Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAAGENDA BILL NO. �S9 CITY OF SAPvTUXM Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: 11/18/81 C. At DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUB=-: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 1340, RAY DETTLING, BOHLMAN RD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summary All improvements required of the subject Building Site Approval have been satisfactorily completed. Recommendation Authorize release of the attached described bond. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attaclwents 1. Memo describing bond Council Action 11/18: Accepted 5 -0. 1. Oct. 27, 1981 PUBLIC WORKS DEP) CITY OF SARATOGA TO: City of Saratoga Dent. Of Public Works REF: SDR -1340 15297 Bohlman Rd. & 15315 Bohlman MROM:J. Ray Dettling /Tessie A. Salmon 15297 Bohlman Rd. Howard K. Ashmore 15315 Bohlman Rd. This is to inform you that the minimum access road leading to the above referenced properties from Bohlman ?:oad has been resurfaced in accordance with the specifications agreed to by the Dept. of Public Works. We therefore request final inspection of this road and release of the security deposit ( ) to the above parties. Thank You, �7k J. Ray Dettling, et al cc: 2 r ;5 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 . .: (408) 807 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 11/4/81 FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1340 (Final Acceptance) Location: Bohlman Road All improvements required of Ray Dettling, SDR 1340 and agreed to in the Building Site Agreement Agreement dated November 5, 1979 have been satisfactorily completed. — Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Ray Dettling Address: 15297 Bohlman Rd., Saratoga 2. Improvement Security: Type: Investment Certificate Amount: $2,750.00 Issuing Co.: Bank of California Address: Sunnyvale, Calif. .Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 20209 3. Special Remarks: Rob t S. Shook RSS /dsm f CITY OF SARATOGA A, =- A BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: 11/18/81 C. Atty. DEPARTME T : Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 1359, HOWARD ASHMORE, BOHLMAN RD. Issue Summary All improvements required of the subject Building Site Approval have been satisfactorily completed. Recommendation Authorize release of the attached described bond. Fiscal Impacts None E: chibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing bond Council Action 11/18: Accepted 5 -0. i Met 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 11/4/81 FROM: Director of Community, ;Development SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1359 (Final Acceptance) Location: Bohlman Road All improvements required of Howard Ashmore, SDR 1359 and agreed to in the Building Site Approval- Agreement dated 2/13/80 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Howard Ashmore Address: 15315 Bohlman Rd.; Saratoga 2. 3. Improvement Security: Type: Investment Certificate Amount: $2,750.00 Issuing Co.: Bank of Calif. Address: Sunnyvale, Ca. Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 20210 Special Remarks: Rob rt S. Shook RSS /dsm CITY OF SArUdIOGA � 155 Initial: AGUMA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. —kk- DATE: November 18, 1981 C. DEPART %=: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: SDR -1478, Charles Johnston, Brookwood Lane, Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Map for 3 lots Issue Summary Applicant is appealing a denial of Tentative Building Site Approval on October 28, 1981 by the Planning Commission. The denial was based on the General Plan grounds of public safety and environment related to flooding and access. In order to develop the property further two exceptions relating to access (cul -de -sac length exceeding 400' and connecting a minimum access road to a cul -de -sac) need to be made, as well as determination of a solution to protect the proposed residences from the 100 -year flood (through berming, raising the pad elevations or a combination of these as recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water District). Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision, with the appropriate exceptions and the berm alternative. If the appeal is granted, the City Council should first approve the Negative Declaration, and a condition should be added to the project, requiring a hold - harmless agreement with regard to the flood issue prior to Final Approval. Fiscal Impacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Cit Appeal Letter Planning Commission minutes of 10 -14 -81 and 10 -28 -81 (unapproved). Staff Report Correspondence from Santa Clara Valley Water District Minutes of Land Development Committee on previous Site Approval application. Negative Declaration Parks and Recreation Recommendation Resolution SDR- 1478 -1 City Council minutes on parcel Correspondence received Council Action 11/18: Watson /Clevenger moved to approve Negative Declaration. Passed 3 -2 (Mallory, Jensen abstained). Callon/Watson moved to grant appeal and approve tentative map subject to conditions outlined. Passed 3 -2 (Mallory, Jensen opposes). October 29, 1981 Mayor Callan & Councilpersons 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, Ca., 95070 Dear Mayor Callan: As you Cnow on September 2, 1981, the City Council of Saratoga voted to change the Zoninq of the southern Brookwood Lane property (SDR -1478) from Parkland to R -1 Zoninq. At that time 19 persons had signed a petition requestinq the City not to purchase land adjacent to Wildwood Park and to re- designate the Johnston propoerty on Brookwood Lane to R -1. The-Council then referred the 3 way split proposal to the Planning Commission. Barbara Sampson testified for the City Parks that the Parks do not want any said lands of Johnston. On Oct. 3rd, 1981, the planninq. commission viewed the proposal site. On Oct, 14th, the Planning commission met with an open herring. At that time I got the feeling that the planning commission was generally in favor of the split but they wanted 1. an additional letter from the Water District and 2. a hold harmless clause. Acurious note is that the staff recommended a negative declaration but wrote the specific conditions: A. Dedicate floodway along enire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley Water District shown on letter map dated 9/18/78. B. Dedicate flood plain along entire creek floodway to City of Saratoga. We have-no problem with the first condition. The second condition however, requires that we dedicate over three - fourths of the property to the City. When I asked the commission what they meantby this, there was confusion among the staff and. commission. The last Oct 9, removed the condition B as above however the commission flatly turned us down for a 3 -way split. When the chairperson asked the commission to give us some direction, one commissioner said "I think the bottom'. line here is that the general consensus of this commission is that we want this land for open space" (Said in effect if not actual word for word). I think this is contrary to the City Councils Decision of taking the parcel out of parkland status and I request an appeal at the City Council Meeting at the earliest date possible. Attached: Petition. David Johnston IF-or Charles Johnstoi Lp O -T 2 91981 ' :.. - August 28, 1981 t To Mayor Callon and Council.persons „ 13777 Fruitvale - Saratoga, CA 95070 We the undersigned hereby petition the City of Saratoga not: to purchase lands adjacent to Wildwood Park for purposes of expanding the park or providing parking for downtown purposes... Furthermore we the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga to ' re- designate the Johnston property on Brookwood Lane from park- 78 land back t i s original zoning of R -1. 86'J -72- OG .2- _ 1,2 To: Mayor Callon and Councilpersons I... We the undersigned hereby. petition the City of Saratoga NOT to purchase lands adjacent to Wildwood Park for purposes of expanding the park or providing parking for downtown purpose. Futhermore we the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga to re- designate the Johnston propoerty on Brookwood Lane from parkland to its original zoning of R -1. CD. e ZC6 It �r � Y � Ca+he�ir�e L.Datle d1471 ra -9 C y 2 U sSQ �-UO 4Z 4� .. S4t4 Arv ti i0 �hc�ajLn n -�8 e Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 C Page 10 A -790 (cont.) of the plans. He stated that in his judgment the applicant will have to go through the same process over again. He added that the item could not be continued to a date certain because the date of the revised plans is not known. It was determined that this matter should be reagendized_a�d renoticed at a future date. 7a. ,fXle at`ive Declaration SDR -1478 - Thompkins $ Associates (Johnston) SDR -1478 - Thompkins F, Associates (Johnston), Request for Tentative Build- Site Approval for a three -lot subdivision on the southern side of Brookwood Lane Staff gave the history of the project. They stated that the area is recently subject to a modification of the General Plan, and they des- cribed the present proposal. Staff commented that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has suggested that there needs to be protection against the to floor, and they have proposed four different methods of providing that protection. Discussion followed on these methods. Staff indicated that they were recommending that this matter be continued to the October 28th meeting, in order to allow receipt of written comments from the Water District. Discussion followed on the natural berm on the property. The public hearing was opened at 11:17 p.m. Bob Peck, representing the applicant, discussed the berm and stated that the Water District had indicated in all of their correspondence that they did not want any fill, and if the berm were built up along the creek that would be considered fill. Mr. Peck discussed the combination of the methods suggested by the Water District. Jitta Cymbal, representing liestfall Engineers, discussed a flood insurance study done by Nolte Engineering, which discussed figures for the whole creek. Commissioner Crowther asked if they had estimated what the uncer- tainty is in the 100 -year flood. Ms. Cymbal indicated that it usually is very small, especially when you get to the longer frequency floods; the error then becomes less significant. Chairman Laden stated that the issues that need to be addressed are: (1) A written document from the Water District before the Commission makes a decision, and (2) Does the Commission want this kind of development, this kind of berming? (3) The access of the third lot off of the road. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he feels that the access could potentially be a problem, and he feels the Commission has to be consistent. He added that he feels the Commission needs to look at other projects on Marion Roads, some of the developments we anticipate on this street, and what the Commission would like to do in other areas of Saratoga. He also noted concern about the turnaround. Commissioner Zambetti stated he would like something in writing from the Flood Control District. He added that he was concerned about the berm and tree loss, and would like to see some raising of the pads rather than extensive berming. Staff explained that one of the three lots has an existing home on it, which is on a slah foundation. They commented that to raise that home will be very difficult, if not impossible. Staff stated that if the determination is to build up the pads on the other two lots, there would still have to be some berming done around that existing house to protect it. Dave Johnston, the applicant, discussed the 'SS flood, and indicated that they then built a substantial stone wall and were better prenared for a second flood in 163. He stated that he did not feel that the problem exists now that did 20 -25 years ago re flooding. Commissioner Bolger stated that he had a problem since it appears there is no secondary access to Brookwood Lane except through Wildwood Park. - 10 - \l Planning Commission Page 11 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 SDR -1478 (cont.) Discussion followed on the dedication of the flood plain to the City. It was noted that the General Plan change by the City Council puts the area which was the total dedication of the Water District into a con - servation area. Ms. Cymbal noted that the Flood Control has seen the plans that are in front of the Commission. She stated that they would have to get approval from the Control for the type of construction, after the Commission has approved the Building Site Approval. She noted that the Flood Control will be specifying what type of berm, what kind of fill, etc., and will be reviewing the construction drawings. Chairman Laden stated that the Commission would like some word from the Flood Control that they approve of the plans, and that they feel that the way this berm is to be constructed will in fact resolve the problem. Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt the combination of berm and raising pads would be the best solution. He asked if there was any way to write a hold - harmless agreement with regard to the flooding issue. The Deputy City Attorney stated that there have been hold - harmless agree - ments in connection with geologic conditions, and he felt the same could be done with respect to flood conditions. He stated'that he would recom- mend that as a condition on any future development here. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would be in favor of this subdivision of land, provided that the requirements of the Flood District can be met in a way that is appropriate from the Commission's viewpoint of developing the property. Commissioner Monia stated that he would prefer to see the houses elevated, and he does have some concern about whether the berms are going to have a long range damaging effect on the trees. Mr. Peck stated that they were trying to save trees.also, and by using a combination of methods, the mound around the house will be reduced sig- nificantly. Mr. Johnston asked for a clarification regarding the dedication. It was clarified that the area between the berm and the area that the Flood Control is asking for would go into a conservation area. The Deputy City Attorney stated that if this area were an easement it would be owned by the property pwner, but it would be restricted as to any use or develop - ment and would have to be kept for conservation purposes. Mr. Johnston stated that he felt the easement requirement by the Water District would be sufficient for any municipal public works or water works function. He commented that what the residents of that street do, not want to see is a • walkway or an addition to the park. Chairman Laden commented that she" did not think that was contemplated. Staff stated that they felt the City Council did in fact wish to retain and created the conservation designation on there for the very purpose of allowing some of these uses between the actual creek and the berm. The Deputy City Attorney noted that the condition from the Santa Clara Valley Water District is to dedi- cate flood plain. He stated that he interprets the word "dedicate" as implying something akin to a street and not simply an easement. Chair- man Laden commented that the decision would be at the Council level; not at the Commission level. It was directed that this matter be continued to the October 28, 1981 meeting. 8a. Negative Declaration SDR -1506 Ralph Renna (LaGui.sa) 8b. SDR -1506 - R. Renna (LaGuisa), Request for Tentative Building Site 8c. A -789 - Approval and Design Review Approval to allow the construc- tion of a single -story structure over 22' in height (22'6 ") in an in -fill situation at 15041 Sobey Road Staff described the proposal and stated that they were recommending Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10/28/81 UNAPPROVED SDR - -1478 Thompkins & Associates (Johnston), Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a three -lot subdivision on the southern side of Brookwood Lane; continued from October 14. 1981 Staff reviewed the current proposal. They stated that the property is entirely within the to flood area and there would be a need to provide for the protection of the proposed structures against that flooding condition. They indicated that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has provided a series of four potential solutions. The possible solutions and combinations were discussed. Staff commented that this property takes access from the end of Brookwood, which is a private road, and there are two exceptions relating to access which need to be made in order to develop the property further: (1) a cul -de -sac length exceeding 400 ft., and (2) connecting a minimum access road to a cul -de -sac. Staff stated that they were recommending approval of development subject to the Staff Report and, after review of the two alternatives, they feel that the berm - ing of the entire site would be a.more logical development of the property, if the property is to be developed. Staff indicated that they had discussed the possibility of using the natural berming with the Water District, and the Water District had indicated that the existing berm is not high enough to protect the pro- perty, and they would like the berm outside�of their right -of -way. Staff commented that, at this time; they did not know of any proposal for the Water District to straighten, deepen or line the channel; however, they may be planning to do something in the future. Commissioner Crowther commented that he is concerned that the berming would restrict the channel and make it narrower and, since the flow of water is going to stay the same, there would be greater elevation. Staff com- mented that the Water District did not feel that that elevation would be significant. The public hearing was opened at 10:09 p.m. Bob Peck, representing the applicant, stated that it was the applicant's thought to leave the option of using the berm, a combination, etc., up to the Commission. He indicated that they had completed studies that the Commission had requested on the combination of the four methods and the Water District has indicated that that would be a viable solution. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern about relying on just the berm because if there was failure of the berm it could destroy the structures. He stated that he would be inclined to require both the elevation of the structure and the berm just as backup protection. Mr. Peck indicated that they had done a study on the removal of trees, and it appears that the highest number of trees would be removed by the berm and the combination of all four methods would save the most trees. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10/28/81 SDR -1478 (cont.) Jitta Cymbal, the engineer, stated the trees to some extent, but not the removal of trees. Page 2 that the berm can meander between completely. Discussion followed on Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see a hold - harmless agreement with regards to the flooding. He added that he would like to see a general overall condition in the Staff Report, stating that the homes be constructed to protect the structures and the residences from flooding. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he concurred with.the condition of a hold harmless agreement. He added that he felt there should be some notation on the map advising people that they are in a flood area. Mr. Peck commented that a disclosure statement must be used to inform anyone looking at the property that it is in a flood .zone, and it will be acknowledged in the sales-contract. The Deputy City Attorney commented that he would'suggest that'`the flood zone information be made a.matter of public record to any buyer. He added that, if the Commission approves.the project, there should be some finding with respect to the exercise of their discretion to allow a mini- mum access road entering onto a cul -de -sac. He explained that the ordi- nance would require some finding that, by reason of constraints of the site or other circumstances, it would justify departure from what is the normal standard referenced in Section 23.2 -1 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Discussion followed on the alternatives. Commissioner Monia stated that he would have a problem with an 8 ft. elevation on a home and, therefore, would opt for berming. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would favor the method that would lose less trees. Ms. Cymbal, the engineer, discussed the options. She stated.that they were not proposing the option with a 8 ft. elevation because of the visual impact. Commissioner King commented that he felt Alternate B, with partial berm and partial pad, appears to be a better solution with less damage to the site in general, and still gives protection to future homeowners. Commissioner. Bolger stated that he feels that there are issues that are not in compliance with the 1974 General Plan, that of public safety as well as environmental damage. He added that there is also a situation which is not in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the access on a cul -de -sac which shows more than 400"ft; therefore, he is very troubled about developing this parcel. Commissioner King moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1478. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Schaefer, Crowther, Bolger and Monia dissenting. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10/28/81 SDR -1478 (cont.) Page 3 The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission should give the applicant some direction regarding their feeling with respect to the tentative map. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would want to see additional pro- tection. He added that he would like an elevation of the pad at 4 ft. along with the berm. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he thought the Council had given direction that they would like to see three homes on this property; however, it does have the cul -de -sac problem. He stated that he felt it is up to the City Council to decide if they want to purchase the property or if they want to allow the houses on it. Commissioner Bolger stated that he feels the public safety aspect must be addressed. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt the safety factor was an issue. In addition, he added, he is not sure that the Council really understands the problems of building on this site and he feels the matter should go back to them. He stated that he would support the berm concept but is concerned about the removal of trees. Commissioner Schaefer stated that.she is concerned about minimum access, general safety, and building on a flood plain. The Deputy City Attorney stated that there should be a motion on this matter, in the event the applicant wishes to appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Bolger moved to deny SDR -1478, based upon the findings expressed by the Commission. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners King and Zambetti dissenting. RECEIVED ',�` 157€3 Santa Clara Val �e �, ater District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 September 18, 1978 Mr. Rob Robinson Acting Director of Planning City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attention Ms. Kathy Kerdus, Planner I Dear Mr. Robinson: This is in reference to your letter of July 17, 1978 regarding a tentative map for Dr. Charles Johnson, File No. SDR -1381, which is adjacent to.Brookwood Lane and Saratoga Creek. A major portion of the area is subject to flooding from the 1% flood on Saratoga Creek, generally, as shown on the attached map. The District will need a right of way to properly maintain the creek. This area is shown on the attached map. We request that this right of way be transferred to the District. Because Brookwood Lane is a private street at this site, we also re- quest ingress and egress easement on Brookwood Lane. Please have the developer contact Mr. Don Lawrie of our Real Estate Division regarding this matter. Flood water surface elevations are shown on the map. We recommend that any buildings constructed on Parcels A, B or D be placed on compacted fill at least one foot higher than the elevations shown.. We also recommend that this fill extend a minimum of 25 feet from the building perimeter. There should be no fill or improvements of any kind in the proposed District right of way. It would be desirable to incorporate the site's drainage into an existing storm drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, please have it designed to serve the general area to minimize the number of future outfalls needed. Please furnish outfall structure details for our review and issuance of a permit prior to advertising for construction. Design guides for outfalls will be furnished upon request. AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Revised DN122181/9/81 Commission Meeting: 10/14/81 SUBJECT* SDR -1478 - Thompkins & Associates (Johnston), Brookwood Lane Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 Lots ------------------------------------------------------ REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval for 3 lots. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. PUBLIC NOTICING: A notice was placed in the Saratoga News, the site posted, and mailings have been sent to approximately 240 property owners within the 500' radius. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential and Conservation Ease- ment (in Flood Way Area). ZONING: R -1- 15,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential to the north, park to the west, and commercial south and easterly. SITE SIZE: SITE SLOPE: 2.96 acres 4° 0 STAFF ANALYSIS: The project involves splitting a 2.96 acre site adjacent to Saratoga Creek into 3 lots. One house and several accessory structures, and many significant trees are located throughout the site. Access to the site is presently a private road. Staff recarnnendations include dedication and improvement to public street standards. The minimum access road off of a cul-de-sac requires an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance per Section 23.2 -1: "Neither a minimum access street nor a corridor may connect to a public street at any portion of the turnaround space of a cul -de- sac." The Camdssion may exercise reasonable discretion to require such a deviation. Most of the subject property is located within the 100 year flood plain area. * In order to allow any develognent of the site, the SCVWD has suggested four alternative solutions (see letter attached dated June 12, 1980, and further explained as you requested in their letter dated October 22, 1981). The raising Report to Planning Commis n ( 10/9/81 t \ SDR -1478 , Page 2 of the perimeter or first floor alternatives would place the under floor elevations up to 8 feet above existing grade. This would involve raising of the existing home which is not contemplated by the applicant. The berm proposal has been that most discussed, however, the LDC was concerned about its consistency with the General Plan statement "Conserve natural vegatative and topographic features which exist in Saratoga..." and the Planning Commission Committee -of- the -Whole expressed an interest in checking the possibility of the flood debris presently surrounding the creek to act as the berm. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has requested a formal letter and a more accurate map in.order to check this out as well as suggesting other potential options. Attached are the previous letters from SCWVD on the site. The Parks & Recreation Commission has reviewed the site and their recommendations are attached. * Since the existing cul -de -sac exceeds the Subdivision Ordinance's provision for the maximum length of a cul -de -sac to be 400' a finding will be necessary that the proposal is the "only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned." PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: September 29, 1981. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1478 (Exhibit "B" filed October 29, 1980) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval (Currently $720. /Lot). B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 foot Half- Street on Brookwood. D. Improve Brookwood to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed structural Section 15 feet between centerline and flowline plus S' nn --i r1P of r Pntnr1 i n.- _ _ III. Re-port to Planning Commis $% Ti SDR -1478 10/9/81 C , Page 3 2. Construct full Standard turn around at end of Brookwood Lane. 3. Asphalt Concrete Berm. 4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Pulic Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse,including the following: 1. :Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. F. Construct Access Road 18 feet wide plus 1 feet Shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Brookwood to within 100 feet of proposed dwelling. G. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. H. Construct Driveway Approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. Aggregate Base. I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements 2. Storm Drain Construction 3. Access Road Construction M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. O. Comply with Standard Engineering conditions. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Foundation investigation required prior to building permits. Applicant's geotechnical consultant should speak to all matters that may be affected by or have effect on the proposed development. B. A grading plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permits. (It is suggested this plan be prepared by a licensed engineer or architect). Report to Planning Commis :z SDR -1478 10/9/81 Page 4 This plan is to be accurate to within +0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to allow accurate determination of slopes, cut & fill quantities and limits of granding /excavation. Cross - sections & calculations shall be submitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance with City grading ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report. C. All engineering structure /components, foundations and retaining walls over 3 feet in face height shall be designed by a registered civil engineer. D. A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to final approval. This plan should address all potential runoff reaching, created by, and leaving the site (including water from paved and roof areas). Plan shall shown method of collecting, carrying and disposing of all such water. Water shall not be directed onto adjacent private property without proper authority (existing natural water - course, private storm drain easement, etc.). E. Existing structures on property shall be either removed or brought to code. F. Miscellaneous debris and materials shall be removed from site prior to building permits. G. A 6' high chain -link fence or equivalent shall be constructed along common property line with park. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated November 4, 1980. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 12�% to 15% shall be surfaced using 23,� :,inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17�% shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. B. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 foot inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building pains. C. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. D. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. Report to Planning Commi ,n C 10/9/81 SDR -1478 Page 5 E. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. - F. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meet Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. G. Driveway plans to be approved by the Saratoga Fire District prior to issuance of permits. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPAR`I'M= A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Dedicate property, a minimum of 65' from centerline as required by SCVh`D, * along entire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley Water District and /or the City of Saratoga. * B. Incorporate the site's drainage into the existing storm drainage system. Outfall structure details to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit issuance prior to Final Approval. * C.. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accordance with sheets 20 -20B of said agency. Details of grading to include the cross - sectional view at the right -of -way and.are to be shown on the Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit issuance prior to construction. * D. No fill or improvements to be placed on the proposed dedications. Comply with requirements of SCVWD and City of Saratoga to allow development of property presently in flood plain area prior to issuance of building permits. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Design Review of conceptual grading for site development required prior to Final Approval. C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. D. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. Report to Planning Commis( •n SDR -1478 IX. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION A. No direct access allowed'between subject property and Wildwood Park. 10/9/81 Page 6 B. Appropriate fencing between the Park and site to be in place prior to issuance of any Occupancy Permit. C. Comply with letter from the Secretary of the Parks & Recreation Comnission dated 10/6/81. A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved KK /dra P. C. Agenda: 10/14/81 Kath Ke , Assistant Planner October 22, 1981 Ms. Kathy Kerdus Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Kathy: Subject: SDR 1478 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 ,; Following are answers to questions in your letter of October 16, 1981. The basic F.I.A. requirement is that the first floor be above the l% flood level. In this case we recommend the first floor be one foot above the 1% flood level in order to allow one foot of freeboard. The house should also be designed to be structurally stable considering the erosion and loading that may be caused by the flood waters. A combination of the options proposed in our letter of June 12, 1980 may be used, however, there may still be flood insurance costs under some options. The F.I.A. should be able to advise regarding this matter. The berm should be outside the proposed District right of way. Its height should be at least one foot above the 1% flood level. There should be some provision to drain the water that would collect in back of the berm. It should be structurally stable. The berm may be created out of compacted earth. or any other material that would keep out the water and also be structurally stable such as concrete, asphalt,etc. Sincerely yours- W. F. Car -sen Division Engineer Design Coordination Division cc: Mr. Robert S. Shook, Director of Public Works, Saratoga Westfall Engineers, 14583 Big Basin Way, Saratoga CA 95070 Mr. Woodruff Tompkins, 173 Eunice Ave., Mountain View CA 94040 Dr. C. L. & Mrs. J. M. Johnston, 14320 Springer Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER November 10, 1980 FM #rl Ms. Kathy Kerdus Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Kathy: Subject: SDR -1478 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 RECE VJED€ 1103'9 13 1S80 This is in reference to the tentative map for Thompkins and Associates which is adjacent to Brookwood Lane and Saratoga Creek. The proposed easement to the District is satisfactory. We assume from the map that a berm is to be installed around the development to provide flood protection. This is satisfactory, however, there should be no fill in the proposed District easement. We will need to review detailed grading plans of this berm. Brookwood Lane is a private street at this site and we therefore also request an ingress and egress easement on Brookwood Lane. Please have the developer contact Mr. Don Lawrie of our Real Estate Division regarding the right of way transfer. It would be desirable to incorporate the site's drainage into an existing storm drain- age system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, please have it designed to serve the general area to minimize the number of future outfalls needed. Please furnish outfall structure details for our review and issuance of a permit prior to advertising for construction. Design guides for outfalls will be furnished upon request. In accordance with District Ordinance 75 -6, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans and inform us regarding their proposed use. Please contact Mr. Zozaya at 299 -2454 for information about well permits. Please send final plans for our review Sig} • ere � r /W Car s n > Division Engineer Design Coordination Division and issuance of a permit. cc: Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Public Works, Saratoga Westfall Engineers 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, California 95070 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Mr. Woodruff Tompkins 173 Eunice Avenue Mountain View, California 94040 Dr. C.L. $ Mrs. J.M. Johnston 14320 Springer Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 June 12, 1980 Mr. Rowan S. Robinson Director of Planning City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson: 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY\ SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265- 2600�� We have been asked by Mr. W. W. Tompkins, who is proposing to develop the Johnson property, (Saratoga File Number SDR -1381) to furnish a letter describing methods of solving the flood problems on this property that would be acceptable to our District. The basic requirement of the Federal Insurance Administration is that the first floor of structures be above the 1% flood level. In this case, we would recommend that the first floor or dike be at least one foot above the 1% flood levels in order to allow for any future increases in flood levels. The District also recommends that any flood protection work be done so as not to significantly increase flood levels on other property'. The attached map shows the proposed District right of way through this property. No significant increase in the 1% flood level will occur as long as there is no fill placed in this right of way. Houses can be protected from flooding by several methods. Following are four of the most common methods, all of which are acceptable to our District: 1. Raise the perimeter house foundation so that the first floor is one foot above the 1% flood level. Design the foundation for flood water loading condition. 2. Raise the first floor to be one foot above the 1% flood level by building the house on a pole -type foundation. AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Mr. Rowan S. Robinson K June 12, 1980 3. Raise the first floor to be one foot above the 1% flood level by building a standard concrete perimeter j foundation on compacted earth fill. Fill should extend at least 15 feet from the buildings. 4. Install a berm around the proposed development to keep the 1% flood away from the homes. We recommend the berm to be at least one foot higher than the 1% flood levels. The developer should furnish detailed plans for our review. Division Engineer Design Coordination Division Attachment: Marked Plan cc: Mr. W. W. Tompkins -w /attachment 173 Eunice Avenue Mountain View, California 94040 Mr. Robert S. Shook,- ,w /attachment Director of Public Works City of Saratoga Westfall Engineers -w /attachment 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, California 95070 Attention Mrs. Jitka Cymbol Mr. Donald Wimberly - w /attachment Director of Inspection Services City of Saratoga f Mr. Rob Robinson C -2- September 18, 1978 In accordance with District Ordinance 75 -6, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans and inform us regarding their proposed use. Please contact Mr. Zozaya at 299 -2454 for information about well permits. Because it can affect the operation and maintenance of the channel, we request that grading adjacent to the right of way be done in accordance with the enclosed Sheets 20 -20B. The details of the grading should include the cross - sectional view at the right of way and should be -shown on the improvement plans. Please send final plans for our review and issuance of a permit. Sincerely yours, o n L. Richards n Vesad, Project D velopment Branch ign n and Construction Enclosures: Excerpt from Tentative Map Grading Details cc: Mr. Robert S. Shook Director of Public Works City of Saratoga Westfall Engineers 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, California 95070 LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES DATE: Thursday, June 5, 1980 - 11:00 a.m. PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "' I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Committee Members Present Staff Members Present B. Minutes R. S. Shook, R. S. Robinson, Jr. and Commissioner .Laden K. Kerdus, D. Trinidad and D. Wimberly It was moved and seconded to waive the reading of the minutes of May 1S, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR -1392 - Wright and Company, Big Basin, Request for a One -Year Extension - 1 Lot; Continued from May 15, 19'80 Sheldon Ramsey, of Wright and Company, was present for the dis- cussion. Commissioner Laden asked Staff whether this was the first request for an extension and was given an affirmative answer. It was moved and seconded to extend SDR -1392 for an additional year, per the Staff Report dated August 2, 1979. The motion was carried unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. SDR -1460 - Tompkins Associates, Brookwood Lane, Preliminary Map Review - 3 lots; Continued from May 15, 1980 Mr. Woodrow Tompkins and Mr. Guthrie Schwarz were present for this discussion. Commissioner Laden requested that she be informed of the on -site visit that had occurred. The Committee explained that they had reviewed the impact of placing a public road on the site, particularly as it would remove several large trees. Additionally, Staff explained that they had reviewed the inundation line shown on the plan and felt that it did not conform to current City ordi- nances, and, therefore, a denial of the map would be recommended. A lengthy discussion followed on the possibilities of any structure on the lot given the flood line set by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Committee suggested that the information needed to be obtained from the Water District. The applicant's engineer, Jitka Cymbal, questioned the possibility of filling underneath the structure. She stated she was only referring to 3 to 4 ft. and then characterized the lot as a storage retention basin for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The LDC explained that they were very concerned about retaining the integrity of the site and felt that, although such a procedure had been done before, they felt it was not acceptable today. Commissioner Laden explained that the City, today, would be liable if the LDC knowingly allowed construction where the possibility of flooding was present. The applicant's engineer stated that the potential for flooding could be made part of the parcel map, and the LDC indicated that did not keep the City from being liable. Additionally, the applicant's engineer spoke of the improvements in the future that were planned - 1 - development Committ(e ting Minutes 6/S/80 IV. KK:cd SDR -1460 (cont.) CPage 2 ' by the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Saratoga Creek. However, at present no funds or initiative existed for the improvements. The Committee explained to the applicant again that they had no option but to deny the project unless the Santa Clara Valley Water District changed the flood plain line. Essentially the LDC was interested in retaining the integrity of the site and not visually impacting the area with houses on high pads. When the applicant's engineer asked whether the LDC would require the existing structure to be brought up to flood requirements, Staff responded that such was the case. In the end the LDC determined that they would be willing to give the development consideration if the solution did not destroy the property or create an aesthetic impact, and if it satisfied the Santa Clara Valley Water District by not decreasing the capacity of the creek. Commissioner Laden explained to the applicant that they did have an alternative to come in with the present tentative map and have it acted upon by the LDC and go through the appeal process with the City Council. The applicant indicated that they would continue to work on a solution. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. KVhy rdtfs Secret ry s '� / Staff explained that the applicant's representative, Sheldon F! Land Development Page 2 Committee Minutes 5/15/80 III. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR -1392 - Wright $ Co., Big Basin Request for a One -Year Extension, 1 Lot KK:cd - ... Staff explained that the applicant's representative, Sheldon Ramsey, had requested that this item be continued until the next meeting, in order for escrow to close. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting of June 5, 1980. B. 736- 23 -54- Tom Lauer, Sunset Drive, Review of County Tentative 79cc -79s - Map Application for 2 lots There was no one present for this discussion. The LDC reviewed Staff's memo on the item, particularly noting that under Saratoga standards the applicant would only be allowed one lot. Therefore, they requested that a resolution be sent to the County, recommending that the application be denied and brought before Saratoga. However, the proviso was to be added, stating that if the County continued with the application, then „• Saratoga's standard conditions were to be followed. The major point was that two lots would be inappropriate for the site. - C. 14111 Palomino, Mr, and Mrs. Rossi, Request for a Modification. to a Site Development Plan for a Swimming Pool A representative from the swimming pool company was present for the discussion. The LDC reviewed the plans submitted and dis- cussed the retaining wall at length. It was moved and seconded to approve the modification, per Exhibit "F ". The motion was carried unanimously. IV. COMMUNICATIONS A. SDR -1460 - Tompkins Associates, Brookwood Lane, Preliminary Map Review - 3 Lots Mr. Tompkins, Guthrie Swartz, and the engineer, Jitta Cymbal, were present for the discussion. The applicant presented plans showing a 3 -lot split on the subject site on Brookwood Lane with a public road. After reviewing the plan, Staff stated that there were no apparent violations of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Shook, looking at the proposed road plans, noted that a number of trees would have to be removed given a public road width. The LDC decided to meet on site on Thursday morning, May 22, 1980, to review the proposed map in the field. It was directed that this item be continued to the June 5, 1980 meeting. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. Kathy KP /17dus , Secretary KK:cd - ... t DATE: Thursday, May 1, 1980 - 9:00 a.m. - PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Committee Members Present: R. S. Shook, R. S. Robinson, Jr. and Commissioner Laden (arrived at 9:15 a.m.) Staff Members Present: K. Kerdus, D. Trinidad and D. Wimberly B. Minutes It was moved and seconded to waive the reading of the minutes of April 17, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS /SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR -1448 - Ronald Haas, Bainter and Austin Way, Tentative Build- ing Site Approval - 2 lots; continued from 4/17/80 Mr. Haas and Dave Call were present for the discussion. Staff explained that the changes had been made to the map per the request of the LDC at their last meeting. The public hearing was reopened at 9:05 a.m. Mr. Robinson requested that the two -story description of the residence be deleted. Additionally, Section A -A of the bridge was deleted, as well as Condition VIII -C, since there were no two stories now shown on the map. Mr. Shook detailed the enlarged area of the pavement that was to be removed. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. With the revisions and modifications noted, Mr. Robinson moved to approve SDR -1448. The motion was seconded, which was carried unanimously. At this point the applicant requested that Con- dition II -P be deleted. The LDC reviewed the condition, and it was moved and seconded to approve the request and delete this condition. The motion was carried unanimously. III. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR -1329 - Danforth Apker /Joe Krajeska, Vista Regina, Request for a One -Year Extension of Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 lots Mr. Krajeska was present for the discussion. Mr. Shook stated that it was his understanding that this body could not take action on this item. The City Council, at their next meeting, would be considering such approval and also had the authority to act on hardship considerations. It was directed that this item be referred to the City Council's next meeting. IV. COMMUNICATIONS A. SDR -1460 - Tompkins Associates, Brookwood Lane, Preliminary Map Review - 3 lots Mr. Woodrow Tompkins and his engineer, Jitta Cymbal, were present to LeS i �, Meeting S /1/80 , C Page 2 SDR -1460 (cont.) for the discussion. Staff explained that the applicant had submitted a preliminary map for three lots at the end of Brookwood Lane on a site zoned R -1- 15,000. The site had been looked at previously under SDR -1381, Charles Johnston. The proposal results in two corridor lots taking access from a cul -de -sac, which is not allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr, Trinidad explained that the intent of that portion of the ordinance had been to discourage parking on street. There was a general discussion.of whether the property lines could be gerrymandered to meet the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Tompkins felt he could present such a map and Mr. Shook requested that he do so. If such a plan were presented to Staff and met their concerns, it was directed that the map be sent to the agencies for conditioning. It was moved and seconded to approve the idea of a common driveway in concept. The motion was carried unani- mously. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting of May 15, 1980. V. ADJOURNMENT The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, which was carried unanimously. KK:cd Kat y Ker us; Secretary I;77%-n (� X'ile No: SDR- 14.78 Saratoga DECLATUM011 TIIAT 1]MVTRO ?I1_1%NTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED � (Negativc'Dcclarat-ion) Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Thc undcr.sicned, Director of Planning and" Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATO13A, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental -Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030 through 15023 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project involves splitting a 2.96 acre site'on Brookwood Lane in the-R-1-15,000 zoning district into 3 lots. Presently one• residence exists on the site, along with several.accessory structures. Saratoga Creek is located on the eastern border of the parcel and most 'of the site is in the 1000 flood area. EIAME AM ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Dr. Charles Johnston 20.611 Brookwood Lane RE7LSON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Saratoga, CA. 95070 The project should not have a negative impact on the environment when reviewed -and approved by the various agencies, including the Santa Clara•.Valley Water District in combination with the City's aesthetic concerns.. It is now.in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning.Ordinance. No-tree removals are being granted with this application -- owners would be subject to the .Tree Removal Ordinance. Executed at Saratoga, California this 29th day of - September 19 81 Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development DIRECTOR'S AUT!IORIZED STAFF t11�lI3LR f�'�i1EMOO RANDLINi1 i 09'XW O:T ° ° 00(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 . TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1981 FROM: SECRETARY, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SUBJECT: JOHNSTON PARCEL - BROOKWOOD DRIVE The Parks and Recreation Commission, at their regular meeting on October 5, 1981, reviewed various proposals to provide the appropriate buffer between Wildwood Park and the adjacent potential private residence on Parcel 1 of the Johnston.development. Proposals were presented by Bob Peck of the White Company, representing Dr. Johnston. The Parks and Recreation Commission feels there are two distinct issues to be resolved:. The first being a complete visual block from the park to the private property and the second being an effective sound barrier. After considerable discussion of the alternatives, the Commission recommends that: 1) The City's chain link fence remain. 2) The developer install an eight foot fence which is to be made of concrete, reinforced filled cinder block or pre- formed concrete. 3) The developer berme the residential side up to four feet high so that only four feet of the fence will be visible to the residents. 4) That the berme be landscaped to not only help hold it in place but to provide a more pleasing asthetic appearance. 5) The width between the City fence and the private fence be a minimum of three feet to a maximum of five feet. 6) The fence be eight feet high primarily in the area from 15 feet south of the permanent barbeque to the northern property line in order to provide the barrier necessary for the active group picnic area and restroom area. 7) All pines along the border to remain if possible. The Commission also recommends the City control the architectural design and window placement of any proposed residential structure so the resident will not be further impacted by sight lines or noise from the Park. Planning Commission October 6, 1981 Page Two It is possible the City may wish to provide further landscaping between the City and private fence, but the Commission's primary interest is a visual and sound barrier, not necessarily the appearance from the Park side. The Commission specifically recommended the dimensions listed in Item 5 for a minimum of three feet to a maximum of five feet between the fences so that; 1) an individual could get between the fences in order to do the maintenance and 2) the distance may eliminate the potential for graffiti being written on the Park side of the cement fence. The Parks and Recreation Commission also requests to review any actual proposed plan prior to tentative map approval being granted. /J,Jv ' C5; Barbara Sampson, Secretary Parks and Recreation Commission cc: Bob Peck, The White Company RESOLUTION NO. SDR - 1478 -1 C. RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF THOMPKINS AND ASSOCIATES (JOHNSTON) WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 3 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR- -1478 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is not compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan. WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the XEXRX (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project.in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEOA, and WHEREAS, the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) and (b) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should not be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 29th. day of October . 19 81, and is marked Exhibit 11B" in the hereinabove referred to file be and the same is/hereby denied. The rationale of said denial is. as more particularly set ,forth on Exhibit !IA" attached hereto and incorporated herein be reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the (Planning Commission) at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of October 19 81, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Monia and Schaefer NOES: Commissioners King and Zambetti. ABSENT: Commissioner Laden ATTEST: V'J Secretary, P anning Com fission ADVISORY AGENCY C ariman M I N U T E S SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, September 2, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Calif. TYPE: Regular Meeting COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 7:00 p.m. - Conference Roan #2, Administration Building Executive Session re: Meet and Confer Procedures REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, Mayor Callon. B. MINUTES - 8/19 JENSEN/MALLORY MOVED APPROVAL WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED BELOW. Passed 5 -6. p. 4, Para. 6: "not a strong argument for. "..changed to "any argument against." p. 4; Item B, para. 2: "15,000" changed to "15. housing." p. 5, para 8: "Neale" changed to "Steele." P. 8: Addendum on funding of 25th anniversary matters inserted. II. COMMUNICATIONS A. ORAL 1.. Introduction and welcome, Becky Morgan, Supervisor Fifth District Ms. Morgan noted that Saratoga was to be changed from the fourth to the fifth supervisorial district of the County, effective October 1. She explained that the intent of the several changes made was to place all of each cxmrnunity in one district, and this had been accomplished. City Manager presented a brief progress report on the budget for the fiscal year and the reorganization of City offices. B. WRITTEN Referred to Staff. " #2: MALLORY /CLEVENGER MOVED TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE LETTER F1OR MAYOR'S SIGNATURE SUPPORTING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF STANISLAUS COUNTY IN OPPOSITION TO PAROLE OF WILLIAM ARCHIE FAIN. Passed 5 -0. #3: CONSENSUS TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE REPORT FOR COUNCIL WITHIN 30 DAYS ON SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD RECalMEDED ACTION PLAN. NOTE: Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had been reached, the Mayor proceeded to Public Hearings. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81 -2 (a) - BROOKWOOD LANE (APN 503- 23 -38) and 81 -2 (b) - HINCKS ESTATE (APN 517 -13 -14 and 517- 13 -15) City Manager reviewed history of amendments, noting that they had been initiated as City - proposed actions. Discussion began with Brookwood Lane area. Planning Director gave further details, with particular attention to areas designated flood plain and flood ways. C 2- 9/2/81 City Manager noted that the ownership of the property was not in question, but only removal of the parksite designation and possible alternative use of the property. In the past the City had not designated flood areas on the General Plan which are not appropriate for development for safety reasons, he said, and that should be done. He then explained that after a General Plan designation is changed the zoning designation can be changed. Councilmember Jensen inquired as to flooding possibilities, and Planning Director and City Manager explained method of measuring flood height. She then inquired as to density permitted under "very low density residential," and Planning Director replied that it would be six units per acre, noting that the easement must be calculated into the acreage for density purposes. Councilmember Jensen stated that if even one unit were built it would be in a flood area. She favored keeping as low density as.possible to minimize impact on the neighbors. City Manager pointed out that if the Council changed the General Plan desig- nation, they could put conditions on the zoning to reduce the density. He further explained the difference between flood plain and flood way, and stated that the Federal Government suggests allowing development in flood plain areas that are properly protected. Discussion continued with Hincks Estate. Planning Director explained slope and density factors, noting that lack of secondary access and water were problems, as well as geology, which would be reviewed by the City Geologist. He also explained that the Council could initiate rezoning. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee had determined that the Council should decide what the zoning shouu d he on the. Brookwood property and should consider applying Measure A sta arils to the Hincks Estate. Councilmember Clevenger inquired as to access problems, and Planning Director stated that property is accessed by Bohlman Road. Community Services Director explained that it had been claimed that an easement had been given in 1892, but it was not certain whether it still applied. Councilmember Mallory stated that he was most concerned about the aesthetics of Hakone and the impact of any development; he wanted no residential development because of possible noise and visual impact. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m., beginning with the Brookwood Lane property. Bob Peck, Douglass Lane, spoke as a representative of Dr. Johnston. He stated that Dr. Johnston had a deep interest in the property and had planted most of the trees that were there, and he was not pressing for the maximum number of subdivisions. He noted that the "C" zoning was a concern and that the General Plan Advisory Committee had been concerned about the crime problem in Wildwood Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission did not want the property because, he said, it could not be properly patrolled. He also asserted that the house presently there had not been damaged by heavy floods. In response to Mayor Callon, Mr. Peck stated that a "C" designation would increase problems at the tentative map stage. Councilmember Watson noted that "C" designation did not mean trails would go in. City Manager added that City could require dedication of easement, but that would be choice of Council. Use of property would be determined based on review of development. The area indicated in green on the map cannot be developed under the City's flood control agreement, and that should be made clear, he said. Dave Johnston, representing his father, Dr. Johnston, supported the General Plan Amendment. He presented a petition urging the City not to purchase the land adjacent to Wildwood Park. He stated that flooding was not currently a problem, and that past problems had been caused by dumping from the County gravel pit. City Manager listed years of worst flooding according to news- paper reports of damage. Mrs. Johnston them spoke in support of the Amendment, discussing several ways to control flooding. She also stated that if the amendment were approved outbuildings would be cleared, the present house sold, and two additional hones built. '2/81 Mike Johnston, another son of Dr. Johnston, spoke in support of the amend- ment. He considered development a means of allowing other families to enjoy the same pleasures his family had enjoyed in their years there. Community Services Director reiterated that the Parks and Recreation Commission had not requested any additional property for trails or other purposes for reasons of safety and surveillance. The City property line is fenced, she said, and there have been no canplaints from citizens for over one year. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Lane, spoke as a friend of Dr. Johnston, saying he felt parks created problems, and the area should be developed. Councilmembers discussed their individual opinions as to width and desig- nation of a possible buffer area, density, problems involved in the City's possible purchase of the area, and effect on crime of the alternatives. The Public Hearing remained open, and discussion of the Hincks property began. Cliff Beck, an owner of the property, stated that nine lots had been indicated on the preliminary tentative map, of which one had been reserved for City use if needed. Mr. Beck and Planning Director discussed the amount of acreage involved, about 16 acres. Mr. Beck stated that he was having, a soils report prepared and would deal with any problems that arose, although a large portion of the property was on limestone. He also stated that he would defend his recorded right- of-way through Hakone Gardens. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. Councilmembers discussed their individual opinions, including the fact that the General Plan Advisory Committee had suggested that the Hincks estate be subject to the criteria of the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan. Mayor Callon asserted that R- 1- 40,000 development would be unacceptable, but that 11CRD or Hillside would be acceptable. City Manager explained that property could be added to the Specific Plan area. He also explained how the General Plan Amendments are counted within the limit of three per year, noting that the Specific Plan is not counted as an amendment. Planning Director noted that Slope Conservation would allow HCRD zoning. Mayor Callon stated that she thought the Slope Conservation designation was most appropriate and that the Planning Commission should be directed to consider rezoning the property to Measure A standards. Councilmember Jensen said that the Slope Conservation and Hillside designations still did not conform to the General Plan. City Attorney stated that there was not yet a General Plan designation for the Northwest Hillsides; Slope Conservation would be the only designation that would fit. City Attorney pointed out that if the Northwest Hillside desig- nation were placed on the map, the matter would have to be returned to the Planning Commission. He suggested that the resolution be amended to designate one portion of Brookwood Lane as Medium Density Residential and the other as "C;" most of the Hincks estate would be designated Slope Conservation. WATSON /CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1031 AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). WATSON /JENSEN MOVED THAT A 30' BUFFER BE INTENDED BETWEEN WILMM PARK AND THE DFVELOPMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SCREENING TO PRECLUDE VISUAL IMPACT ON THE PARK. Passed 5 -0. JENSEN /CLEVENGER MOVED TO DIRECT THE PLANNING OOMMISSION TO EURMALLY PROCEED WITH THE ZONING PROCESS FOR THE HINCKS PROPERTY AND THE REMAINING HCRD DISTRICT LANDS FROM R- 1- 40,000 TO THE APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION (HCRD OR MEASURE A) IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NORTHWEST HILTSIDE IF THE LAND IS IN CONFORMITY WITH LAND SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE NORTMEST HILLSIDE AND TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF SUITABILITY IN THE PROCESS. Passed 3 -1 -1 (Watson opposed; Mallory abstained). Councilmember Mallory explained that he was uncertain of the outcome of the process. Councilmember Watson stated that no more should be done at this point than encouraging the start of the process. Councilmonber Jensen moved to direct the Planning Commission to look at the Glen Una area in the same light. No second. Councilmetnber Clevenger asserted that the Glen Una matter was not the same as the present matter and should be left for another meeting. ft 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 0 November 3, 1981 Dr. Charles Johnston 20611 Brookwood Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Dr. Johnston: Thank you for your letter of October 29, 1981 concerning an appeal of Tentative Building Site denial by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981 (File SDR- 1478). Your check #1019, in. the amount of $30.00 for the appeal fee, has been received and the public hearing is set for November 18, 1981. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, "V Uobert S hook Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: /City Manager -,^-� �l Deputy City Clerk jutN ,�'-G� q Bob Peck, 14583 Bij Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 /0q October 29, 1981 Mayor Callan & Councilpersons 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, Ca., 95070 Dear Mayor Callan: As yo now on September 2, 1981, the City- ,Council of Saratoga voted u 2 to change the Zoning of the southern Brookwood Lane property (SDR -1478) from Parkland to R -1 Zoning. At that time 19 persons had signed a petition requesting the City not to purchase land adjacent to Wildwood Park and to re- designate the Johnston propoerty on Brookwood Lane to R -1. The Council then referred the 3 way split proposal to the Planning Commission. Barbara Sampson testified for the City Parks that the Parks do not want any said lands of Johnston. On Oct. 3rd, 1981, the planning commission viewed the proposal site. On Oct, 14th, the Planning commission met with an open herring. At that time I got the _feeling that the planning commission was generally in favor of the split but they wanted 1. an additional letter from the Water District and 2. a hold harmless clause. Acurious note is that the staff recommended a negative declaration but wrote the specific conditions: A. Dedicate floodway along enire creek frontage to Santa Clara Valley Water District shown on letter map dated 9/18/78. B. Dedicate flood plain along entire creek floodway to City of Saw-atoga,-- We have no problem with the first condition. The second condition however, requires that we dedicate over three - fourths of the property to the City. When I asked the commission what they meantby this, there was confusion-among the staff and commission. F�t.a� The last �MIEL__..__ Oct 9, removed the condition B as above however the commission flatly turned us down for a 3 -way split. When the chairperson asked the commission to give us some direction, one commissioner said "I think the boap}ri..` line here is that the general consensus of this commission is that we want this land for open space" (Said in effect if not actual word for word) . I think this is contrary to the City Councils Decision of taking the parcel out of parkland status and I request an appeal at the City Council Meeting at the earliest date possible. Attached: Petition. WOW ..W—+ David Johnst or Charles Johnston August 28, 1981 To Mayor Callon and Council.persons 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVE OCT 2 91961 We the undersigned hereby petition the City of Saratoga not to purchase lands adjacent to Wildwood Park for purposes of expanding the park or providing parking for downtown purposes. �32i Furthermore we the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga to re- designate the Johnston property on Brookwood Lane from park- land back t i original zoning of R - %1. 86.7 --72 7a' Z e-) O �O l /ls�lLG�is1 %!L✓l /�/� %17(�'� � /�rcC/O /ltii�c� {) L. N% J�`A���1 �f1 / ��% , �,,20 cr- LI G LC Lp G D G ST 291981 To: Mayor Callon and Councilpersons We the undersigned hereby, petition the City of Saratoga NOT to purchase lands adjacent to Wildwood Park for purposes of expanding the park or providing parking for downtown purposes. Futhermore we the undersigned petition the City of Saratoga to re- designate the Johnston propoerty on Brookwood Lane from parkland to its original zoning of R -1. . • �,•� . Nan r31c 2-C6 R a Ca.44nefri ne . Dat/ e% ob i a roo kwcx�d c�, SQ ra-h� c 1Q Y ' F n���ew,00c� Q CITY OF SNUU10GA Initial: AGENDA EiILL NO. Dept. i-kl. DATE: November 18, 1981 C. Atty DEPART,%=: Community Development C. Mgr. -------------------------------- ----------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- A eat on Denial of Modification of a Use Permit COndltl n at SUBJECT: 12700 Saratoga Avenue (UP -508), Appellant /Applicant: Saratoga __- __Foothills DevelUment_Cor� oration Issue Summary On October 14, 1981 the Planning Commission denied the request of the applicant to amend Condition 4 of UP- 353(a) to allow 12 senior citizens dwelling units to be sold and occupied by persons,.over 45 and above rather than the approved limit of 55 and above. The applicant feels that this act-ion would preclude further private financing of similar projects. Recommendation (1) Conduct a public hearing on the appeal. (2) Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny. (3) If the Council approves the appeal then positive findings should be made that the request complies with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the General. Plan. (4) Staff recommended denial to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments (1) Appeal Letter (2) Minutes of the September 9, 1981 and (3) Staff Reportsdated September 3, 1981 (4) Conditions of Approval for UP- 353(a) (5) Resolution UP -508 -1 (6) Correspondence Received on Project CiCouncil Action October 14, 1981 Commission meetings. and October 9, 1981 11/18: Jensen /Mallory moved to deny appeal. Passed 4 -1 (Callon opposed). Sar a h 00 ills DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1745 SARATOGA AVE., SUITE C • SAN JOSE, CA 95129 - (408) 253 -7050 October 16, 1981 Mike Flores Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mike: LZ We hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission made on October 14, 1981 on UP 508 in which they denied our request to reduce the age from 55 to 45 for one time only purchases at our Saratoga Parkside 72 unit retirement housing project on Saratoga Avenue. We agree with the Planning Commission that the financial health of the builder - developer should not be a criteria in making decisions of this kind. What should be considered are the social committments of the City of Saratoga, the needs of the citizens of Saratoga, and the desires of the residents in the project. The commissions reasoning that the 45 year age limit cen't be enforced doesn't hold water. It is no different from the .55 year age limit in terms of enforceability.. The action of the Planning Commission effectively precludes any future privately financed retirement housing. With the City unwilling to accept subsidized housing including rentals for families with children and with lack of available federal and state funds, there probably will not be any publicly financed retirement housing. There are four school sites and several other sites in the City which lend themselves to some form of retirement housing. Several of the Council members were quoted in the Sar- atoga News recently (clipping enclosed) as either supporting or considering retirement housing on these sites. Yet the general plan review committee has considered a policy of requiring all school sites to be R -1. I think all of this needs to be brought out in the public forum and our appeal is a good way to do this. As Saratogans age there will be increasing demand for alternate forms of housing in the City. Let this be a forum to determine if the citizens, including the Council, elderly and near elderly are willing to step up and clearly face the issue while we still have some land avail- able. Everywhere in this country from President Reagan on down is the in- creasing awareness that government can not do everything but that there should be a safety net for these who need help, witness the restoration of the minimum payments on Social Security yesterday. Saratoga should be ready to join the 80's. Yours sincerely, SARATOGA FOOTHILLS DEV. CORP. Jerome J. Lohr '7ZF?.- President JJL:ic Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9 /9/3.1 . -- - Page 2 A -786 (con .) - It was the c isensus of the Commission that the house was well - designed and on an appropri to piece of land. Commissioner Monia moved to approve A -786, per Exhi its "B ", "C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated September 2, 1981. Commis loner Crowther seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. UP -507 - G. Friedri h (Christopher), Request for a Use'Permit to allow the constructio of a detached solar accessory structure over 6' in height (9' m .) in the required rear yard at 19305 Zinfandel Court Staff reb rted that the applicant has requested withdrawal of this item. 3. UP -508 - S ratoga Foothills Development Corp., Request for a Use Permit to low Modification to Condition 4a of UP -353, which would lower the minimum age for occupants of a multi - family residential pro- ject from 55 to 45, at Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Avenue Staff gave a summary of this project. The letter from the applicant was referenced and the current proposal was described. Staff noted that the applicant states that the economic situation is the primary reason for this request. It was also noted that Staff is recommending that a subcommittee be formed to review this matter and return to the Commission with several alternatives that would be agreeable to all parties involved. A letter from Mrs. Mildred Gordon,-of the Senior Citizens Coordinating Council, was ;:3;ti:::'•_;s,. <> read into the record, which states that, she would be willing to participate in such a committee. Staff also commented that correspondence had been received in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Jerry Lohr, of Saratoga Foothills Corporation, gave a presentation on his current proposal. He discussed the various economic conditions which have led to his proposal. Mr. Lohr stated that he would accept the Staff's recommendation and be glad to participate in a committee to study the matter further. Discussion followed on the project and the current proposal Frank Perna, 18955 Palo Oaks Court, asked for clarification on the issue of right of first refusal. He also asked what the average age of the people who have right of: first refusal was, since he would be concerned about disposing of the senior citizens for which the project was built and opening it up to people who shouldn't be there. Mr. Lohr explained that the units that are first right of refusal. are not offered for sale and would not be included in this proposal. It was clari- fied that there are 21 units that are still vacated, and of those Mr. Lohr is asking that 15 be designated for sale to people 45 years of age and older. Mr. Lohr commented that the 13 units which have first right of refusal would be for sale at some future time when the interest rates are a little more reasonable. He indicated that the age of the people with first right of refusal is somewhere in the middle -upper 60's. Mr. Perna expressed his concern that, if the interest rates do not go down, the applicant will be asking for a lowering of age to 45 for the ri.ght of first refusal units also, and eventually they,will be occupied by young people instead of senior citizens. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the age limitation was set in the approval of this project and is not by ordinance. He explained that the applicant is asking for a modification of that approval. Staff commented that there is a requirement that Mr. Lohr.submit a report once a year to Staff, listing the age of the occupants of this project. Jim Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Court, stated that he is a board member of the Park Woods Homeowners Association. He addressed the reasons listed - 2 Planning Commission -Page 4 Meeting Minutes 9/9/81 (JP-508 (cont.) It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this matter to a study session on October 6th and the regular meeting on October 14, 1981. DESIGN REVIEW 4. A -777 - Quito. - Saratoga Center, DesiRi Review Approval Inc., Cox Avenue, Free - standing Sign, Final continued from August 26, 1981 Jim McLey, frot Cal -Neon Signs, described the proposal. Staff stated th t they feel that, in light of recent approvals that have been given comme cial signs, the replacement of the existing sign to a free- standing me ment type would be appropriate, and that is their recom- mendation. They ndicated that if the Commission agrees with the Staff recommendation, th applicant should be requested to submit a new plan. The Deputy City Att rney stated that the applicant's attorney has written a letter, taking the position that, while a permit may have been required for the erection of t e original sign, the scope of the design review would be limited only to th \nn py, not to the size of the sign. He stated that he does not necessarigree with the applicant's attorney that the ordi- nance is clear, that that we are looking at is the copy, but he is somewhat inclined to e with his conclusion. That conclusion is that at the time the sign was st approved and a permit was issued, it was found to be in compliance whe Sign Ordinance in terms of height and size. Ile stated that he is s d by Staff that the sign is still in compliance, to the extent that thib t of the sign does not violate the present ordinance, and the sif he sign and the copy is within the limits of the Sign Ordinance. dde that he, therefore, has some question as to whether the Commission in fact require as a condition of design review that the sign be lowe. He added that he feels that perhaps there is an inadequacy in the Sigdinan e, as opposed to extending the scope of design review. The Dt y Cit Attorney commented that this might be an indication of the neeor revi 'on in the ordinance, with a provision as the ordinance now has amorit zation of those signs which are then found to be nonconforming. ever, at the present time, this particular sign is not a nonconformine. George Lucas, the applicant, refere ced the attorney's letter. He commented that the sign blends in with the cen er, and at this time they are just talking about the sign copy itself. t was noted that a letter had been received from the Merchants Associati n, in favor of the proposal. Discussion followed on the size of the ign and the illumination, including the hours of operation of the illuminati n. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would be willing to approve the -i.gn, making the free - standing sign more in conformance with the others, per he Staff recommendation, which is for a low- standing monument sign. The Deputy City Attorney stated that, as he reads the ordinance, it seems to contemplate design review of an original, constructed sign, not something coming back for revision when the structure i already there. He stated that he would feel more comfortable, if the Commis on is unhappy with the size of the sign, to have them direct Staff to proc ed with an amendment to the Sign Ordinance, with such standards that the C mission might recommend. He added that, in that event, they could provide i the ordinance, as the present ordinance does, the requirement for removal of si gns after a certain period of time, as a nonconforming use. He indicated th t he does have some diffi- culty in requiring a change in the basic structur , as in this case, under circumstances where that structure per se is not i violation of the ordinance in terms of size or height, or in any oth r respect. Tile Deputy City Attorney stated that, regarding illumination, t e Commission can impose restrictions on hours of operation or perhaps intensity of illumination because it is a standard policy of the City. - 4 - `+*�C;`«. ;=+�g�'s,:a'ts�i a. tr- •- ��(`- .x14, -'' -1: Planning Commission ` \ Page 5 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 4. UP -508 - aratoga Foothills Development Corp., Request for a Use Permit to allow Modification to Condition 4a of UP -353, which would �ow er the minimum age for occupants of a multi - family residential /project from 55 to 45, at Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Avenue; continued from September 9, 1981 Staff described the current proposal. They commented that they feel that the City has worked with the applicant in granting the 37% density bonus and are therefore recommending denial of the request. The public hearing was reopened at 9:00 p.m. Jerry Lohr, the applicant, gave a presentation on the current proposal. He commented that the 72 units, which represents the 37% bonus, was strictly at the suggestion of the City Council and reflected the desire of Saratoga at that time to have some senior citizen rental units. He introduced Mr..3i1.1 Murphy, President of the Saratoga -Los Gatos Board of Realtors, who discussed the status of the real estate market. Mike Trapman, representing the homeowners of the project. indicated his group's support of-the project_ He amended his remarks in the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981, to read that the homeowners, not the City of Sara- toga or some other Government agency, are subsidizing the rental units required by the City of Saratoga. Mary Jean Van Peborgh, President of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, read a resolution into the record, stating that they remain firm in their support of the recognition of a continuing need for increasing the supply of suitably designed senior housing in Saratoga. It read that, while they are sympathetic to the position of the developer and views of the residents in Saratoga Parkside, they deem it best to take no position on this request, as they feel this is a decision to rightfully be made by the appointed Commissioners. Colonel Barco, 19101 Camino B,arco, stated that he feels that the applicant has.a.real prob.lem,.since the real estate market is so depressed, and at -the same-time-the-neighborhood has a great concern also. He stated that he feels the key to this issue is that the market demand determines what is going to be there, and the developer adjusts to that. He commented that he does not agree that there is a demand for senior citizen housing in Saratoga.at this time. Colone.l.Barco. commented that he felt the City should :either stick °to the -evntract as it -reads or throw it out altogether. He added that he felt-the applicant should work out the problem with the people .that .live there. Jim Russell., 12776 Saratoga Glen Court, stated that he was aboard member of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeside Association, and they had previously- expressed concerns over the changes that have been suggested. He listed specific concern about the potential increase in population and vehicle density, not just from this development, but the whole area. He commented that three cities, including Saratoga, have backed out on senior citizen housing that was government subsidized because HUD changed the ground rules. He added that this had a great impact on senior housing. Richard Martin, 13981 Pike Road, stated that he had addressed the Commission and Council a great deal on this subject when it was approved. He commented that he felt that the applicant was in the same position as other contrac- tors, and he did not feel this modification should be granted. Mr. Martin added that the Commission and City Council spent a lot of time setting up these conditions, and he did not feel they should be relaxed at this time. Bernard Turgeon, 12126 Atrium, stated that he was one of the partners in this partnership, and the City is the other partner. Ile commented that they had entered into a partnership on a social experiment with the City, in which they were to provide rental housing and it was to be subsidized by the profits from the larger units that would be built. Mr. , Turgeon reminded the Commission that they had asked the Commission what would happen if this +• 'nf ,max .n. _ ' �.' %:!- �r: -:. ,, � - ..i r� 'tl Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 C Page 6 UP -508 (cont.) social experiment got into trouble, and they were told that they should bring the Problem back to the Commission and it would be worked out. Mr. Turgeon explained that this social experiment is not working because of the economy. He added that he felt that what they were asking for ir•t',r.';5 %C. ?'C;;;;;;� was justified, and this modification will either solve the problem or they will have to do it all on their own. Mr. Turgeon commented that there are many buyers; however, the problem is that they can't sell their homes. He explained that this modification would help until the mortgage money is available again at decent rates. Peggy Corr, 19224 DeHaviland, stated that she has been involved for six years with the proposal for senior housing. She commented that she was on the City Council when the contract was made with the applicants. She stated that she feels that they provided something for the City that was very much needed and is still needed. Mrs. Corr added that, despite what has been said, she feels there is still a great demand for senior housing in Saratoga. She stated that she feels the only people who are really affected by this change would be the people who have already bought their homes in the project. She added that if they are agreeable-to the modifica- tion, Then-she feels the.City.should..consider their.feelings. Commissioner 7 ambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Turgeon had indicated that the real estate market is bad everywhere, and he is not convinced that this modification will really help. He stated that he .feels that it is possible that the units still would not sell with the proposed change. He added that, with regard to the bonus, Staff had men- tioned that this site was zoned for 12 single - family residential units, and the PRD Ordinance which was adopted was primarily for senior citizen housing and permitted by a use permit this density of 72 units on land that is zoned for 12 residential units. He added that he feels the real bonus is a factor of 6. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he does not. regard someone who is 55 as a senior citizen." He stated that he had a concern that after the applicant sells his units, then the buyer will be responsible for selling the units to someone who is 55 years old. He added that, if the interest rates stay up, it is going to be very hard for the City to enforce this sort of provision. He further stated that the interest rates could drop very quickly, and he does not think it would be fair that the applicant could sell these units to-45 year alds,,even though -the interest .rates had dropped_ He indicated-that he feels that the financing has to•be brought in as a condition-,if the rates drop to a cer- tain level then it would revert back.to the higher age_ Commissioner Crowther added that he thinks that is the:only reasonable way that it could be done to prevent an unfair situation. He stated that he personally believes that the City has a contract; there was a bonus given for that contract; the developer has profited more than he would have if the resi- dential zoning had been adhered to, and he feels that the City ought to hold to the contract. Commissioner Bolger expressed two concerns: (1) As Commissioner Crowther stated, the burden that would be placed upon a 45 year old person who is responsible to sell it to someone 5S years of age or older at some later date, and (2) the aspect of changing the CCF,Rs. He feels that that would be a dangerous precedent, and he personally is not in favor of doing that. Commissioner Monia stated that he feels the remarks made by Colonel Barco should be well studied, and he feels there is a lot to be learned from this experiment. He commented that he is not sure that in the future the Commission should become involved in dictating what a sales policy should be or restricting who should live or not live within the boundaries of Sara- toga. He added that unfortunately in this experiment the City found out that the subsidizing of rental properties by increasing the sale price of homes really did not work; 67% of the rentals went to non- Saratogans. 'and that a concession has alreadv been made in reducing the age limit to 55. f 1' Planning Commission C C Page 7 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 UP -508 (cont.) Commissioner Monia stated that the City had wanted to offer a housing stock to the residents of Saratoga, and it should be put into the record that perhaps rental housing for Saratogans is not such a big driving force. He added that he did not think the City is responsible for the applicant's problem; it is related more to the risk of doing business, not to any particular agreement made with the City. Commissioner Monia stated that if the problems were due to some land use policies, then the Commission could do something about it; however, the Commission is certainly not in control of what the interest rates are going to be. He stated that he also has a concern about changing the responsibilities and the difficulties of selling these properties to other individuals who will eventually be residents and seniors of Saratoga; therefore, he would not vote for approving this request. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she generally agrees with the comments made by Colonel Barco about the City not belonging in the housing business. She stated that she does feel that a contract was agreed to with the previous Commission andCrnmcil; "stating t come the applicant could e back if he had a problem. She added that she personally regrets-that-that statement was made; however, she feels that the Commission needs to honor that. She stated that she would like to have the Commission consider an age of 50 or 52 as a compromise, because she feels there are other precedents in other cities that allows that age. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he was on the previous Commission, and he would be voting for denial, since he believes that there is a partner- ship and he sees no consideration on the applicant's part in requesting the modification. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny UP -508, per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Chairman Laden stated that she was a member of the Commission that made .this contract with the applicant. She commented that Mr. Lohr was always aware of the fact tkat this site was zoned for 12 housing units and he was willing at any time to build those 12 homes. She explained that the Commission prevailed upon him to work with them to get as much as possible for senior citizens. She added that she feels the Commission has established a partnership to some degree, in which there was no built -in flexibility but .an understgod flexibility in case things didn't work out as anticipated. Chairman Laden commented that she is most concerned that, whatever the result of the vote, the City not lose sight of the fact that there is a 'meed for senior citizen housing in Saratoga, be it rentals or sales. She also expressed concern that the City is driving out any-possible future development of senior citizen housing through the private sector because the kind of action when contracts are made that are,totally inflexible is not appealing to financial institutions in the future. She added that Saratoga has tried to rely on the private sector and the City is now turn- ing their back on the private sector; she feels that that is not to the City's benefit in the long run. The vote was taken on the motion to deny UP -508. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was noti- fied of the 10 -day appeal period. 5a. A -788 Sharon and Howard Morse, Request for Variance and Design Review 5b. V -560 - Approval to allow the construction of a second -story addition to an existing two -story structure which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater than 5% (14% max.) at 20878 Verde Moor Court; continued from September 23, 1981 Staff described the proposal, stating that they were recommending denial of both the variance and design review, since there are alternatives on the site to provide the additional area requested by the applicant. Warren Gilbert, the architect, discussed the definition of floor area 7 k, C C19UW O2 O&M&Uooz 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: The Planning Commission DATE: 9/3/81 FROM: R. S. Robinson, Jr., Director, Community Planning & Policy Analysis SUBJECT: UP -508 (Modification to UP- 353 -A) Jerry Lohr BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recently reviewed a letter dated July 29th, 1981 from Mr. Jerry Lohr, President of Saratoga Foothill Development Corporation requesting modification to UP -353A. The request of the Planning Commission is to alleviate a potential economic problem by amending the use permit to allow Saratoga Foothill Development Corporation to sell.up to fifteen (15) of the remaining units to individuals age forty -five and over. As the July 29th letter indicated, there has been a great deal of difficulty in selling the units with the fifty -five age re- striction placed on the project. The applicant indicates four reasons on page four of his letter as the cause: 1. The difficulty of people selling their own homes. 2. President Reagan's discussion about cutting down or extending the starting time for social security payments. . 3. "The over fifty -five group grew up in the recession of the thirties. When they hear a recession may be coming, they know what it means." 4. The owners of the project have avoided selling to speculators. The other material included in the letter from Mr. Lohr indicates the age break down and a comparison of several other adult com- munity projects in the Bay area as well as a financial report from San Francisco Federal Savings and Loan Association. r.f C C19UW O2 O&M&Uooz 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: The Planning Commission DATE: 9/3/81 FROM: R. S. Robinson, Jr., Director, Community Planning & Policy Analysis SUBJECT: UP -508 (Modification to UP- 353 -A) Jerry Lohr BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recently reviewed a letter dated July 29th, 1981 from Mr. Jerry Lohr, President of Saratoga Foothill Development Corporation requesting modification to UP -353A. The request of the Planning Commission is to alleviate a potential economic problem by amending the use permit to allow Saratoga Foothill Development Corporation to sell.up to fifteen (15) of the remaining units to individuals age forty -five and over. As the July 29th letter indicated, there has been a great deal of difficulty in selling the units with the fifty -five age re- striction placed on the project. The applicant indicates four reasons on page four of his letter as the cause: 1. The difficulty of people selling their own homes. 2. President Reagan's discussion about cutting down or extending the starting time for social security payments. . 3. "The over fifty -five group grew up in the recession of the thirties. When they hear a recession may be coming, they know what it means." 4. The owners of the project have avoided selling to speculators. The other material included in the letter from Mr. Lohr indicates the age break down and a comparison of several other adult com- munity projects in the Bay area as well as a financial report from San Francisco Federal Savings and Loan Association. Memo to Planning Commission UP -508 (Modification to UP- 353 -A) ANALYSIS: 9/3/81 Page 2 The concerns expressed by Mr. Lohr in his letter July 29th, 1981 are no doubt real, but Staff feels it is important that the Commission understand what went into developing the project as it currently exists. There were several different proposals for this site during the last five years. It started out as an unsubsidized seven and a quarter percent (74 %) forty year (40 yr.) loan under HUD. There was a forty -eight units for sale project with the City encouraging Mr. Lohr to develop some senior citizen rental units, based on the Social Needs Assessment Study. The last project was for 53 units plus an.appropriate density bonus. Under the provisions of Article 4 of the Zoning.Ordinance, a project which has a General Plan designation of "PD" and planned for senior citizen use may receive a twenty- five.percent density bonus. The Planning Commission in their deliberation granted the applicant a bonus of thirty -seven (37) percent in order to achieve some of the much needed senior citizen housing. As the Commission can see under conditions of approval for UP -353A; specifically, number.4, 4a, 4b, and 4c, there was a great deal of effort on behalf of the Commission and Staff to insure that the project will remain for senior citizens. The letter indicates that there is a need to relax the age standards from age fifty -five to forty -five in order to alleviate some of the proposed deficits. Staff spent a great deal of time working with Mr. Lohr and the Planning Commission over a two year period of time to insure that the Campbell Cage property would be utilized to meet the needs of senior citizens within the City of Saratoga. Mr. Lohr was very cooperative and provided numerous studies to Staff and was very patient throughout the entire planning process. The Planning Commission was interested in a subsidized senior citizen project in early 1977 and continued to show that interest when they granted Mr. Lohr a thirty -seven (37) percent bonus for the current project. The needs of the senior citizens and the necessity to provide reasonable housing is still a necessity within the City. The needs of the senior citizens cannot be met if the City is to relax the standard from age fifty -five to forty -five as is being requested by this application. However, I do not feel the City should be in a position to deny the application outright without some input from the Senior Citizen Coordinating Council and residents living in the complex. Memo to Planning Commission 9/3/81 UP -508 (Modification to UP- 353 -A) Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Instead of making a specific recommendation on the project, Staff is recommending a process to be followed as the initial step. Since there was a great deal of involvement on this project between the Senior Citizen Coordinating Council, the applicant, Staff and Commission, it is recommended that a sub - committee be formed to develop various options to deal with this issue. At a minimum, staff would suggest the following individuals /groups be represented in the discussions: - Mr. Jerry Lohr, applicant - one representative from the Senior Citizen +Coordinating Council - one representative from current owners in project - one Planning Commissioner The options should be returned for Planning Commission and Staff review within thirty (30) days. The Planning Commission could then make a final decision on -the request. Policy Analysis RSR: j d ng and 5 t' ON TO Rell RMIL till I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION A� ?.. ✓C. :. � * hof '.c: ±ogU DATE: 10/9/81 j Revised Commission Meeting: 10/14/81 SUBJECT UP -508, Saratoga Foothills Development Corp. 12700 Saratoga Avenue This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of Sept. 9, 1981, so that the Committee -of- the -Whole (C.O.W.) could receive further public input and further discuss the matter on October 6, 1981. At the time of the C.O.W. meeting, the applicant reduced the number of units that could be sold to those 45 and older from 15 to 12. The applicant then reiterated his economic arguments for the age reduction. In addition he indicated that financial institutions could be considerably more reluctant to lend money for such projects if the City was inflexible and this could be counterproductive in terms of the City's desire to provide additional senior citizen housing. The applicant also indicated that the density bonus was imposed by the City because rental units were desired and that the density bonus was a burden. Mr. Russell of the Park Wood Homeowners Association spoke at the C.O.W. and submitted a letter outlining his group's opposition to the proposed age reduction (please see letter dated October 6, 1981). Mr. Trapman, speaking n behalf of the homeowners of the g project, indicated his group's support for the proposal. They were concerned about children coming with 45 year olds and voted to amend their C, C, & R's so that the minimum age of any occupant was 18. Mr. Trapman stated that one of the consequences of an adverse City decision could limit senior citizen housing only to federally funded projects or none at all and that we the homeowners, not the City of Saratoga or some other Government agency are subsidizing rental units required by the City of Saratoga. The president of the Senior Citizens Coordinating Council (S.C.C.C.) was asked to speak at the meeting. She stated that her group did not as yet have a formal position on the applicant's request since their housing committee was divided on the issue. They were concerned, however, that the need for senior citizen housing remains clear to the City. She indicated the S.C.C.C. should have a position by the October 14th Commission meeting. Commissioner Laden suggested the Commission might want to consider a 6 -9 month trial period for the age reduction. Report to Planning an- missid UP -508 10/9/81 Page 2 * The Commission requested Mr. Trapman to explore whether or not the homeowners of the project would object to a 35 year age limit. Mr. Trapnan polled the homeowners in the development and found the following: 1. The age level for the one time sale of the 12 units would be unacceptable if it was lower than 45 years. Any resale of those units must be to people 55 years or older. 2. The minimum age level for any occupant of a unit is 18 years. * 3. Based upon current economic conditions, the homeowners would g o along with a 12 month sale period for the 12 units. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff's position regarding this request is that the density bonus was granted to the applicant as a means to induce him to provide rental units for senior citizens which was a definite need for that age category. It should be noted for that the applicant proposed the 72 unit project along with a 96 unit project (48,rentals /48 for ownership).. The 96 unit project was considered too dense and the 72 unit project was approved. The 24 rental units *were only conditioned to remain as such for 10 years. It should also be noted that originally staff had recommended that 60 years be the minimum age limit-.- Therefore, considering the 37% density bonus, the City has made significant concessions to the applicant in developing this project. Commissioners expressed concern that approval of this request might set an undesirable precedent in terms of eroding negotiated conditions with other projects. The major purpose of this project, and the reason for the density bonus, could be jeopardized by encroachment into Condition 4 of UP- 353(a) which required that the units be maintained for senior citizen occupancy for 20 years after recordation of the C, C, & R's. The applicant's proposal would reduce the effectiveness of this 20 year limitation considerably depending on how long the 12 units are occupied by those under 55 years old. (At the end of the 20 year limit the units could be occupied by any age group). ACTION: Deny per Staff Report dated October 9, 1981. Approved AL., MF /dra P.C. Agenda: 10/14/81 Michael Flores, Assistant Planner f *(amended 11/14/79) 1 I- �I Exhibit "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR UP -353(a 1. The applicant shall submit a site development plan to the advisory agency for approval showing the location and size (in square footage) of each of the condominium units as part of the tentative map process and all development shall be in accord with such approved site development plan. 2. Design Review Approval required. 3. Comply with those mitigation measures numbered 1 -6 which are listed as part of the E.I.R. originally prepared for the project. (see Exhibit "B" attached) 4. One hundred percent (72) of the dwelling units shall be set aside for senior citizen housing, twenty -four of these units shall be set aside as senior citizen rentals. To aid in enforcing this condition, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) shall be prepared, executed and recorded by the applicant which shall contain, inter alia, the following provisions to relate to these dwelling units. a. No unit shall be occupied as a dwelling unit for any period of time unless at least one family member is at least 55 years or more of age. This restriction on use shall be for a period of not less than twenty (20) years from the date of recordation of the CC &R's. b. The original deed -out for each restricted unit shall make special reference on the face thereof to the CC &R's, and to the particular provision thereof setting forth these restrictions; c. Any violation of these provisions shall: 1. Be a substantial and material violation of the conditions of the within Use Permit, subjecting the same to revocation, and 2. Shall be enforceable by the City of Saratoga in the event that, after thirty (30) days notice, the Homeowners Association or other entity legally required to enforce such provisions, fails or refuses to so enforce the same. It is understood that the within condition is not intended as a prohibition against sale or conveyance of any such unit or units to persons of less than 55 years of age, or otherwise not complying with the above conditions, but relate solely to the age of persons in occupancy of the units, regardless of ownership. 5. The projects CC &R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to Final Map Approval. ':ter fi;;;i, '3u:_`•7�f±{'is�.'r;....... .':... , 6. Applicant shall prepare and at all times maintain a list of available medical services (emergency phone numbers), list of doctors in the area, etc., for the occupants. This arrangement shall be outlined in writing and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. 7. All advertising of the project shall indicate that the units are specifically available to senior citizens. 8. One year from the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project and on a yearly basis thereafter, the applicant or his successor shall prepare and present to the City a written report containing, but not limited to, the following infor- mation on those units set aside for senior citizens: a. Certification that each of these units has been and presently is occupied by senior citizens; b. the number of these units that are rented or owned; ry r` t C. As to rental units, the monthly rental charge for these units. _ i Y w •4 /J /� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR UP- 3S3(a) Page 2 9. Detailed drainage and grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services prior to submission of the project to Design Review. 10. Pedestrian access shall be provided, by common easement, between the subject property and the property immediately to the north (also slated for some senior citizen housing) to facilitate resident travel to E1 Quito Park. Said easement shall be shown on the site development plan to be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency. * 11. The twenty -four (24) rental units shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum of ten (10) years from the date of occupancy. To aid in enforcing this condition, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC$R's) shall be prepared, executed and recorded by the applicant which shall contain, inter alia, the following pro- visions to relate to these dwelling units. a. The original deed -out for each restricted unit shall make special reference on the face thereof to the CC&R's, and to the particular provision thereof setting forth these restric- tions; b. Any violation of these provisions shall: 1. Be a substantial and material violation of the conditions of the within Use Permit, subjecting the same to, revocation, and 2. Shall be enforceable by the City of Saratoga in the event that, after thirty (30) days notice, the Homeowners Association or other entity legally required to enforce such provisions, fails or refuses to so enforce the same. * As modified by the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 14, 1979. zi Fli Co MITIGATION MEASURES UP -353(a Exhibit "B" 1. A specific and detailed geology and soils report shall be submitted. Said report shall address all potential seismic and foundation hazards and address specific mitigation measures. Also, these specific miti- gation measures shall be included: a. Firm anchorage to the structures involved of all light fixtures and /or decorative work; b. Reinforcement of the masonary chimneys with steel tie rod; c. Attachment to the frame of the building of all water heaters so that they cannot be thrown off their foundations or overturned; d. Provision within the proposed structure of flexible joints at pipe and conduit corners so that they can move with the building; e. Provision of flexible joints where details will allow flexibility wherever utility lines enter structures; f. Firm attachment of all planned structures to their foundations; g. Installation of a manual shutoff in the main gas line where it enters the site; h. Avoidance of the use of heavy tile roofing materials or design of such roofs so that they will remain in place during a major seismic event. 2. Utilize native species and landscaping and street tree planting (i.e., coast redwood and california live oak). Street trees to be planted as required by City Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Control dust by good construction practice, which includes moistening the soil with water sprays. 4. Construction hours shall be limited to between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. All construction vehicles shall conform to State Noise Standards. 5. To minimize energy consumption the following mitigation measures should be utilized: a. Utilize solar collectors for heating of swimming pool water; b. Maximize the use of natural lighting in the houses by careful placement of windows and use or properly insulated skylights; C. Install accurate clock operated thermostats with day and night settings to facilitate conservation of energy by homeowners; d. Provide water heaters with thermostats which show temperature readings in degrees and which have clear directions for total shutdown and start up to encourage homeowners to turn them off during prolonged absences from home. 6. If any archeological remains are uncovered in grading and construc- tion activities, work should be halted and a qualified archeologist consulted to evaluate the find and to recommend further mitigation measures. .�.. ...x Y k.= 'rte } is -� • i s * �. _ -iCei` .. �• �`: :e� ?.ter!.�?`�x�a'.El�t�' ?.,iY. 'f�icJ:Y? 7 I r , UP- 353(a) Exhibit "C" FINDINGS: 1. The proposed conditional use is in accord with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, as specified in the PRD Ordinance, since it provides housing alternatives, consistent with the housing needs of the community as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; not be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use does not conform to the applicable provisions of this Ordinance in that some of the side yards and rear yards will not meet minimum setback requirements "as described in the addendum dated October 18, 1979. Also, the density of the project exceeds the maximum allowable for a planned development in that a maximum 25% density bonus is allowed by ordinance and a 37% density bonus is proposed. It is recommended that these variations be approved since, per Section 4.5 (6), they would have no adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare and would further the purposes and objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. USE 1'1: U-11.T ` RESOLUEION NO. UP -508 -L CITY OF SAPu1TOGA PLAIMING CMUSSION STATE OF CALIFOl',24IA nL1; NO: UP -508 VIEP,EAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of SARATOGA FOOTHILLS for a Use Permit to allow DEVELOPMENT CORP. Modification to Condition 4a of UP -353, which would lower ;and e minimum age tor occupants of a mu i- ami y res en is project from 55 to 45, at Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Avenue 101ERrAS, THE aPplicant (kxx) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; VOW, Tfl1REFOPE, ' BE IT PESOLVED that after careful' consideration of ::maps, facts, exhibits and othcr evidence submitted in this matter, the - application for the USE PERMIT be, and the same is hereby (:gXxn ­(denied), subject to the follov.ring conciit' Per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981. BE IT 1'iJit'iUER 1U,:SOLVED that the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted, and i =lie Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. 111:SSl:D AND AD03ITL -D by the City of Saratoga Pl:uiiiing C0=1ission2 State of Cai_iforni_a, this 14th day of October 19 81 n by the follo;aing roll uLll vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther,.Monia and Zambetti NO1'S: Commissioners Laden and Schaefer ABS.:LW: Commissioner King f.1-rrr�•: � . \ 1/ v _ RECE1 ED Joanne Cornbleet 12105 Saraglen Dr. Saratoga, CA. 9507 September 23, 1981 Chairman, Planning Commission City Hall, Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Planning Commission: I wish to comment on the issue of lowering the age requirements for residents of Saratoga Parkside. I think it Is sad that these condominiums /apartments stand emptx while federally subsidized units for seniors such as Fellowship Plaza and Saratoga Court have enormous waiting lists. Apparently seniors who can afford to purchase $150- 180,000 condominiums do not have a need for Saratoga to "provide,, housing for theml My Mother and father -in -law currently reside in Saratoga Court. They are living together in a 1 bedroom apartment and are the only couple in the complex trying to occupy a space that is ample for one person, but crowded for two. With Social Security as almost their sole income, they cannot afford to rent a unit such as those in Saratoga Parkside without guaranteed rent control. We joke that they would have twice the space and easily qualify for assistance If they were divorced! I I believe that there is a genuine need in our community for senior housing that is adequate for couples as well as single seniors. Mr. Lohr's development is idealy situated near a park and shopping center, and could help fulfill that need, if, for example, one of the following were done: a. Some of the units could be rented as federally subsidized units for couples who qualify financially, b. Some of the units could be set aside as rental units with maximal yearly increases in rent allowed, c. The units could be sold at below market value to qualifying seniors, with compulsory resale to Mr. Lohr at the paid price. I cannot tell you how much we have enjoyed having our parents live near us in Saratoga over the last year. As we are working parents, they have been a big help to us and to our daughter. But this would not have been possible without low rent housing for seniors in Saratoga. Sincerely yours, 6�� Joanne Cornbleet Saratoga Area, SAS SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL CC P. O. Box 123 • Saratoga, California 95070 OrtoZeiz 121p 198f To MemZen-6 o/ the SaAa-tory-a Rlana -iny Comm.iz-6.ion (3777 Faai..tvale- Avenue. Sala -toyer, CA 95070 Th.e memZe2a of .the Boand o/ l�i2ectoiz6 0/ .the. San.a.toya A.zea Scn.io�z Coo�r na.t.iny Counc.i..L ze- ma-in �I AM .i.n .tAC4,4 zuppol%t o/ a �u LOC�n i ttOn 01 a con.t.inu.iny rzetd /oa. .z.nc"az.i.ny .the zapply o� .au.i.takly de.a.i.yned .aen.ioA houzmy in San.a�toya. VA-iA wt aize. .aympa.the.t!,C to .the po4.i.t.ion o/ .the. deve.Lolj,iz and .the vie-w-6 0/ .the I.e4.ident.6 .in SaA a.toya % aizh4.ide, wG deem .i..t Ze.d.t to .tafze no eoz.i -tion on iii.. Loh z'z zze que s.t now "Io,,zz .the Comm4*azi.on, a4 .th.i.a -z a dec.izion .to ZP- lz-iyh.t- cu.tev made. Zy -the appoi -aled Comm.i.4b.ione26. [1aAy tan [fan N- Zon.yh Pa.e. 6-. dent. Saratoga Area S�sC SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL C P. O. Box 123 • Saratoga, California 95070 September 9, 1981 To: Chairman Virginia Laden and Planning Commission members. From: Mildred Gordon, Housing Committee Chairman SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL Subject: Mr. Lohr'-s request for temporary reduction in age requirements for Parkside Senior Housing. Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council is concerned that present economic conditions and high interest rates are causing housing sales to be very slow. This does indeed impact seniors who wish to sell their large homes in order to buy, smaller condominiums for ease of maintenance and care. The need for senior housing alternatives is still there, but the market is unfavorable. Mr. Lohr',s request to lower age requirements, to widen the the sellers market appears to be a logical temporary, measure for relief from age requirements in senior housing. SASCC feels, that this decision should be delayed for 30 days, until a committee composed of Mr. Lohr, a resident of Parkside, a representative of the Senior Coordinating Council, and a planning commission member could study the problem and develop some alternatives for a fair solution to all concerned. W-e urge you to consider this suggestion before coming to a final decision,. r d fla- 7---s ° SC3rn e SiXA C — rc.U.WA . . . ....... J117-1, L�- C�f nn - 1 r Q v v L C C, ■m ccky 165-SG 65 Wancis, topM ren,--,:MnW CITY•0 ` AATOGA 'S PLANNING C07USSION ANNOUNCES THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS: On Wednesday ,,the 9th day of Sp :te tuber 1981 ATT-30 p.m. in the Chambers located at A 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga,'CA, a copy of whose application is on file at the Saratoga Planning Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA UP-507'. (Christopher) UP-S08 (Saratoga Foot hills Dev.) "GRANT A USE PERMIT to allow the construction 'IGRANT'A'USE PERMIT to of a detached solar allow Modification to accessory structure'.. Condition 4a of UP-30, over 61 in height (9' which would lower the max.) in the require minimum age for.occupant rear yard at 19305 of a multi-family resi- Zinfandel Court, Sara-, dential project from SS toga, CA per Ordinance to 4S, at Saratoga NS-3, Section * 3.7-1 and Parkside, Prospect Article 16.11 - '. . Avenue, Saratoga, CA.' per Ordinance NS-3, rrr_- Section 3.3 and Article 16.10 A- 786' '(Spatcli Bros,.) "GRANT DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL t,6 allow 'the '.. construction of a one_..:= story-dwelling .(30l ■ax.) an Douglass Lane, Saratoga, CA, per Ordi- nance 7 I %CCEl1�'CD AUG 3 1 1981 August 28, 1981 City of Sa.rato?a Planning Commission Dear Commission: I will be unable to attend the Wednesday meetinr, to make my view known; therefore, I am writing this letter. It is my strong feeling that the minimum age for residency in Saratoga Parkside should NOT be lowered to 45 years. Several concessions were made during during which a 55 year age limit was housing; density. The units are much the population in an already cramped (not to mention the additional noise the streets, the lack of safety, and the initial negotiations accepted for the current too close and increasing area is counterproductive. from children playing in the increased traffic). We are desirous of upgrading and maintaining a somewhat rural, quiet and uncong_ested atmosphere in our area. Decreasing- the age requirement would contradict our desires. It is my wish, as it is of my neighbors of Saratoga 'roods, that the ape minimum be unchanged, and REI,.IAIN AT 55 years of;age Thank you very much. S. (�ly ,; p . Gary & Marcia Fariss 18933 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga. November 24, 1981 Mr. J. -Lohr, President Saratoga Foothills Development Corp. 1745 Saratoga Avenue "C" San Jose, CA 95129 Dear Mr. Lohr: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on November 18, 1981, considered your appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a Use Permit to allow Modification to Condition 4a of UP -3S3. This modification would lower the minimum age for occupants of a multi - family residential project from SS to 45, at Saratoga,.Parkside. (File No. UP -508). After conducting a public hearing ;.Ahe City Council moved to deny your appeal. If you have.any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Cc ` I November 24, 1981 Mr. J. -Lohr, President Saratoga Foothills Development Corp. 1745 Saratoga Avenue "C" San Jose, CA 95129 Dear Mr. Lohr: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on November 18, 1981, considered your appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a Use Permit to allow Modification to Condition 4a of UP -3S3. This modification would lower the minimum age for occupants of a multi - family residential project from SS to 45, at Saratoga,.Parkside. (File No. UP -508). After conducting a public hearing ;.Ahe City Council moved to deny your appeal. If you have.any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Cc ` CITY OF SARA'11OGA AGENDA BILL NO. �y� Initial: Dept. fld. DATE: November 18, 1981 C. Atty. DEPART,%=: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJ=. Revision to the CC &Rs for Tracts 6526 and 6528 (Parker Ranch), Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch Road and Prospect Road Issue Sunni y Blackwell Homes incorporated a condition on their Tentative Map and in their CC &Rs to limit the square footage of the proposed houses on Tracts 6526 and 6528 to 4600 sq. ft. The new Design Review Ordinance would allow S,227 sq. ft. and above depending on the lot size. Blackwell is requesting your approval of a revision to their CC &Rs to allow the size of their proposed residences to be consistent with the Design Review Ordinance. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request, 5 -0. If the Council approves this request, then the size of the homes allowed on the Parker Ranch Tracts will increase. If the request is denied, the homes on the subject lots will be more severely limited than similar lots in the area. Recommendation 1. Determine the merits of the request and approve or deny. A public hearing is not required. 2. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Imoacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachrm_nts 1. Applicant's letter dated 10/13/81 2. Staff Report dated 10/22/81 3. Resolution (not available as of 11/25/81) 4. Minutes of the Planning Commission Council Action 11/18: Continued to 12/2. 12/2: Watson/Mallory moved to adopt resolution 1047. Passed 3 -2 (Jensen, Clevenger opposed). BLACKWELL HOMES • P.O. BOX 817 125 EAST SUNNYOAKS AVENUE • CAM P B E L L, C A L I F. 95008 PH 378 -5340 October 13, 1981 Saratoga Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable City Council: Upon reviewing the City's recently adopted Design Review Ordinance, we note a significant inequity as related to The Parker Ranch Development. This Ordinance limits house size to 5,200 square fee for a one acre'lot in the H.C.R.D. Zoning District. When The Parker Ranch was approved, there was no design review ordinance. The Planning Commission was concerned with the building mass and an arbitrary limit of 4,600 square feet was imposed. This was several years ago "and since that time, the City has conducted extensive studies and hearings re- sulting in adoption of the.Design Review Ordinance.. We feel it is only fair- that the criteria applicable to all other lots in the H.C.R.D. Zone also apply to The Parker Ranch. Therefore, it is requested the CC &Rs for Tract 6526 and 6528, The Parker Ranch, be amended to incorporate the size limitations found in the City's Design Review Ordinance and the 4,600 square feet limitations to be deleted. Yours truly, BLACKWELL HOMES Jack R. Blackwell JRB:MV R.T. IL74 Re I 1 11.1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 10/22/81 Commission Meeting: 10/28/81 SUBJECT : Revision to the CC &R's for Tracts 6526 and 65:8 (Parker Ranch), Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch Road and Prospect Road, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: To recommend to the City Council to approve a revision to the CC& R's allowing the size of the proposed residences for the subject tracts to be consistent with the Design Review Ordinance, rather than limited to the 4,600 S.F. Tentative Map Measure. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption PUBLIC NOTICING: No noticing is required. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Slope Conservation /Specific Plan ZONING: HC -RD /Proposed NHD. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential, Saratoga Country Club to the southwest, Agricultural to the south. BACKGROUND: Blackwell Homes applied for tentative map approval in October, 1977. During the discussions of the tentative map, Blackwell offered to place a limit to the house size on the tentative map and to incorporate it in the CC &R's. The specific mitigation measures on the Approved Tentative Map (9/13/78) read, "Maximum square footage of home allowed shall be 4,600 square feet." This was to include the garage area (the thought being 4,000 S.F. for the home and 600 S.F. for the garage). Since then, the City has adopted a new Design Review Ordinance (effective August 15, 1981) with specific floor area ratios which would allow a standard floor area of 5,227 S.F. for a one acre parcel with a potential 5% increase to 5,489 S.F. in the HCRD /NHD zoning districts. Additionally, if the parcel exceeds one acre, 6% of the site area in excess of 43,560 S.F. could be added to these calculations. The agreement between Blackwell Homes and the City for Tracts 6526 and 6528 excepts them from the "operation of Measure A and that (the tracts) be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the tentative map approved for said Subdivision Maps." Therefore, their house size would be regulated by the Tentative Map. ' Page 2.) REPORT TO PLANNING OMMISSION - 10/28/81 Revision to the CC& R's for Tracts 6526 and 6568 STAFF ANALYSIS: Several of the negotiated settlements exempted tracts in the Specific Plan area from the Measure A ordinances or specifically placed the homes under the provisions of the HC -RD Ordinance. Since then, the City has adopted an ordinance to regulate residential struc- tures and major additions throughout the City with respect to privacy, views, aesthetics, grading, coverage, height, set -backs and bulk. In- cluded in this ordinance were standards for the HC -RD and NHD zoning districts. Staff is recommending that the CC &R's be revised to be consistent with current City Ordinances because;of; 1.) the review time spent on the Design Review. Ordinance and 2.) the preference for consistent regulations within zoning districts throughout the City. The standard set in the Parker Ranch tentative map of 4,600 S.F. was established with little study in comparison to the review and public input that occurred with the adoption of the Design Review Ordinance. Additional- ly, staff is concerned with the administration of the 4,600 S.F. limi- tation specialized for Blackwell Homes Subdivision; especially as time elapses. The 4,600 S.F. limitation is located on the Tentative Map and in the CC &R's, but these may be overlooked by future staff and applicants when checking for additions to the residences. (i.e., the 4,000 S.F. fencing limitation on the Taos - Montauk Drive areas is passed on verbally to new staff members). Additionally, homeowners will most probably re- quest information for the NHD zoning district rather than for Tracts 6526 or 6528 and may only discover the 4,600 S.F. limitation after sub- mitting for a building permit. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the requested re- vision to the CC& R's be approved, eliminating the statement: "The floor area of the main structure, exclusive of the garages, shall not be less than 2,000 S.F., nor shall it be more than 4,600 S.F. inclu- sive of garages. ", subject to its replacement by a statement placing the design of the structures under the current Design Review Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. Approved: Kathy Kerd Assistant lanner KK /dsc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10/28/81 'UNAPPROVED Blackwell Homes, Tracts 6526 and 6528, Request for Revision to CC&Rs regarding square footage limitation for residences The request for revision was described by Staff. They explained that, with the adoption of the new Design Review Ordinance, they feel it is appropriate for the Commission to recommend the modification to the CC&Rs to allow for the applicant to come under the provisions of the new ordinance. Bill Heiss, the engineer, stated that, four years ago, in the absence of a Design Review Ordinance, the .4600 sq. ft. size was agreed upon. He added that he felt the standards for buyers have changed since that time. He explained that they would like to amend the CC&Rs to make them consistent with the ordinance. Commissioner Crowther commented that, for those who say the new Design Review Ordinance is too restrictive, here is another example where it is more lenient than what existed in the past. He commented that this project has received more public attention than any other project in the City, and there are several reasons for that: (1) concern about scenic impact because of the fact that.it is on open scenic hillsides with no foilage on them, and (2) flooding problem. He stated that he was surprised to hear about a.settlement which would, allow more homes than what the voters adopted, and he regardsthat as a violation of the citizens' constitutional rights. He commented that that is a totally independent issue, not related to this application. Even with what the voters had adopted, he added, he thinks the 4600 sq. ft. limit should apply. Commissioner King moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the requested revision, per the Staff Report dated October 22, 1981. Commissioner Bolger stated that he had been prepared to vote against this request because he is not in favor of altering CC &Rs of any particular project. However, he commented that he feels that the engineer has presented the case very well, in the fact that there should be consistency in the City; therefore, he will vote for the recommenda- tion. Commissioner Monia stated that, now that there is a new Design Review Ordinance, he would like to see that it be applied equally as well; therefore, he will vote for the motion. The vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 December 7, 1981 Mr. Jack R. Blackwell Blackwell Homes P. 0. Box 817 12S East Sunnyoaks Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Blackwell: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on December 2, 1981, adopted Resolution No. 1047, granting their consent for amendment of the CC&Rs for Tracts 6526 and 65281 to state that the design of the structures shall be sub- ject to the restrictions and procedures set forth in Ordinance No. NS -3.47, The Design Review Ordinance. A copy of the resolu- tion is attached for your file. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, �J Robert S. (Shoo.k Director of Community Development RSS:cd Attachment cc: Bill Heiss, Jennings - McDermott - Heiss, Inc., Suite 200, 925 Regent St., San Jose, CA 95110 JDeputy City Clerk CITY Or SARATOGA Initial: AGUNIDA BILv NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: 11/18/81 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Comm. Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: 1982 BICYCLE 'LANE ACCOUNT /SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE BIKE LANE Issue Sunma Caltrans is requesting applications for bicycle lane projects. These projects must be for commute bicyclists and the local agency must fund 10% of the costs. Staff has prepared an application for constructing 'a four -foot bicycle 1-ane and. a retaining wall along Mr. John Kahle's frontage on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. south of Marion Rd. The estimated cost is $32,000, therefore, Saratoga's share would be $3,200. Caltrans requires certification that sufficient City funds are avail- able to finance the local agency share of the project costs. Deadline for appli- cation is December 1, 1981. Recommendation Approve the attached application including City's 10% participation. Fiscal Impacts $3,200 Saratoga participation. Exhibits /Attachments 1 1. Application Council Action 11/18: Clevenger/Watson moved to adopt the 1982 Bicycle Lane Account /Saratoga - Sunnyvale Bike Lane. Passed 5-0. s 1982 BICYCLE LANE ACCOUNT PROPOSAL for SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE ROAD The proposed project is located on Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road 250 feet south of Marion Road. A five -foot retaining wall will be constructed and a four - foot bicycle lane will be installed. An easement from the homeowner will be obtained in order to construct the retaining wall. The homeowner is supportive of the project. Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road is part of the County of Santa Clara Master Plan. Caltrans, under the direction of Mr. Paul Hensley, is presently preparing plans to install bicycle lanes on both sides of Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road from Prospect Road south to Saratoga Ave. Due to the restriction of right - of -way and the City of Saratoga's position refusing to allow the removal of the oak trees in the median island, Caltrans eliminated the installation of the bicycle lane on the westerly side from Reid Lane to Saratoga Ave. Bicyclists commuting to Saratoga High School, Oak Street Elementary School and to Saratoga Village Business District use Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road. The commuters must compete with vehicles on an eleven foot lane. There are approximately fifty (50) bicyclists using the proposed area a day. The estimated cost of the project is $32,000. Preparation of plans and specifications is estimated at $1,000 and the construction of the retain- ing wall is estimated at $31,000. Attached is a typical cross - section of the proposed retaining wall and a copy of the Saratoga City Council minutes approving the City's share of the costs, i.e., 10 %. U Sam A096/- - Sunyyofe, 5o3 -24.34 j4 II AD 503 -Z,3 25 20614 503 -24- 20625 O9 997-22' c 1 14 1'� 397 22 391 -22 5 503 ZS -38 503 -24-04 19 46 3q7 39 ?_22-28 2ob�o 5 0 5 2205 2� So3`2y o6 7 144 10 15 C6, 7, S,4) 2 3 zp6 0 �- 03 o �' 442 397-22-44 A 39 i, A� � 2 ♦ C•yl p /O a ^ °I 443°] �l L yti\\ (19 14,�5,16� 1 � D S So 3 -24 (( GAR 4 p q1 i0 Z A 032 PC�4i`h y\1 0i �` 3 3q7_ 22 44 y 0 y \ 0 o to � �'l ,�Z ,o OAK So AS F` /S` Si�Ffj�� 9C p9 S,FFh ryo 0h° 144987 C3) C41 14494 1449- pgB�sl ,;?i 397 -22 �3 C4 ?F / S' j ff 0 /3 i F c S /Ste; 6 .� °A \� - 02 03 /ys x10 N S ?5 0 6 i S b 8 i� a, 8 S �J 20385 6 S o [� s� 9 Sri 050 09 /j �r A j �yo9S aqb o o C C4) O j3 3 !416,5 141(00 3 206,151 r4!ZI j r 3 397 -27 (,� 3 C3i 4 14170 20317-27-/7 � m N 35 ✓ 0 03 - 0 � (7) (5) CI) Zo(o'7 P► 503 23 f f2 1 14200 b) )41gD 2 95 03,Z7 -7 (p : : 3 317-271- 397-27 1 1 6 603 -22 -7 s so3 -23-09 y yo3 y3 Q Q 1 13 14 N 2 2o(. 2 20 32 20(.40 Z 3 I X ;Zp446 2 W 397-27-15 34 J 503'23-/ . J 397 -27 -30 503-23 Q 32 o obf0 36 Q 15o -3-29- 2 22 39-1-27 35 _ _ 403 -23-37 503-23 -07 509.23-/7 z z E ECHE pR9 L L N, c,o3-23 06 C3) (2) C1) �Z p 20551 205 31 C CA) 9: V ( .391- �O 503-23 -22 503 7 2 a . 27- 3 1 21 W Cb) C Q Z 397-27 L Z � 8 17 1C�D I IA L / 503 -23-27 Q Q Ip 2 2 3 (2) 5�3 23- go; 24-38 /F 36 2J4 , / / 14375 '377-31- 0 5 397"31- 397 -31 ` CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.ql? DATE: C. Atty. DEPT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Heritage Commission Selection Process Issue Summary 1. The Heritage Preservation Ordinance requires the appointment of a five (5) member Commission. The Ordinance is specific in terms of qual- ifications for each member. 2. Staff has submitted a proposed schedule and draft letter for Council approval. Recommendation 1. Approve draft letter and proposed schedule. Fiscal Impacts 1. Staff assistance in establishing Commission. 2. Staff will be seeking volunteer assistance to act as secretary to the Commission. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo dated 11 -9 -81. Council Action 11/18: Mallory /Clevenger moved to approve the draft letter and proposed schedule. Passed 5 -0. afte ��IENI00 RANDLINI uguw o2 §&z&UQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning and Policy Analysis SUBJECT: Heritage Commission Selection Process DATE: November 9, 1981 The Heritage Conservation Ordinance will go into effect on December 4, 1981. The next step in the process is to select a five (5) member Heritage Preservation Commission. The Ordinance is quite specific with regards to the qualifications, specifically: (1) One (1) member from the Planning Commission. (2) One (1) member who is nominated by the Saratoga Historical Foundation. (3) One (1) member who, by reason of training is know- ledgeable of construction etc. such as a licensed architect, engineer, contractor or urban planner and (4) Two (2) members appointed at large having demonstrable interest in preservation of the Heritage Resources in Saratoga. The Council is responsible for appointing all five (5), but the procedure for identifying potential candidates from category "3" and "4" above will be important. Staff would like to suggest that in addition to a newspaper notice, that letters be sent out to various organizations such as Villa Montalvo, Saratoga Men's Club, Saratoga Horticulture Society, members of the Heritage Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee, and those individuals who have contacted staff regarding possible parti- cipation on the Committee (_see draft letter - Exhibit 1) . Schedule: - Letters sent and - Applications open - Council selection 6, 1982. RS R /mgr Attachment notices to paper 11 -19 from November 25 to December 18 (3t weeks) and announcement of Committee - January /R. S. Robinson, Jr ,q 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 �0 (408) 887 -3438 EXHIBIT 1 - Sample Letter November 9, 1981 The Saratoga City Council is proud to announce the approval of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance on November 4th. The Ordinance will be effective December 4, 1981. A require- ment of the Ordinance is a five (5) member Heritage Preservation Commission. The City Council will be selecting a five (5) member Commission in early January. The Commission will be composed of one Saratoga Planning Commissioner, one representative from the Saratoga Historical Society, one member with specific knowledge of construction and structural rehabilitation (licensed architect, engineer, contractor, or urban planner) and two (2) at large appointments. If you are interested in being on the Commission and meet the requirements for any of the above positions, please contact the City of Saratoga, Department of Planning and Policy Analysis for an application. The deadline for submitting an application to serve on the Commission is December 18th. Sincerely, Linda C. Callon Mayor LCC /rsr /mgr C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A INFORMATION SHEET • For Commissions, Boards or Connittees Name Residence Telephone No. Personal History Education Employer Type of Business Date Address Nearest Cross Street Office Telephone No. Address Specific Work you Perform Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side.) To which Commission or Board would you prefer appointment? Signature Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 IZre,