landscape plan. He also recommended the standard tree preservation measures and a preservation bond for the existing trees to remain. VARIANCE REVIEW: Background: Just prior to the previous public hearing, which this item was scheduled for, the applicant submitted a request to increase the proposed floor area to 6,277 which exceeds the allowable floor area by 589 sq. ft. Therefore, the item was continued and the applicant submitted the Variance fee and application and the item was renoticed as a request for Variance and Design Review approval. The applicant's reasons for the additional square footage include the following (see the attached letter) : Desire to enlarge the garage by 225 square feet. The appli- cant's do not feel this area should be counted as floor area since it would not be visible from the exterior of the house. However, the ordinance requires that all underground areas be counted as floor area unless no portion of.the room is more than two feet above the natural grade. Increase all exterior walls with openings from 6 inches to .12 inches thick to complement the proposed "Mediterranean" architectural style. This would require and additional 245 sq. ft. without impacting the proposed living space. Add.18 inches to the bedroom wing of the house. Variance Findings: These revisions did not significantly change the appearance of the house. However, since these changes did make the proposal. exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area, staff cannot be supportive of these revisions and recommends denial of the Variance based on the findings in Section 15- 70.060 of the City Code. No special circumstance applicable to the property exists which would support the granting of a Variance to the maximum permitted floor area. Granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in File No. DR -93 -030 i V -93 -026; 15170 El Camino Grande the vicinity and classified in the same zone district in that the.formula for calculating the maximum permitted floor area is based on the size and slope of each individual parcel. Staff has encouraged the applicant to reduce the proposed floor area, so that a Variance'would not be necessary.. The Variance findings were explained to tt:e applicants and they were told that staff would not support their request since the all of the Variance findings could not be made. Summary: Staff believes the Design Review findings can be made to support the proposed residence. The project complies with all applicable. zoning regulations with regard to allowable structure height, required setbacks, grading and maximum permitted lot coverage. However, since the Design Review approval is dependent on the Variance application being approved, and the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the Variance, staff recommends denial of both the Design Review and Variance requests. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolu- tions DR -93 -030 and V -93 -026. BARRIE D. C" kTE and ASSOCIA'. Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA On August 31, 1993, our firm surveyed the trees at the Ebrahimoun residence, 15170 El Camino Grande, Saratoga. A new home is proposed to be constructed, to replace the existing home which will be tom down. Six trees are proposed to be removed. Four of these trees are in poor condition, and should be removed. Only tree #6, a Spanish Fir, i s inp sapo, and tree #18, a Coast Live Oak, Quercus rifoli , were given a dollar value higher than zero. The total value of these trees is $3,750.00. The equivalent dollar value of nursery stock should be planted to replace it: (2) 36" box trees (2) 24" box trees (2) 15 gallon trees A tree protection bond in the amount of $6,500.00 is recommended (see enclosed worksheet). All trees on site which were over 12 inches at two feet above grade, or 10 inches at 2 feet above grade if a'Quercus species, and which will be affected by construction activities, were numbered and tagged. Trunk locations were already located on the plot plan which was provided to us. The species of each was identified, and D.B.H., height and spread were estimated. Health and structure were rated. All of this information was recorded on the enclosed map and charts. In addition, text was used for further clarification. GENERAL COMMENTS Irrigation Before and After Root Destruction Any tree which has had excavation occur within its dripiine, or portions of its rootzone covered, should be assumed to be stressed. This stress can be reduced by providing supplemental irrigation to the rootzone which is still intact. Irrigation is best provided using 'ooze" -type soaker hoses. They are easily available at hardware suppliers such as Orchard Supply Hardware, and Home Depot. These hoses dribble -1- TREE SURVEY AT THE EHRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 Et CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA water into the ground, providing deep watering wherever they are laid down. Where the rootzone is intact, the soaker hose should be placed at the dripline.. Where root destruction has occurred, it should be placed over the cut ends of the roots. If left on over night, enough + later should easily be provided to penetrate 24 inches deep. Depth of penetration should be checked with a soil probe or shovel. Starting four weeks before any grading will occur near the tree, it should be irrigated weekly to a depth of 24 inches, using soaker hoses as described above. Monthly irrigations during the dry season should occur until one year after construction is completed. Fencing Rootzones During Construction A temporary construction period fence should be erected around each tree which is to be retained in the final landscape. This fence should be erected at the dripline of each tree. If groves of trees, are to be protected, one common fence can be erected around the entire grove. Where construction intrudes into rootzones, this fence should be erected 24 inches from the limits of that construction. It should consist of portable cyclone fencing, or wire mesh securely attached to metal posts driven into the ground. It should not be easy for construction workers to move, or take down. This fencing should be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and should not be removed until final landscape grading is completed. It cannot be emphasized enough how important these fences are. From our experience, soil compaction and trenching through rootzones are the number one causes of tree stress in the post construction period. It should be explained clearly to all contractors and workers on site that these fences are sacred. If for any reason it becomes necessary for any machinery to enter the fenced -in rootzone of a tree, an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist should be consulted first. Trenching of any sort must be planned to avoid traveling beneath tree canopies. This should include planning.for P.G. &E., sewer lines, electrical power, cable T.V., and irrigation. Plans should show specific locations of trenches, if possible. No chemicals, solvents, paints, etc. should be dumped on site. No concrete residue should be -2- TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA washed into the soil within 20 feet of a rootzone. All trash and debris should be removed from the site, rather than dumped or buried where it might affect roots. Fertllization Where sub - surface fertilization has been recommended, it should occur between May and September, 1993, unless otherwise stated. A solution of 4 Ibs of Romeo Fertilizer's Greenbelt 22 -14 -14 per 100 gallons of water should be injected at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of diameter at breast height (DBH). This fertilizer provides slow - release nitrogen fertilization, as well as trace elements such as iron, zinc, etc. SPECIFIC TREES Tree #1, Blue Oak, Quercus douglasit This tree should be relatively undisturbed, assuming that this section of driveway is not removed and replaced. It should receive supplemental irrigation and be fertilized as described under "General Comments ", because of its low vigor. Trees #2 & 3, Douglas Fir, Pseudotsu4a menziesil These two trees have very sparse canopies, and are in poor health. They should be removed, to lessen the competition with neighboring trees. Tree #4, Blue Oak This tree's trunk is surrounded by paving. The paving should be removed immediately around the trunk, to a distance of 12 inches, and any fill soil which may have been placed against the trunk should be removed carefully with hand tools. Tree #5, Coast Live Oak, Duercus agrifolia This is a large healthy tree in good condition. This tree should be relatively undisturbed, assuming that this section of driveway is not removed and replaced.. Tree #6, Spanish. Fir, A i s - ginsapo This is a mature specimen of this species. Unfortunately, specimens of this species are not very attractive, not matching our expectations of what a coniferous tree should look like. -3- TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA It has been proposed for removal. A dollar value has been placed on this tree on the enclosed charts. Tree #7, Valley Oak, Quercus flobata This healthy tree Is growing to the west of the grove of Redwoods (see #8). It should be relatively unaffected by construction activities. Tree #8, Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens This grove of Redwoods will have minor impact on its rootzone on the east side. It should receive supplemental irrigation as described under "General Comments." Trees #9 &10, Coast Live Oak Pervious paving should be installed in the area shown on the enclosed map, to reduce the root destruction within the driplines of these two trees (see enclosed detail). Where paving will cover more than 30% of the area within the dripline of a tree, it should be composed of pervious paving within the dripline. This could consist of brick or interlocking pavers on gravel and sand. The soil beneath the pervious paving should be compacted to no more than 80% compaction. Tree #11, Blue Oak Approximately 25% of the area within the dripline of this tree will be covered with paving when the driveway is constructed. This tree should receive supplemental irrigation. Tree #12, Coast Live Oak This tree is in fair health, and has a poor structure. It should be removed. Tree #13, Incense Cedar, Calocedrus decurrens This tree is in very poor health, and should be.removed. It has died back over the years as a result of infection from Botryosphaeria fungi. Tree #14, Coast Live Oak This tree is in good condition. A retaining wall will be. installed on the west side of the tree. A temporary construction period fence should be erected at the location shown on the enclosed map. 10 TREE SURVEY AT THE EBRAHIMOUN PROPERTY 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA Trees #15 & 16, Blue Oak This tree is in good condition. A retaining wall will be installed on the west side of the tree. A temporary construction period fence should be erected at the location shown on the enclosed map. Tree #17, Monterey Pine This tree is in fair condition. It should receive supplemental irrigation, and be fertilized, as described under "General Comments." Tree #18, Coast Live Oak This is a young Coast Live Oak, in good health, but with only a fair structure. It is proposed to be removed. Its value has been assessed on the enclosed chart, and replacements have been recommended under "General Comments." Please call our office if you have further questions. TEW:Ia Enclosures: Pervious .Paving Detail Evaluation Chart Bond Chart Map -5- Sincerely, Terence E. Welch, Associate Barrie D. Coate & Associates BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Z _ o ^ T ❑ � � >- F- 5 a =$36.00 Horticultural Consultants w p uv *- — z w 3 ¢ ,;, Q ,. �n z w ❑ _, H- ac w O ¢ p 15- gal =$120 24box --$420 (408)353 -1052 w w to m ¢ ,- w ¢ z = O z v 4 U w p �, LU w w¢ I- Q o z ¢ a 36'box= $1,320 qu c~n G w F- ❑ V N w w¢ �C F- Q cn N (n y z 48"box= $5.000 S o = w — uaJ ¢ -r a ❑ tY ❑ w z� F- w O> w rn w w w.� ❑ w ❑ ❑ w ❑ w z g�g O o U 1 o 2 z 52 box = $7,000 72 ' box= $151000 Key Plant Name o p O N_ v= c~n z p U z r¢¢ n¢. COMMENTS Sparse canopy. 20 28 45135 3 3 1 3 Leader removed 1 @ 3' above grad sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class O _ $ x cond Q = $ x loc O _ Final Value r)rwtgla,q Fir 14 16 55204 3 1 11 X 2 sq.in X $27 sq/ln = $ x sp. class ( %) = $ x cond %) _ $ x loc ( 0/6) = 0 Final Value $ I 1 13 1 35 1 15 4 1 .3 1 1 X 3 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class () _ $ x cond 0 = $ x loc () = 0 Final Value $ Surrounded by Rhip Oak 9 X 7 7 15 35 30 3 3 pavement. 4 sq.in X $27 sq.in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ ._ !oC ( %)=$ Final Value $ 22 28 40 55 1 1 2 5 sq.in X $27 sq /in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) = $ x loc ( %)=$ Final Value $ 10 I I I 1 12 1 40 12 2 1 2 6 sq.in 78 X $27 sq /in = $2,120 x sp. class ( 60 %) _ $1,272 x cond (70 %) _ $890.40 X1 04/b = b-JU.UU Final Value $ JOB TITLE: Ebrahimoun/EI Camino Grande JOB # 08- 93-277 DATE: 8/31/93 Sq. in. is determined with e formula Sq. in= ( OW2sr 2 Page 1 of 4 1=bW 5--worst Total Value This Sheet= $890.00 BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES ►n Z �_ p > 5- ga1�36.00 Horticultural Consultants D r Z w o rt u Q Z `' O p w �=- w ¢O cc 15- gal =$120 24"box =$420 (408) 353 -1052 .-. W t .-. a r?= t11 z z W T -- U pw � �- r 3 O O W w I, - Q o w J � a a 36'90x=$1,320 41 t 0 En c w x D a 2 I-- F- v ► cn w O W U �C ►- ¢ W cn 3 tL cn m Q >> Q 0 z 48box= $5.000 1 F v Co c = Co > � ve z W cc E J = o: to z > 0 cc ¢ I-- w °� z U W z U,4 W W p o w J D z 00 cr cc� O z a 52 box--$7,000 7COMMENTS Key Plant Name o cn U U z VallAV Oak 20 22 35 30 2 2 7 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class () _ $ x cond () _ $ x loc () _ Final Value 14- 17/ 135 20 1 1 a v. gr . 40,18,21,24,28 35 40 60 23,32,17 inches 8 sq.in X $27 sqf n = x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond %) _ $ x loc ( %) _ (35,16,19,20,24,20,29,14 inches) Final Value $ 11 13 25 22 2 1 9 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class () _ $ x cond Q = $ x loc () _ Final Value $ rn.q.qt 1. Oak 11 X 9 15 30 30 1 1 =clearance. 10 sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %)=$ Final Value $ alts present 19 X 14 30 45 50 3 2 n major limbs. 11 sq.in X $27 sglln = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc ( %).$ Final Value $ 15 17 22 20 3 4 4 X 12 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) _ $ x loc Final. Value $ JOB TITLE: Ebrahimoun Property /15170 El Camino Grande JOB # 08 -93 -277 DATE: 8131/'93 Sq. in. is determined wnn the iormuia: Sq. in = ( 12D 2a 2 Page 2 of 3 1=best 5—worst Total Value This Sheet= BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408)353-1052 41' m v _ CO w v~i F D .-. m _� m o m S �- o— w ¢ w > Q N F- = U w z o Q w a •- -' w z �n w cc U z Z z i ~ to w z c=.7 3 o z; w° w > m a¢ Q r ., °w v Q f- w p p U Q U w z ¢ I-- ; N ~ w rn z ,�, z r 3 rn a U w w w cn ° to O w o p D w w -Q m 0 �, I=- + cn LU z W F- Q to z p z a g> O v cc cc p c¢ a s > O 2 cc � a ? z a 5- ga��36.00 15- gakS120 24box-$420 36box= $1,320 48bo $5,000 52' box=$7,000 72' box�15,000 COMMENTS Key Plant Name 20 21 5012014 3 X Very tine canopy. 13 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class O _ $ x cond p = $ x loc Final Value 18 18 1151 25 1 1 1 14 sq.in X $27 sq/in = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond%) = $ x loc ( %) _ Final Value $ Rh ip Oak 14 1 X 6 1 24 1161 35 1 1 15 sq.in X $27 sgfin = $ x sp. class {) _ $ x cond 0 = $ x loc () _ Final Value $ 1 1 1 15 1 16 20 1 1 113 16 sq.in X $27 sq /in = $ x sp. class ( %)=$ x cond ( %) = $ x loc - Final Value $ ne-sided 18 20 50 30 3 2 2 4 canopy 17 sq.in X $27 sgAn = $ x sp. class ( %) _ $ x cond ( %) = $ x loc Final Value $ 15 15 15 20 1 3 18 sq.in 176 X $27 sgfin = $ 4,771 x sp. class (100%) = $4,771 x cond ( 60% %) = $2,862 x loc ( 100 %) _ $ 2,860 Final Value $ JOB TITLE: Ebrahimoun/15170 El Grande JOB # 08-93 -277 DATE: 8131/93 sq. in. is determined with the formula: Sq. in = ( pfl.Hl2ir 2 Page 3 of 3 1 west 5=worst Total Value This Sheet= $2,860 BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES ISA EVALUATION CITY OF 6ARATOGA . Horticultural Consultants VALUE OF TREES WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION (408) 353 -1052 Adjustments sq/ " Value per Basic BH (7r, r2� sq. inch Value Species .Condition t.ocation Total Key # Genus/species/class $27.00 1 Blue Oak 20 314 $27.00 $8,482 100% 40% 100% $3,390 4 7/ 7 102 $27.00 $2,754 100% 40% 100% $1,100 5 Criag I ivp 02k 22 380 $27.00 $10,263 1000/0 800/0 100% $8,210 g 11 95 $27.00 $2,565 1000/0 800/0 1000/o $2,050 10 Coast I ive Oak 11/ 9 126 $27.00 $3,423 100% 90% 100% $3,080 11 Blue ak 19/ 14 360 $27.00 $9,730 1000/0 500/0 100% $4,865 .14 Coast Live Oak 18 254 $27.00 $6,870 1000/0 900/0 100% $6,180 15 Sh ip nak 14 168 $27.00 $4,536 1000/0 900/0 100% $4,080 JOB TITLE: Ebrahlmoun /15170 El Camino Grande TOTAL VALUE THIS PAGE $32,955 JOB #: 09-93 -277 SUGGESTED BOND $6,500 DATE: 8131193 Pg1of 1 October 26, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn. Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Design Review 93 -030; 15170 El Camino Grande Honorable Planning Commissioners, We are formally requesting minor modification to our above submitted Design Review application, as follows: Enlarge underground garage from 19.5'x 19.0'( 351.5 sq. ft.) to 24.0' x 24.0' (576.0 sq. ft. ) or add 224.5 sq. ft. Add 6" to all exterior walls with openings which are now a nominal 6" wall in order to have 12" thick exterior walls. This will require an additional 245 sq. ft. Add 18" to the bedroom wing of the house to enlarge the rooms to our desired size without compromising the other living areas of the house. This will require an additional 126 sq. ft. Our allowable square footage is 5688 sq. ft. and we are requiring an additional 595.5 square feet as per above or a total of 6283.5 sq. ft. Please note that counting 12" thick walls as 6" walls will allow us to retain the living space as designed, but architecturally will provide for deep set fenestration typically found in our chosen "Mediterranean" architectural style. In addition, we would also like to enlarge the underground garage without penalty of deduction to living space square footage as proposed. Its enlargement will clearly not be perceived in the exterior. Please be also aware that we have lived in our Home in Saratoga for the last 13 years and have planned to build this Home for the past 7 years. During this time the City Ordinances have reduced the allowable square footage's. Our current submittal compromises the sizes of the Master bedroom and bath as well as our children's bedrooms from our original design. Please find attached a list of signatures we have gathered from our neighbors who support our proposed additional square footage design proposal. Our property is hardly visible from any of our neighbors. We are located towards the end of El Camino Grande Road which has very little traffic. We have submitted our plans to meet the. current ordinance and followed up with this letter in order to best demonstrate our requirements and to stay on schedule to start construction in the spring of 1994. We appreciate your consideration for these minor modifications and suggest a "special study" of our Project's abo- ie mentioned additional proposed requirements. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call us, or our Architect, Maurice Camargo, AIA. Sincerely yours_, J �; Jean and David Ebrahimoun November 16, 1993 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Design Review 93 -030, Ebrahimoun Residence 15170 El Camino Grande, Saratoga Honorable Planning Commissioners: Enclosed please find an additional list of neighbors correspondence. We have received approval from more than 30 supportive neighbors and only positive. comments regarding the variance. Many years went into planning for this home to accommodate our needs as well as complying with our neighborhood. We have been' a resident for 13 years, and under our special circumstances, the parcel itself is only surrounded by beautiful, mature trees which allows us total isolation from everyone. All we are asking is to remain comparable with our neighborhood. We trust that after visiting our property you will be convinced about the uniqueness of this special parcel and will justify your approval of this modest variance. Thank you for all your time and your consideration. Yours truly, -� C, David & Jean Ebrahimoun EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIG TURF �C�IYI o rV CalrrN!� - MJQtt %n/ .O-�Y .rc�/ l > I G CL CiJ c - G � /�' i � ti ; " •t-r' . �s I 0 �iKa C Gw L2.- . f1A AIJ° gho !� sw��� EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE Ilk -7 QI �- e, r r C-. L CAW, 4� G P` io- tx:7 t. Also fuym'l gel toler I--,- EBRAHIMOUN RESIDENCE 15170 EL CAMINO GRANDE Monday, November 1, 1993 We the undersigned have reviewed the proposed design plan exhibits dated June, 1993 and the attached letter dated October 26,1993 and support the approval of this Project. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE 0 S cc CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planning Re: Design Review 93-030,15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence - Variance Dear Planning Commissioners: November 15, 1993 We are residents at 15280 El Camino Grande. We have reviewed their plan, in addition to their variance and it complies with our neighborhood. We are very much in favor of this neighborhood improvement. A60 Yours truly, Tv, Mr. & Mrs. Dixon November 11, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Ebrahimoun Residence, 15170 E1 Camino Grande Dear Planning Commissioners: We have reviewed the Ebrahimoun's plans dated June 1993 along with their variance of an additional 595.5 square feet. We are in support of their variance. This is a great neighborhood improvement! Yours truly, Mr. & rs. Reid Residents of 15125 Via Colina November 5, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review 93-030,15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence Honorable Planning Commissioners: We have reviewed and formally given our approval of the Ebrahimouns's new home. We feet this lot is exceptional because it is not visible from neighbors and the mature oaks and redwoods camouflage the home. The home was designed to compliment the area using the topography of the land. We are in favor of this positive neighborhood improvement. Yours truly, R c;2� Kay & Martin Thompson * 4(jf) ��4 �e4'�4v� November 11, 1993 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 . Attn: Planning Commission Dear Commissioners: We are neighbors of the Ebrahimoun's and reside at 15100 El Camino Grande. We have reviewed their plans and are very supportive of their variance. There are exceptions to all. rules and in this circumstance to request additional square footage is not a special privilege when many homes in our area exceed 6,200 square feet. It's great to see design in which massiveness has been eliminated using underground parking and also this home will be perceived as a one story home from the exterior. What a great neighborhood improvement. Yours truly, Mr. & Mrs. Tsai November 5, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 J Re: Design Review 93-030,15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahimoun Residence Honorable Planning Commissioners: We have reviewed and formally given our approval of the Ebrahimouns's new home. We feel this lot is exceptional because it is not visible from neighbors and the mature oaks and redwoods camouflage the home. The home was designed to compliment the area using the topography of the land. We are in favor of this positive neighborhood .improvement. Nso � re4' Your ruly, Mr. & Mrs. Moore November 15, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review 93-030, 15170 El Camino Grande Ebrahi.moun Residence Honorable Planning Commissioners: we are neighbors to the Ebrahimoun's at 15042 El Camino Senda. They have been in the neighborhood for well over 13 years and have been planning their new home for many years. They are very isolated in their corner lot with all the mature trees and the way the topography of the land exists. Many large estates exist in this neighborhood well over 6,000 square feet. we are in favor of the variance and this will greatly improve our neighborhood. Yours truly, /-Y� e Mr. & Mrs . .Clayman November 21, 1993 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Attn: Lynette Dias, Assist. Planner 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review 93 -030, V -93 -026 Ebrahimoun Residence, 15170 El Camino Grande Honorable Planning Commissioners: We are neighbors to the Ebrahimoun's and reside at 15242 E1 Camino Grande. They have been-in the neighborhood for 13 years and have been planning their new home for many years. The variance will have no impact visually on their design. This exceptional lot is unique in that it has total isolation from everyone around. We are extremely happy preservation of their trees were a major priority to the Ebrahimoun's. Conservation of energy was also taken into consideration by requesting 12" thickness of exterior walls. We are in favor of the variance which will greatly improve our neighborhood. Yours truly, Bill & Mary E 1e eaZ Matteoril Saxe Nan A W Y E R Kodak Center 1740 Technology Drive Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 February 2, 1994 408 441 -7800 FAX 408 441 -7302 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council City of Saratoga NomutnE.MrtSaxe AUanRobe 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 Margaret EckerNanda anand , Peggy M. O'Laughlin Debra L.Cauble Re : Ebrahimoun, 15170 El Camino Grande Judy C. Tsai (DR 9 3 - 0 3 0, V-93-026) Bradley M. Matteoni Dear Mayor Tucker and Members of the Council: Thank you for your willingness to reconsider the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimoun from denial by the Planning Commission of their request for a variance which would allow their new home to exceed the permitted floor area of 5,688 square feet by an additional 589 square feet. There are three features which comprise the 589 square feet. The first of these involves utilizing approxi- mately 224.5 square feet of available underground space as a part of their two -car garage. This space will exist whether or not the variance is granted. The only issue is whether it must be walled off and used for storage or some other purpose or whether it can be utilized by the family for garage purposes. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the home, but turns on a technicality under the ordinance. If it is separated from the garage and left as dead space or utilized for interior storage, such as a cellar, the area is not counted for purposes of determining permitted floor area. However, if the space is considered to be a part of the garage, it is counted as a part of the floor area. The second component of the 589 square feet results from utilizing walls having a 12 -inch thickness. The previous staff report describes the variance request as reflecting a desire to increase the thickness of the exterior walls from 6 inches to 12 inches for energy efficiency and in keeping with the Mediterranean architectural style of the home. In fact, the 12 -inch walls were a part of the plan from the outset. It An Association Including a Professional Cmp. City of Saratoga February 2, 1994 Page 2 was only when Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimoun discovered that the underground garage was, in fact, counted as a part of permitted floor area that they attempted to modify the home through changes designed to reduce square footage. The purpose of this aspect of the variance is to allow them to build the home as originally designed with 12 -inch walls rather than changing the design to walls with 6 -inch thickness. It is not, as appears from the staff report, an afterthought to increase the thickness of the walls from 6 inches to 12 inches. The net effect of building the home originally designed with the thicker walls is to add 238.5 square feet. The third component of the additional square footage would add 18 inches on the easterly end of the home. As with the wall issue, this is a matter of building the house as originally designed. This 18 -inch strip was proposed to be eliminated in order to reduce the overall square footage of the home. However, the purpose of the variance is to allow the home to be built as designed. From my review of the videotaped proceedings when this matter was heard on January 5, 1994, there appeared uncertainty concerning the findings necessary for granting a variance as well as discussion concerning the nature and purpose of a variance. One of the leading legal authorities on land use law in California describes a variance as follows: "Rather, variances sanction deviations from regulations applicable to such physical standards as lot sizes, floor area ratios for buildings, and off street parking requirements. The concept is that the basic zoning provisions are not being changed, but that the property owner is allowed to use his property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variations as will place him in parody with other property owners in the same zone." (Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd Ed., p. 349 -350.) City of Saratoga February 2, 1994 Page 3 Variances are authorized under the State Planning Law (Government Code §65906) and implemented by local ordinance, in this case, through Article 15 -70 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. Section 15- 70.060 sets forth, in a manner consistent with Government Code §65906, the findings required for granting an ordinance. In this instance, there are three findings required. The first finding is set forth in Section 15- 70.060(a) as follows: "That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district." In the Ebrahimoun case, this finding can be made on the basis of the unique topography of the lot, which has the effect of distorting computation of the average slope which, in turn, is utilized to determine allowable floor area. One unusable corner of the lot comprising approximately 28% of the entire parcel drops precipitously some 40 feet down to a creek bed. None of that area is affected in any way by the project. Since the hearing on January 5, the engineer for Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimoun has computed the average slope for that portion of the parcel and determined it to be 30.44 %. The average slope for the balance of the property is 14.84 %, and the slope of the area utilized for the home, driveway, and outdoor living areas is actually 12.8 %. Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimoun could probably solve the problem by simply giving, through a lot line adjustment, a few feet of the steep creek bank to their neighbor. However, it is this very type of terrain constraint unique to this parcel which can be utilized in making the finding under subsection (a). TI City of Saratoga February 2, 1994 Page 4 The second finding applicable to this variance is set forth in Section 15- 70.060(b) as follows: "That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district." It was not disputed in the staff report or at the hearing on January 5 that other neighboring property owners enjoy homes larger than would be permitted under the current slope area requirements. The staff explanation was that the current floor area standard were adopted subsequent to the approval of those homes. However, that is the normal situation in the case of a variance. The very function of a variance is to allow something to happen which would otherwise not be permitted under current standards. In this instance, the effect of granting the variance requested by Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimoun is not to grant them a special privilege not enjoyed by their neighbors, but instead to allow construction of a home compatible with those of the neighbors. It is interesting that this variance request is supported uniformly by the neighborhood. Deliberating on a variance is a very subjective exercise. It is important how the request is received by neighbors because the reaction of the neighborhood bears directly on whether there is a perception that the applicant is requesting some special privilege or whether there are, in fact, special circumstances surrounding the request. Longtin comments in his book on this aspect of considering a variance: "Local agencies and the courts on judicial review have not been altogether consistent in determinations as to whether or not special circumstances justify the grant of a variance. As a matter of practice, where significant opposition exists to a variance application, it is wise to thoroughly justify, with appropriate findings, sufficient special circumstances to meet the GovC 65906 criteria. On the other hand, where no opposition to the variance application exists, local agencies can be more lax in justifying their need to meet City of Saratoga February 2, 1994 Page 5 statutory special circumstance criteria." (Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd Ed.,p. 355) The final finding required under Section 15- 70.060 is set forth in subparagraph (c) as follows: "That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." There has never been any suggestion that Mr. and Mrs. Ebrahimouns' proposed new home would be detrimental in any way to the public health, safety or welfare. To the contrary, the design and planning which went into the home have been complimented not only by the neighborhood but by staff. In short, the finding under subparagraph (c) is not in dispute. Again, thank you very much for your further consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, ALLAN R. SAXE ARS:md cc: Mr. and Mrs. David Ebrahimoun SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ';� T C) F AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: _February 2, 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager 4s(s SUBJECT: Third Amendment to Countywide Household Haza dous Waste Agreement I . t Recommended Motion(s): Approve amendment. Report Summary: The Program Manager of the County Office of Toxics and Management has requested that the City Council approve agreement. Solid Waste :he subject Apparently this amendment was first sent­ to the City on August 18, 1992, but for unknown reasons was not forwarded to the Council. Although the agreement would have been in effect only from September 30, 1992, to June 30, 1993, it would still be timely to pass it. The County is applying for a federal grant for this program, and the grant procedures require proof that the agreement has been approved. If the Council approves this amendment now, for their purposes it would be as though it had been in effect continuously. Fiscal Impacts• None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: None. Consequences.of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Follow Up Actions: None for City. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � 40 9 AGENDA ITEM 8/T MEETING DATE: February 2 1994 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office C36r SUBJECT: Allocations for FY 1.994/95 :Housing and Community Development Act Funds and Human Services Grants :Recommended Motion(s1: 1. Conduct Public Hearing 2. Make allocations for approximately $159,500 for FY 94/95 HCDA project funds as determined 3. Make allocations for Human Services grants from other revenue sources according to Council policy Report Summ The City Council is requested to conduct a Public Hearing to receive comments and recommendations on projects proposed for 1994/95 Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds and other funding as available: Council is further requested to make a determination regarding the allocation of federal HCDA monies anticipated to be approximately $159,500. Availability of Block Grant funds has been publicized and proposals solicited from the community, previous recipients, and city staff. Following determination of the allocation of 1994/95 HCDA funds by Council, proposals will be submitted to the County for final approval by the Board of Supervisors. Proposals for human services not funded through the Block Grant may be considered for grants from general revenue sources. Fiscal Impacts: The City will receive an HCDA allocation of approximately $159,500 for project costs plus $15,000 for staff administrative costs for 1994/95. Council policy limits spending for human services programs to 1.3%. of projected general revenues, approximately $92,200. Approximately $40,000 of this amount will come from CDBG funds. Human Services funding recommendations from staff are 15% below the maximum and total $78,000, the same as Council allocations last year. Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: 1. Letter announcing schedule and inviting proposals sent to interested parties, Commission Chairs, and City staff, November, 1993 . 2. Display ad announcing hearing and inviting proposals, Saratoga News, December 8, 1 993 3. Legal Notice of Public Hearing, Saratoga News, January 19, 1994 Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The HCDA allocation will remain with the County and the supplementary funding for human services will remain in the City's general fund. Follow Up Actions: Forward HCDA funding recommendations to the County; execute agreements with agencies receiving funding. Attachments: 1. Report to Council from Assistant to the City Manager 2. Project Proposals o:lexec.sum (rev.] /11/94) C o oxo 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 •-(408)867=3438, COUNCIL'MEMBERS. .. . Karen Anderson Ann Mane Burger " Willem Kohler Date February 2,.� 1994 vicforMoriia Karen Tucker To: city•Council From:" Assistant "to_the City Manager. • Subject 'Allocation- of . the FY" 1994/95 Housing "_ and" -Community " Development'Act',Funds and,. Human,Services- Grants.: RECOMMENDED. ACTION ":' 1. Conduct Public, Hearing`. ...2'6'. Make !allocations for approximately ,$15.9 ", 500 for FY 94./95 �'cCDBG funds: as determin "ed '3;. Make allocations for.Human Services "grants from. other revenue'; sources a'ccording.to. Council, policy and /or• budget constraints Back4round Cornmiunity Development Block Grant Program .The :. City, of .. •Saratoga, ' nine" other.` "nonentitl,ement'.' . cities (populati.on.under 50,000) within Santa Clara County,,,and the County ,tsel'f'r6ceive federal - Housing and. Community Development.Act (HCDA)' Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds;:,,which 'are adininiste'red by-'the, Department of -Housing,: and- Urban'-Development (HUD") for: 'eligible projects and-activities. "By, 'regulation;,' n'onentitleinerit_ ,cities receive funds through a cooperative 'Agreement with,,the . Urban county of .,,Safita ,Clara. (the' locally responsible gr'an't recipient).. Therefore, expenditure.:-of. these' "funds "is. restricted not ,only' by ".federal regulations, but.Yiy "any .additional `guidel nes imposed.by, the County.as' . well ,.,'.The .total, amount of HCDA aftocatiorf to the County. for 1994/95 ',. is . expected` to be` approximately $3 , 262 ", 0.00. O.f `!the total . grant', twenty: ,percent will be used for administratioh' costs., . of .which. -,the- C.t'y'of Saratoga will receive $15,:OQO_- iri.additi.on;, to'the project: allocation; Forty percent of the ., remainder,, "will go to the Countywide•.competitive pool, where funds are prioritized for % .,projects /activ.itiesi that contribute"to..ncreasing: the supply 'of Printed on recycled paper. 2 - Allocation of the FY 1994 /95 Housing and Community Development Act Funds and Human Services Grants affordable housing in the County. The other sixty percent of the total grant will go to the nonentitlement cities and the County for direct allocation for any HCDA eligible activity. Saratoga's project share.is expected to be approximately $159,500. In general, to be eligible for CDBG funds, proposals must primarily benefit those of very low or low income (e.g. family of four - $39,700). A maximum of fifteen percent of the total County grant may be used for human services activities. We estimate that we will be able to use $40,000 of our grant funds for human services in 1994/95. Background - Human Services Grants: Council policy provides for the use of general funds in making some grants to human services agencies because of the constraint on using Block Grant money for this purpose, i.e. the number of proposals which the City receives each year for providing necessary services to low income, elderly and disabled residents. The policy also provides that proposals for both Block Grant funds and general revenues will be considered at one hearing. The policy sets a maximum dollar amount to be allocated annually for human services grants at 1.30 of the City's projected general revenues (approximately $92,200 for 94/95). Last year, because of projected loss of revenue, the Council reduced the maximum dollar amount for human services grants by approximately 15 %, to a maximum of $78,000. Funds have been budgeted in the adopted City budget for 94/95 at the same level of funding as for 93/94. (Summary of proposals on following page) 18— Jan -94 SUMMARY OF HCDA AND.HUMAN SERVICES GRANT PROPOSALS 94/95 Amount Amount Agency Project Request Recommend. Capital Projects Saratoga ADA Access 125000 119500 Sub —total 125000 119500 Other CDBG EHC shelter rehab EHC temp hous rehab Sub —total Sub —total projects Human Services EHC shelter sery Fam Sery case mgmt Food Bank brown bags LTC ombudsman Project Mtch senior match SA,SCC Day care SASCC operations TC teen counsel Trans Asst paratransit Womans Housing. shelter sery WVC reentry prog WVC senior sery Sub —total Total Proposals Funding Source HCDA 159500 genJund 38000 Total 197500 Amount Approved 93/94 125000 . 125000 Amount Approved m 92/93 W i 25000 25000 rehab fund 12000 12000. 37000 from rehab fund 162000 119500 125000 3000. 0 0 3000 1000 1000 3000 1000 1000 2655 0 0 2300 1000 1000 27810 27400 27195 38110 35000 35215 5000 0 0 15000 12600 12590 4500 0 0 12500 0 0 16000 0 0 132875 78000 78000 294875 197500 203000 2500 3000 2500 2100 27000 37000 15000 2000 Page 4 - Allocation of the FY 1994/95 Housing and Community Development Act Funds and Human Services Grants RECOM[M[ENDATTONS 1. Capital projects Recommended Funding $119,500 The only project proposal recommended for funding in this category is from the City Public Works Director for continuation of compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access requirements. We are using 93/94 CDBG funding to hire a consultant who is developing a list of modifications which need to be made to City facilities, and the high priority items will be funded from this allocation. We estimate that we will be able to use $40,000 of the total available for CDBG projects for 94/95 ($159,500) for human services. In order to set aside that amount, the recommendation for this proposal is for $119,500 rather than the requested $125,000. We anticipate supplementing the ADA Access program by reprogramming approximately $100,000 in unobligated CDBG funds from previous years. 2. Other CDBG Recommended Funding $37,000 The Emergency Housing Consortium has submitted two proposals for rehabilitation projects: $25,000 for the new regional emergency shelter, and $12,00.0 for one of the temporary housing sites. During FY 91/92 and 93/94, the City Council, made grants totaling approximately $20,000 for rehabilitation of the EHC Family Living Shelter, which have come from the City's revolving rehabilitation loan fund. Funding for requests of this type can come either from the "new" 94/95 CDBG money or from the City's housing rehabilitation loan program. Staff recommends using the loan fund again for these proposals since there has not been much activity lately in the City's housing rehabilitation program (SHARP), and there is a balance of $145,000 in the fund at this time. As in the past, staff further recommends that funding be contingent on the Emergency Housing Consortium securing administrative support from the County or another City to monitor the proposed projects for Davis -Bacon (labor standards) requirements. 3. Human Services Recommended Funding $78,000 Twelve proposals were received in this category, totalling $132,875. Last year, only SASCC- operations, SASCC -day care, Transit Assist, Project Match, Food Bank, and the Family Services case management program were funded. (The case management program was transferred from the now - defunct Los Gatos Senior Coordinating Council last year to the Family Services Association). Staff is recommending funding in this category at the budgeted level which Page 5 - Allocation of the FY 1994/95 Housing and Community Development Act.Funds and Human Services Grants was used last year, $78,000. The total allowed under the human services funding policy is a maximum of $92,200. $78,000 is 58.7% of the total requested, and $92,200 is 69 %. Funding at $78,000 requires $38,000 of general fund money, and the maximum level, $52,200. Council has adopted funding criteria for the Human Services Grants. program which includes consideration of the benefit to Saratoga; the need for the service provided; financial need of applicant agency; and provision of essential services to Saratoga's low income, elderly, and /or disabled residents. Assigning funding priority based on financial need is difficult because Saratoga's portion of services in most cases is so low in comparison to other cities that these services make up a small portion of most agencies' organization and program budget. The exceptions are SASCC and Transit Assist where services to targeted Saratoga residents are a primary objective and the City of Saratoga has had a long -term relationship in policy direction as well as funding. This year we received several new proposals in addition to-those from agencies previously funded for services in Saratoga. West Valley College is requesting $12,500 for establishing a mentorship /re -entry program for mature students, and $16,000 to facilitate establishment of an Older Adults Institute for activity /instructional programs for senior residents. Although these are worthwhile programs, staff doesn't consider them to be at the same level of priority as the more essential services to, low income residents. Last year West Valley requested funds for improving disabled access and the City is incorporating their requests in our CDBG funded sidewalk /curb cut project. The Emergency Housing Consortium submitted a request for $3,000 in support services for'the homeless in their shelters. Since EHC's other proposals can be funded from the construction category rather than the more limited human services category of CDBG funds, staff is recommending continued funding to EHC for their rehabilitation projects, and not for the funding services proposal. If the Council wishes to consider going beyond the budgeted $78,000 for human services support for the next fiscal year, staff recommends either a higher level of funding for Food Bank and Family Services case management, and /or funding again for the Long Term Ombudsman program. These recommendations are based upon the criteria listed above. .s Page 6 - Allocation of the FY 1994 /95 Housing and Community Development Act Funds and Human Services Grants riM�4._i If Council chooses to follow staff recommendations for allocation of the 1994/95 CDBG funds and general funds, the allocation will be as follows: CDBG ADA Access SASCC $119,500 $ 40,000 GENERAL FUNDS All grants to outside agencies plus supplemental to SASCC's CDBG allocation as required Carolyn King Assistant to the City Manager Total: $159,500 Total: $ 38,000 O: \HCDrept CBR:mc