Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. /,5--?3 MEETING DATE: 2/15/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM 8�) CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: ZC -88 -002 - A proposal to rezone property to RM -3,000 Applicants: J. Lohr and F. Smith Location: 12764 Saratoga Avenue --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: 1. Open the public hearing 2. Discuss project concerns 3. Close the public hearing and direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance for reading on 3/1/89 Report Summary: The application for rezoning to RM -3,000 was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission. The rezoning request would enable the applicants to implement a subdivision to construct four attached townhome units to be incorporated into the existing Saratoga Parkside planned community. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed density was less than the adjacent development and was consistent with Land Use and Housing Policies of the General Plan in that the project was within prescribed densities and will provide an additional unit restricted for senior occupancy. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 2. Planning Commission Resolution ZC -88 -002 3. Planning Commission Resolution DR -88 -104 4. Planning Commission Resolution SD -88 -001 5. Staff Report dated 1/11/89 6. Correspondence 7. Plans Motion and Vote 31' A:agenbill uguw o2 §&MZUQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 2/15/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: A proposal to rezone a property designated R -1- 10,000 to RM -3,000 Location: 12764 Saratoga Ave. Applicants: J. Lohr and F. Smith --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview The applicants are proposing a zone change for a 14,100 square foot parcel currently designated as single family residential to a multi- family residential zone requiring 3,000 sq. ft. of net site area per dwelling. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at public hearings and is recommending that the City Council grant the change of zone which will allow the development of 4 attached townhouse units in place of the existing single family residence. The proposed development would be an extension of the multi - family complex, Saratoga Parkside immediately adjacent to the site. The development of the four units was also approved by the Planning Commission through the issuance of a design review permit, and a tentative subdivision map approval. Backaround As mentioned, the site is an extension of the Saratoga Parkside development, a 72 -unit multi - family planned development which borders the subject site on the north and east. The site has Saratoga Avenue frontage on the west and abuts the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church on the south. Across Saratoga Avenue from the site exists single family neighborhoods. The adjacent Saratoga Parkside was developed in 1979 as a 72 -unit planned development which a portion was reserved for senior housing. The project conditions required that 24 units were to be reserved until 1991 as rental stock for occupants of at least 55 years of age. The 24 units reserved for senior housing were constructed in addition to the density of the zone through a bonus granted by the City which yielded a total density of 1 du/2,550 sq. ft. The current zoning requests clearly relates to the adjoining Saratoga Parkside development. The two sites are well integrated with respect to circulation, housing type and architecture. The following table analyzes both the current request and the existing Saratoga Parkside as well as the effect of a combined project: Combined j Project Saratoga Subject (Parkside + Parkside Property Subject Project) Size of Parcel 4.22 acres .32 ac. 4.54 ac. (183,832 sq. ft.) (14,100 sq. ft.) (197,932) #jUnits 72 (existing) 4 (proposed) 76 I #iSenior Housing Units 24 1 (proposed) 25 Zoning: R- 1- 10,000 PD RM -3000 (proposed) R -1- 10,000 + RM -3,000 Density: 1 du /2,500 1 du/3,525 1/du/3,525 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Density and Land Use Policy The General Plan designation for the subject is PDR (Planned Development, Residential) with a maximum density of 12.45 units per acre of 1 du/3,499 sq. ft. The General Plan stipulates that this 14,100 square foot parcel size will allow a maximum of 4 units. 14,100 sq. ft. = 4.03 du 3,500 sq. ft. The Saratoga Parkside was found consistent with both the Land Use and Housing Elements objective that suitable housing alternatives for Saratoga senior citizens should be provided. The action program for planning area F which also contains the project site, stated that "The two parcels on the east side of Saratoga Avenue generally between Bucknall and Cox Avenues should be developed in PD Residential." The development of the subject site is the natural extension of the 1979 project and when conditions require one occupant to be 55 years old, the current proposal would be consistent with the General Plan policies applicable to the original project. Design Review Issues As mentioned above, the Planning Commission conditionally approved both the tentative four -lot subdivision and design review permits for the development of four units on the subject site. These approvals were granted subject to the Council's approval of the required zone change to RM- 3,000. The Planning Commission's actions are attached to this report. The following summarizes the Planning Commission's analysis of the design review and subdivision approval of the four townhome units: ZONING: RM -3,000 (proposed) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDR (Planned development residential) PARCEL SIZE: 14,100 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 110 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 1.6 Ft. Fill: 110 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: .9 Ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Masonite horizontal and cedar siding painted oyster and dusty ivory with oxford brown trim, to match existing development. STRUCTURE COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: TOTAL: PROPOSAL 5,634 (40 %) 24.5 ft. Plan B 813 sq. ft. 666 sq. ft. 1,479 sq. ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ n r.r.nwnrtrV 5,640 (40 %) 30 ft. Plan A 1,338 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 1,338 sq. ft. N/A SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Reat: 25 ft. Interior Right Side: 25 ft. Interior Right Side: 16.5 ft. Exterior Left Side: 21 ft. Exterior Left Side: 15 ft. Parking and circulation patterns were analyzed by the Planning Commission in granting the design review permit. Each unit will have a one car enclosed garage as required by ordinance. The City Code also requires an additional 1 -1/2 spaces for each unit. Therefore, 6 spaces outside of the existing garages are required and are shown on the site plan. Four spaces are shown in the driveways of each unit which are deep enough to accomodate a vehicle; and two guest parking spaces are shown adjacent to unit 1. Sara Park Circle is a fully developed street at 26 foot width. The street provides a two -way loop through the existing development and will serve as the access to the proposed four unit development. Sara Park Circle intersects with Saratoga Avenue at the north and south portions of the sites so that no additional curb cuts to Saratoga Avenue are required to access this project. Public Contact At the Planning Commission hearings, testimony was received opposing the zone change because of concerns regarding increased density and impacts to the single family neighborhood. The Planning Commission received testimony and petitions in opposition and concluded that the zoning change was less dense than the established density at the Saratoga Parkside and was compatible with land use policy and adjacent properties. The Council will find attached correspondence opposing the requested zone change. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, discuss project concerns, close the hearing and direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance ZC -88 -002 amending the existing zoning designation to RM -3,000 for first reading at the March 1, 1989 City Council meeting. /te`phenIEmsli6 lanning Director SE /dsc ia% AILC PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to consideration for a continuance for a project redesign, Mr. Kocir noted his efforts and requested a structural analysis from Staff. Chairperson Guch responded that the Commission wished the Applicant to find a way to reduce the height of the pool cover to bring the project more into compliance with square footage requirements; Mr. Kocir stated he understood but expressed concern regarding what else he could do. He agreed to the Continuance suggested. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE V.88-025, A- 1088.1 TO FEBRUARY 8, 1989. P ed 6 -0. 10. ZC-88 -002 J. Lahr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Ave., consideration of rezoning SD -88 -001 and subdivision approval for a four unit condominium, project on 14,100 sq. ft. of property currently developed with a single family home. The request is to rezone the property to RM -3,000 in order to construct four units - - - - - -- similar to the current surrounding development known as Saratoga Parkside. ----------------------------------------------- Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:42 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, reviewed the project history and cited the density bonus granted. Planner Caldwell noted the following technical corrections to Staff Report: - Density and Zoning . the formula should read in part, 3,500 sq. ft. - Parkine and Circulation, first paragraph final sentence to read, "A total of six (6) spaces outside the garages are required and six (6) are shown." BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZC -88 -002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -88 -001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. 11. DR -88 -104 J. Lohr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Avenue, request for design review approval for a four unit condominium structure on a 14,100 sq. ft. lot in the Residential zone district, General Plan designation PDR (planned development residential) per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1988; she noted that Condition 8 should be amended to read, "Early warning fire alarm system shall be in- stalled and maintained in accordance with provisions of Section 14- 25.110 (b) of the City Code." The Public Hearing was opened at 8:48 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, questioned whether sprinklers were required (Condition 4). City Attorney responded that both the sprinkler system and the early warning fire system were being required. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the two single story units off of Saratoga Avenue; however, she would have preferred a more continuous roof line. Chairperson Guch was favorable to the roof differentiation presented. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88 -104 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. 12. DR -88 -100 Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive, request for design review approval to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two -story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft. and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq. ft., in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- mmissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. -co PLANNING NOVEMBER MEETING R 9 1 888 ' 6(� ,�- l 5 C(_,1a � Q`�S 6A- Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:01. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Tappan concurred with Staff; the proposed house was an ungainly, massive and in- congruous structure. Commissioner Kolstad cited the bulk of the structure and the lack of architectural interest; he noted that Lots 1, 2 and 3 were a transition from the Sobey Rd. area. He cited the example of a recently approved Montewood house which appeared boxy; he wished to see more than "frame and stucco boxes" in future applications. Commissioner Burger noted that while the structure on Lot 2 had some architectural elements, she suggested other design elements to make this house compatible with previously approved homes and soften the appearance. She noted that the Oak tree adjacent to this lot wa see a replacement tree requited to maintain the entrance to this projects dying; she wished to Chairperson Guch concurred with Commissioner Burger and felt that design elements and land- scaping could be added to improve the appearance of the project. Commissioner Harris concurred with comments of Chairperson Guch and Commissioner Burr; she suggested one of the one -story houses be placed adjacent to an existing one -story home. ge Commissioner Tucker noted the lack of interest in the roof elements. Chairperson Guch favored a Continuance with a Study Session to consider this project. Applicant was agreeable and would consult with his client regarding the Commission's comments. GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -88 -069 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD DECEMBER 6, 1988. Passed 6 -0. 12. ZC- 88-002 L Lohr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Avenue, consideration of re- SD-88-001 zoning and subdivision approval for a 4 unit condominium project on 14,100 sq. ft. of property currently developed with a single family home. The request is to rezone the property to the current surrounding develop - ment known as Saratoga Parkside. -- N- '- `- _ -A -------- ~--- ------- - - - - -- _ _ _ _ __ Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, reviewed the history of this Application: a project redesign had been pre- pared but was not ready to submit; he requested a Continuance of this Item. Mr. Bob Peckovick, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, presented a petition oppos- ing construction of housing which resulted in a four fold increase in density. Residents were concerned regarding a "creeping rezoning" in the area. Mr. Ray Simpson, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, concurred with the above. Vice President, Saratoga Parkside Homeowners Association, disagreed with the above statemenu; he supported the development and wished to see Mr. Lohr's project completed. He noted the open space available within this development. The Public Hearing remained open. H seed 6- 0. PUCKER Passed 6 - MOVED TO CONTINUE ZC -88 -002, SD- 88-001 TO DECEMBER 14,1988. 13. V-88-030 Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, request for variance approval to allow 6 ft. maximum height for two (2) front entrance gates which exceed the maximum height allowed of 3 ft. on a 1.216 acre site in the R- 1- 40,000 - '- _- _- _ -' - -- zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --- -------- - - - - -- _------ __ Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. ---------------- - - - - -- Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated November 9, 1988. RESOLUTION NO.ZC -88 -002 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING REZONING OF CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA APN 386 -59 -30 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That certain real property attached Exhibit "A" is recommended to be rezonede RMM-3,0 to in the 00. Section 2: The reasons for such recommendation are as follows: The zoning is consistent with the surrounding density necessary in order to accomodate. the expansion Saratoga Parkside. of the and is adjacent Section 3: The designation is consistent with the General Plan Designation PDR, planned development residential. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of January following roll call vote: . 1989 by the AYES: Ca,mi.ssioners Harris, Burger, Guch, Kolstad, Siegfried, Tucker HOES: None ABSENT: Ccammissioner Tappan n ci ATTEST: Chairperson, Planning mmission G� Secret ry, Plan ng Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 4 I "�►V' me M WA OWN FA ho miles . J T.' �s.n 1 1 oil ' `� ■■ ■,■'1111 ■■iiiiii■■�■� - 101 �� ■ ■� ■, ■ ■ ■ ■� ■„ 'I.'S•I 1'. !ISM a■■ ■ ■e ■l■■■■■r�� .1 gas MaCals loll CM doll 1111■ ■"1„■ - • r..:••^r _ :M Rion �tttti �I1�1 111 ■1 •� loll 11111111 MM MM MM 11111. NNE - r� ■�� ,1.:- dift RESOLUTION NO. DR -88 -104 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of four condominiums in one structure located at 18970 -18976 Sara Park Circle. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: Landscaping is clustered in natural appearing groups, similar to the existing landscaping along Saratoga Avenue. The colors and roofing materials are consistent with the surrounding developments and are nonreflective. Roofing materials are medium shake and no mechanical equipment will be located on the roof where it can be seen. The proposed development is compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of J. Lohr for design review approval-be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Exterior colors shall match the Saratoga Parkside development. 4. The building shall be fully fire sprinklered and automatic fire sprinkler plans, permits and fees shall be submitted to the Central Fire District for approval prior to zone clearance. 5. Provide approved spark arrestors on all chimneys. 6. Submit geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional on soils and foundation. 7. Provide detailed on -site improvement plans showing: M.. DRL88 -104, 18970 -18976 Sara Park Circle a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills,, slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) c. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. d. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan. using recorded data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. 8. Early warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 9. This resolution shall become effective upon the adoption of the rezoning of the property by the City Council to RM- 3,000, per ZC- 88 -002. 10. Per SD -88 -001, the minimum age for at least one occupant of each unit shall be 55 years. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of January, 1989, by the following roll call vote: AYES: C mmissioners. -Guch, Harris, Tucker, Burger, Kolstad, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tappan � ATT T: Chairperson, Plannin Commission XsecretYary, Plan ing Commission The foregoing oonditions are hereby accepted JAN 1 D 189 -12 - F PLANNING .OEpr igna ure ot Appiicant RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -001 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF J. LOHR FOR A 4 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON ONE COMMON LOT APN 386 -59 -30 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 four (4) condominiums on one (1) lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -001 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 1/11/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated December, 1987 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. Complete requirements of DR -88 -104. 2. Minimum age for at least one occupant of each unit shall be 55 years. 3. This resolution shall become effective upon the adoption of the rezoning of the property by the City Council to RM -3,000 per ZC -88 -002. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 5 SD -88 -001; 12764 Saratoga Ave. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the re ui Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code Resolution son ss of l become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of January, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Siegfried, 'g er, Kolstad, Tucker � NOES : None ABSENT: Commissioner Tappan ATTEST: Chairman, Planning ommission Sec etc Planni" Commission The foregoing conditions area hereby accepted: Signature of Applicant Date A:RESTM Fi FA I W:MA LRW RAN Kill �� Imms Mellon go �� :1- t7�J'i• ■mma oW "A■■■ File No. fe /U Al Early Warning & Sprinklers required _Trails and pathways map checked Vicinity /locator map included ✓Dimensions shown on plot plan ✓ Adjacent structures V"" Directional arrow Trees labelled Plans reflect field conditions Heights shown on cross sections PLAY 'R'S WORKSHEET _Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans ✓ Natural and finished grade on cross sections Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations l✓ Roof pitch shown t✓ All sheets included in submittal with required reductions —JZColors submitted Staff Reports ✓ Conditions from other agencies /department correct Consistent figures throughout report V✓ History files examined _Correct address & application number on all pages of the report ✓ Description consistent with advertisement ✓ Plans labelled Order of attachment consistent with list L/ All attachments included ✓ Typographical errors corrected Dates on the resolutions correct (✓ Applicant notified of recommendation Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m. A:checklist 6/88 File No. DR -88 -104 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 11/18/88 Application complete: 12/16/88 Notice published: 12/28/88 Mailing completed: 12/29/88 Posting completed: 12/22/88 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Article 15 -46, applicant is requesting design review approval of four condominiums in one structure in the RM zone district. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed project is compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with the existing condominiums at Saratoga Parkside and with the condominiums across Saratoga Avenue. The project meets the design criteria of Section 15- 46.040 of the City Code and will not interfere with the privacy and view of adjacent properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project by adopting Resolution DR -88 -104. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -88 -104 3. Plans KC/ kah DR -88 -104, 18970 -18976 Sara Park Circle STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: RM- 3000(proposed) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDR (Planned PARCEL SIZE: 14,100 sq. ft. development residential) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 110 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 1.6 Ft. Fill: 110 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: .9 Ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Masonite horizontal and cedar siding painted oyster and dusty ivory with oxford brown trim, to match existing development. STRUCTURE COVERAGE: HEIGHT• SIZE OF STRUCTURE: PROPOSAL 5,634 (40 %) 24.5 ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 5,640 (40 %) 30 ft. REVISION TO PLANS: Since the 11/9/88 meeting, the applicant has revised the plans. The former plans did not maintain the required 25 ft. rear (east) setback and did not provide the requisite guest parking of 1/2 space /unit. The revised plans reduced the total sq. ft. of the units by 1,116 sq. ft. and now provide the required rear setback. The two guest parking stalls required by City Code have been provided in the area formerly occupied by the structure at the rear. Plan B Plan A 1st Floor: 813 sq. ft. 1,338 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 666 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. TOTAL: 1,479 sq. ft. 1,338 sq. ft. N/A SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Interior Right Side: 25 ft. Interior Right Side: 16.5 ft. Exterior Left Side: 21 ft. Exterior Left Side: 15 ft. REVISION TO PLANS: Since the 11/9/88 meeting, the applicant has revised the plans. The former plans did not maintain the required 25 ft. rear (east) setback and did not provide the requisite guest parking of 1/2 space /unit. The revised plans reduced the total sq. ft. of the units by 1,116 sq. ft. and now provide the required rear setback. The two guest parking stalls required by City Code have been provided in the area formerly occupied by the structure at the rear. DR -88 -104, 18970 -18976 Sara Park Circle The revised project meets all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. It is compatible with the adjacent Saratoga Parkside development in terms of design. Grading is minimal, no views will be obstructed and no privacy will be affected by the development. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project by adopting Resolution DR -88- 104. November 9, 1988 We the undersigned Saratoga residents, have received written notice from the City of Saratoga concerning Project File ZC -88- 0( --)2, to consider rezoning of 12764 Saratoga Avenge to RM -3, 000, in order to constrl.tct 4 condorniniurn units similar, to the current sLtrrounding Saratoga Parkside development that borders the property on two sides. We oppose destriaction of single family homes for condominium con- struction with the resulting four -fold use density increase, and the precedent that would be established if the rezoning is granted. We demand that the existing R- 10,000 single family home Zoning for the property in question, 12764 Saratoga Ave., be maintained. JP�►'C V U.,r c�`zz --cam 1 Q ��, \�� � r 42. 6-w ---------- 1 November 9, 1988 We the undersigned Saratoga residents, have received written notice from the City of Saratoga concerning Project File ZC -88- 002, to consider rezoning of 18764 Saratoga AvenLte to RM -3, 000, in order to construct 4 condorniniurii units similar to the current surrounding Saratoga Parks ide development that borders the property on two sides. We appose destruction of single family homes for condominium con- struction with the resulting four -fold use density increase, and the precedent that would be established if the rezoning is granted. We demand that the existing R- 10,000 single family home zoning for the property in question, 12764 Saratoga Ave., be maintained. � .��..Ln�n om - t_- - - -- ------- ---- ------- - ----- - --------- 1 l zGl e _ A,- /--2 -97 JI?4 _ 12 February 6, 1989 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, 95070 Dear Council: RE: Rezoning 12764 Saratoga Ave. I am not in favor of rezoning the 12764 Saratoga Avenue property in order- to build 4 more units. I feel that rezoning would further dilute the single family housing personality of the area. That complex is surrounded on several sides by single family dwellings and it is appropriate that no additional multiple units be built. In addition, more units mean more traffic and as you are well aware, Saratoga Avenue is heavily traveled already. Added congestion, added Population, added polution .... where do we stop. I say here! Sincerely, rs. Marcia Fariss Saratoga Glen Place F? J"lc +`j ni -,r�� SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. o AGENDA ITEM 8 MEETING DATE: 2/15/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL Report of the Planning Commission on the appeal of SD -88 -006 SUBJECT: Applicant: Ralph Saviano Appellant: Pierce Road Homeowner's Association Location: 13502 Pierce Road --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: 1. Review the Report of the Planning Commission 2. Review public input applicable to the Planning Commission Report 3. Close the Public Hearing 4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution implementing the Planning Commission recommendations for consideration at the Council's March 1, 1989 meeting. Report Summary: As requested by the City Council, the Planning Commission has reviewed the recently submitted information and testimony regarding the appeal of a three lot minor subdivision. The attached Planning Commission report analyzes the implications of current geological conditions and recommends action to correct the instability preventing further property damage. The Planning Commission report also recommends that the subdivision proceed as a three lot map with the addition of a condition requiring the slide repair prior to recordation of the final map. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the foot path not be required, for explicit reasons cited on the attached report. Lastly, the Planning Commission felt that the City Attorney could draft a modified condition establishing a reimbursement system for the bridge reconstruction required of the developer with the approval of this subdivision. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission memorandum dated 2/8/89 2. City Council minutes of January 4, 1989 3. Staff report from January 4, 1989 City Council Meeting Motion and Vote/J A:agenbill 0919W o2 0&iaZ19(M(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 2/8/89 FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Report on the Appeal of SD -88 -006 Applicant: Ralph Saviano; Appellant: Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc. Location: 13502 Pierce Road overview This memorandum responds to a City Council request for the Commission's analysis of supplemental information presented at recent hearings. Specifically, the City Council requested analysis on the following issues: 1) Recent geology reports and the potential to correct an existing soils hazard; 2) allowable density knowing that the slide is currently designated in a manner as to cause it to be deducted from density, calculations; 3) a potential footpath required by this approval; and 4) the possible reimbursement for the required improvements to the Calabazas Creek bridge. Planning Commission Analysis The Planning Commission reviewed the issues identified by Council at a Study Session held on January 17, 1989 at which time participation from the appellants, applicant, City Geologist and staff was invited. What follows is the results from this session. Accordingly, the Commission also reviewed the matter when a draft report was presented at a regular Commission meeting on February 8, 1989 to ensure this report accurately reflected the consensus of the Commission. From the outset, the Planning Commission extricated the issues specific to the application from broad policy discussion. In general, the Commission felt that the policy issues should be discussed and analyzed in a context free from specific proposal. Geology The Commission received the presentation from the Geologist which depicted technical issues now confronting the City Council. To reiterate, the Geologist reported that the slide was currently designated "Md "; the slide was correctable independent from the adjacent property; and the slide would continue to erode to the detriment of nearby properties and structures. The Commission felt that the opportunity afforded the City with this subdivision should not be overlooked. The potential for the public's health to be jeopardized if the geology is not corrected, compelled the Commission to recommend all efforts to stabilize the existing condition. Because the geologic hazard involved adjacent residents and their homes, the Planning Commission felt very strongly that conditions to repair the slide should be imposed without hesitation. Density The Commission noted that the current designation of the slide as I'M" technically exempted it from slope density calculations which allowed only a two -lot subdivision. Since the Planning Commission felt that the slope must be stabilized, the Commission turned to the question of phasing the required repair and subdivision approval. . The Planning Commission sought the imput of the City Attorney as to whether the City could gain any advantage by either approving two - lots, and affording the possibility to add a third lot after the repair, or by approving three lots and requiring the repair prior to recordation of the final map. The City Attorney reported that both approaches were legally sound and equally preferred. The Commission pointed out that a three -lot approval provided incentive for the applicant to perform the required repair. Footpath The Planning Commission re- evaluated the requirement for a footpath and arrived at its original conclusion which was that the footpath was not appropriate as a subdivision condition. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered a variety of factors: 1) Traffic Safety; 2) Security; 3) Recreational concerns and long range circulation policy. The Commission requested that staff contact respective departments within City Hall for analysis of each specified area. The traffic safety analysis was based on the premise that the footpath was needed to promote safety for its users. The Commission reviewed the City Engineer's report which indicated that a detached path would be at higher and lower grades from Pierce Road which reduced accessibility of pedestrians and diminished the desirability from a traffic safety standpoint. Additionally, the City Engineer noted that significant traffic and pedestrian safety would be achieved by improvement to Pierce Road which was an unacceptable alternative because of impacts to the surrounding environment. From a security standpoint, the footpath does not pose exceptional safety concerns. City maintenance and security officials indicate that from a security perspective, observation is key to effective crime prevention. Because a detached footpath would be obscured from observation by safety personnel, the optimal security would not exist. However, a rural, residential community like Saratoga has numerous examples of trails and paths which are not readily visible from public areas and are not security problems. From the recreational perspective, the footpath provides additional public amenities in a very limited area. The value of the footpath would be greatly enhanced if opportunities to extend it both north and south were available. Moreover, the Planning Commission found that General Plan policies do not call for pedestrian facilities in this area and no change to this policy is foreseen. Staff reported on the history of Planning Commission permit activity in the Pierce Road activity in order to examine precendent for the footpath requirement. From Saratoga Heights Road to Comer Road, there are approximately 49 lots fronting on the east side of Pierce Road. In the last 10 years, 18 planning permits have been issued for site plan, variance, subdivision or use permit. The construction of a footpath was not required as a condition of these permits. The Planning Commission's re- evaluation of the footpath led to the conclusion that the improvements were limited both in scope and opportunity for expansion and, therefore, the requirement for its installation was not warranted. Bridge Widening The Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring reconstruction of the Pierce Road crossing of Calabazas Creek. The Planning Commission found that the bridge widening was absolutely essential to pedestrian and traffic safety which must be constructed prior to development. The Planning Commission also found that the applicant should install these improvements which would most directly benefit this proposal. However, the widening would peripherally benefit future proposals. The Commission determined that while the bridge widening must occur with this proposal, a reimbursement schedule based on direct and measurable benefit to future developments would be acceptable. Recommendation The Planning Commission has provided the analysis requested by the City Council and has produced the following recommendations: 1) That approving a 3 -lot subdivision which required repair of the slide provides an opportunity to correct a potential hazard now endangering nearby structures; 2) That approving a 3 -lot subdivision with conditions now provides incentive for the developer to correct the geology; 3) That the footpath should not be a requirement of this subdivision; 4) That bridge widening must be completed by that reimbursement was appropriate if it was benefit derived by future applicants. The suggests that the City Attorney be directed for Council review. SE /dsc A:Memocc the applicant, and based on measurable Planning Commission to draft a condition MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 4, 1989 OLD BUSINESS Continued uncilmember Peterson suggested that sury Page 4 eys completed on properties which t ered the slope de ' formula be confirmed by a second opinion. The situation was unfo ate, especially for the A 'cant, Mrs. Kocher; he could not approve this request and su the Item be referred to the I ing Commission with a recommendation to rescind th ntative Map approval. A variance for excessive slope under the building footprint w ore important to him than the fact that the slo ensity formula required 1.2 acres rather t 1.1 acre of this parcel in order to subdivide the lot; h uld possibly make the necessary F' ings for the latter. Mrs. Kocher, Applicant, nted her original lett o the Council written in 1983, requesting that the property be left in half acr oning; this zon' existed the entire time she owned the property. Had applicants acted on this fa here wou have been a house on Parcel B now; the City had given a tentative building permit d ' e .Cotton's information on the contour map. Mr. Tyler felt it was unreasonable ask a plicant to have a house plan before the lot existed; Mr. Allen had stated he could bu' a house o to with a less than 40% slope under the footprint. Councilmember Clevenge ponded that although . Kocher had a large lot, the slope density formula would have pr Hied subdivision of the parcel n in 1983, if there had been an accurate contour map; she co not recall the Council approving a I lit based on a variance and was not favorable to suc procedure. Mayor An n cited the number of variances required; she could n approve the Application. The situ on was unfortunate; something would have to be done to preve imilar incident. NGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO RESCIND THE TENTATIVE MAP OVAL SDR 1 0; ALL FEES AND BONDS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IN CONNE WITH FINAL MAP APPROVAL SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. Passe 3 -0 -1, Councilmember Stutzman abstaining. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. S. PUBLIC HEARINGS: • A. Appeal of approval of subdivision of approximately 11 acres of undeveloped property at 13602 Pierce Road into three lots, each lot to be approximately 3.6 acres in size. (Applicant, Bowie; appellant, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc.) (SD 88 -006) (Continued from December 7, 1988). Planning Director Emshe reviewed the Memorandum dated December 29, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:54 P.M. Break: 10:38 - 10:50 P.M. Ms. Jan Harris, Planning Commissioner, questioned whether Minutes of October 26 th Commis- sion Meeting were complete; there was discussion regarding yield of the property to be subdivided. Councilmember Clevenger noted that the crux of the question before the Council was whether three lots with repair of the slide or two lots were to be permitted on this parcel; this did not appear to be the issue addressed at the Planning Commission Meeting. The City Attorney responded that under the City Code, if the slide were not repaired and certified by the City Geologist to be reclassified, only a two -lot subdivision would be allowed. Councilmember Stutzman was concerned that accurate information was unavailable to the Planning Commission duringg their deliberations. The original site designation was Ps /Sun with the slide area determined to be. 47 acres; upon reexamination the slide was designated Md and constituted almost 40,000 sq. ft. The City should have some recourse when inaccurate information was provided. Mr. William Cotton, City Geologist, responded to questions addressed by the Council as follows: - Original designation of the slide was done in the late 1970's from an aerial, geologic map - Original map scale was 1" = 300; map recently completed by the Applicant's consultant was V = 50' which had a greater chance of being accurate - In addition, the region had become highly activated after the original mapping - Differences between the original map and the Applicant's may be a function of scale and time MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Cotton, City Geologist, continued as follows: Consultants had reviewed the proposed repair which consisted of buttressing the base of the slide, which would act as a dam and installing a drainage network to remove the excess water Repair justified a change in the designation on the geological maps from Md to Pd Recognized that an upper slope, off -site, area had a potential for continued problems Confirmed that the slide's area of influence included the upper slope area although the landslide per se did not extend to this off -site area Agreed that if the upper slope failed, it would come down on the area being stabilized Upper region was designated as having a higher potential for failure than the site in question; however, the upper region could also be corrected, but it was not on this property Confirmed that the Applicant's property was in danger from the upper, off -site region; how- ever, siting the houses as shown on the Tentative Map would not place them in danger; a failure of upper region did not have the potential to affect the proposed houses Agreed that if proper investigation and engineering were applied to the repair of the upper sites, such would further reduce any material coming off the property and onto the Applicant's site Stated that repair of the Applicant's site helped the upper properties; furthermore, upper proper- ties could be stabilized irrespective of whether repairs were done on the Applicant's site Did not recommend allowing the third lot requested if the repairs were not made; however, a two -lot subdivision was fine even if the repair were not made Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented as follows: - Questioned how a slide designation on the Applicant's property after a repair could be changed if the upper, off -site portion remained unchanged; a moving deep slide would still exist - Secondly, he asked for Mr. Cotton's opinion on the cost of the proposed repair - Felt that neither Staff or the Planning Commission were well informed; Appellants had done the work on this issue - Responding to Councilmember Peterson, he stated the slide should be repaired if it were a danger Mr. Russ Crowther, Norada Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Understood that the reason the designated Md areas were were to be deducted from the gross acreage was that it was difficult to repair Md (moving -deep) slides • - Did not feel the change from an Md to Ps designation of the landslide on -site was correct - The question remained, what was the potential of a future landslide? - The answer depended upon factors for which the data was unavailable Strongly opposed the process wherein repair of Md landslides was used as a basis for incr.;as- ing the number of subdivision lots permitted Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Criticisms included the fact that the critical debate at the October 26th Planning Commission Meeting concerning increased vs. decreased density due to the removal of slide area was com- pletely absent from the Minutes; asked that the tapes of these meetings be retained - Advbe given to the Commission and Council pertaining to density calculations was incorrect - No Planning Commissioner, City Attorney or City Manager seriously questioned this advi oe City Geologist, while credited with conducting a detailed geological and geotechnical investiga- tion, did not report a change in slide designation nor the increased slide area to the Commission - Saratoga residents required top notch service from paid public officials and were not getting it - It was made clear at the two Planning Commission hearings that the slide could not be repaired without the cooperation of the adjacent two neighbors; now there was a new story - The Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan clearly limited this parcel to a two lot subdivision unless the slide were repaired with cooperation from the two adjacent property owners Partial correction of a slide could only result in problems and litigation for new property owners Asked that building pads be moved as far from Pierre Rd. as possible without impinging on slide or flood areas; also, he asked that pads be separated as far as possible from each other Density formulas arrived at were obtained by a series of compromises - The question remained, a two or three lot subdivision; if three lots were allowed, the developer should be required to do a lot more in the way of improvements; suggestions were provided Mr. H. Hunzinker, Saratoga, was very unhappy with the Staff Report for the following reasons: Council was asked to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and approve a sub- division without any idea of the environmental impact a slide repair would create Alternativ stated, "The aesthetic impact the correction will have on the surrounding environ- ment cannot be determined until specific corrective measures are approved by the Geologist." The Council would be completely in the dark about what the slide repair actually meant Cited example of another geologic repair where the hillside was cut completely flat Noted that the cost of repair on this site had not been determined; such may not be feasible MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hunzinker continued as follows: Alternatives stated, "Therefore, staff has concluded that the reduction in development achieved through the exemption of certain slides result in relatively small decreases in allowable development in the NHR zone and that properties with the same topography should yield the same density." This, in effect, was a General Plan change. Issue remained of when a slide should be corrected; the City Geologist earlier commented that, anything can be corrected." Such was not the intent of the General Plan Noted the importance of a footpath for resident's safety; such would connect to other paths Residents did not want Pierce Rd. to be widened; trees would be lost by a road widening Strongly objected to the Staff Report recommendation against the footpath for safety reasons - In response to Councilmember Peterson's questions, he absolutely opposed removal of trees to install the footpath; there was 7 ft. of easement that could be utilized - Furthermore, he did not feel the slide could be repaired; however, it would not be a danger if the site was not developed Councilmember Stutzman asked Mr. Cotton to respond to questions raised earlier in the hearing Mr. Cotton stated that he did not have estimates regarding the cost of the repair of this slide; how- ever, the Applicant and his geotechnical engineer were present and could possibly respond. With respect to the probability of successfully repairing this slide, engineering judgements were more appropriate; it was his professional view that if the buttressing and drainage were properly placed the risk of a moving landslide would be considerably lowered to a point where a hazard would not exist. The designation would always be a Pd not a Ps. Furthermore, reference to a landslide on the upper, off -site property was incorrect; it was a steep cliff base that could be stabilized. In response to Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Cotton confirmed he had reviewed preliminary repair Plans presented in the Geotechnical Report. Councilmember Peterson questioned whether the City Geologist had stated that in his opinion the repair plan did not materially damage the environment. Mr. Cotton responded that with respect to landslide repair, the plan proposed was the softest repair possible, i.e., installation of drains in the landslide area, not excavation of an entire hillside. The buttressing at the bottom of the slide would be less than that required if the area were excavated and recompacted. The repair proposed was a minimum repair and would stabilize the existing body. • Mr. Saviano responded as follows: - Stabilization and repair would cost about $50,000; he would do some of the work required - Cited the preliminary repair plan which included the saving of a number of Oak trees - Noted efforts to elicit the cooperation of adjacent property owners to affect a complete repair - Differences in the size of the slide reported were due to the fact that Mr. Cotton included a buffer zone around the slide and secondly, the difference in scale of the maps drawn - Reviewed the Application's history and noted the amount of geological information submitted Cited benefits derived from the subdivision, namely, stabilization of upper, off -site property, elimination of an existing eyesore through repair and landscaping the slide area, stopping the growth of the on -site landslide and a professionally completed repair - Concluded that the above benefits could not be derived from a two -lot subdivision Density (3.6 acres per lot)was less intense than any of the sixteen surrounding properties Contended that the slide designation should be a Ms not an Md; the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan defined Md and Mrf as an uncorrectable slide; the slide in question was correctable - Concerned about Staff Recommendation to repair the slide prior to Final Map Approval and cited financial impacts from this requirement Contested Condition 16 requiring a replacement of the bridge over Calabazas Creek and recom- mended that future developments benefiting from this improvement also contribute Summarized that a lot of time had been spent on this Application; all geological and Staff questions had been addressed Mr. Joe Crosby, Geotechnical Engineer, commented as follows: - Confirmed that the landslide situation was solvable Slide repair was essentially two phased; unstable ground could be stabilized by drainage and buttressing; in addition, there was an upper, off -site portion had some degree in instability Whatever would be done on the Applicant's property would benefit these adjacent properties but would not solve problems on the off -site parcels; this was a separate issue Had no concern regarding damage to three home sites proposed with completion of the repair CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:11 P.M. Passed 4 -0. r • MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 4, 1989 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger notes .;te issues surrounding this Application. The City Attorney reviewed discussions held at the Planning Commission hearings; he stated that the City could not require the Applicant to repair off -site properties, particularly since the City Geologist had stated that work on the Applicant's site was distinguishable from the upper sites. Councilmember Clevenger suggested this Application be returned to the Planning Commission; such would also allow the Applicant to pursue an agreement with adjacent property owners. Furthermore, she had concerns allowing a three lot subdivision when the City Geologist stated that repair of the Applicant's site was independent of the stabilization of the upper, off -site properties. Nonetheless, the Applicant had made a good faith effort in working with this difficult property. The City Attorney questioned what the Planning Commission's assignment would be. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the Commission did not have the slide designation and was unaware that density would be reduced on account of the designation; the Council was being asked to make a decision o^ 7 two or three lot subdivision when the Commission had not considered this question in the same way. She wished the Commission's expertise on this issue. The City Attorney added that the Commission would be considering the bridge and road improve- ments as, well as Mr. Saviano's request for consideration of pro -rated cost of the bridge repair. Councilmember Stutzman cited Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan Q1Q1gZXMd_SQ 's Policies, 1; City Attorney responded that with respect to density, the Plan specified that uncorrectable geotech- nic hazards, designated Md or Mrf, should be deducted; his understanding was that if a slide could not be corrected either from an engineering and /or environmental point of view, such should be deducted. He did not recall that if a situation could be corrected, such would be left as it existed. He did not feel an Environmental Impact Report kEfth ould be required. Mr. Crowther noted that during discussions on the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, their in- tent was to define slides that were uncorrectable as Md and Mrf from slides that were correctable. The City Manager added that if an Md designation was defined as uncorrectable, then the landslide in question could not be so designated since according to the City Geologist such was correctable. Mr. Cotton responded to Mayor Anderson's question, that an Md designation referred to a slide deeper than 10 ft. and very large; the slide in question was only marginally deeper than 10 ft. With a little bit of effort, this landslide could be corrected by draining it; such would remove the hazard. The City Attorney, cited the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, Geology and oils Policies, 5., "Especially sites on potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes engineering analysis and design provided by the developer clearly demonstrate the long -term stability of such sites to the satisfaction of the City, its Geologist and other professional consultants" as the stand- ard the City relied upon. The Applicant's consultant and the City's Geologist agreed that there was long term stability to be gained by completion of the repair. Councilmember Peterson commented as follows: - Was the slide correctable or not? He felt that the slide was correctable Did the City wish the slide as well as similar slides corrected? He could not imagine the City would not want these slides corrected Even if the repair of the slide triggered a third house, the proposed three lot subdivision was on a parcel in excess of 11 acres; furthermore, no houses were being approved at this time - A three lot subdivision permitted improvements of a bridge repair and installation of a footpath Was satisfied with the consultants' evaluation that even if some material came down from the upper, off -site parcels, such would not endanger the homes on this site - Although he previously stated he was in favor of the footpath and despite the fact that he was very familiar with Pierce Rd., the proposed path may possibly present more problems than it solved and did not really go anywhere; he concurred with the City Engineer on this issue Asked the City Attorney and City Manager to address the issue whether correctable slide areas designated Md and Mrf, should be calculated in the allowable density; in addition, how should the Planning Commission exercise its authority when a slide was correctable - Concurred with Applicant's request for a pro rata share of the bridge repair cost; it was unfair for this Applicant to bear the entire cost especially if other developable sites existed in the area Was favorable to requiring the repair of the slide prior to Final Map Approval - Stated he was prepared to vote on this Application r` MEETING OF THE CTTy COUNCIL JANUARY 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 8 City Manager noted that until the slide was corrected, the density formula could not be a suggests the the could be conditioned that Design Review approval could not be given Rev- until the slide repair were completed g PP1i�; he the necessary repair work in place. He was concerned that the final map could be filed without Councilmember Peterson responded with a request that a policy decision be considered requiring any major repair work to be completed prior t Final Map approval. Councilmember Clevenger suggested g of the Calabazas Creek bridge, pro rating the repair cost, a two versus athree -lot subdivision ggester the Planning Commission be asked to reconsider the repair relationship to the improvements to be gained, the footpath and other issues raised at the hearing. nm Councilmember Stutzman asked that members of the City Council and Planning o g a site visit if they had not already done so. From his prospective, was fraught with many difficulties, i.e., slides, g mm�ssion make required further co P pective, this was not a desirable lot; it nsideration. Potential for flooding from Calabazas Creek; such Commission for their reconsideration; in addition, the Council would have more time for rev e was favorable to referring this Application back to the Planning This was one of the first applications under the hillside initiative and the decision was crucial, Policy decisions in the future would be based in part on the decision on this application. He was not satisfied with what he heard at the hearing and did not feel all the information was available. Mayor Anderson a eed tt issues cited b W t is Item should be returned to the Commission for reconsideration of y Councilmember Clevenger and outlined in the Staff Report. O R/ ZMAN CMMISSI ON FOID A MOVED THAT SD -88 -006 BE R DAYS, AT REPORT TO BE PROVIDED TO E TURNED TO THE PLANNING THE FEBRUARY 15, 1989, MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WITHIN FORTY CLEVENGE THE CITY COUNCIL,. Passed 4 -0. R/ANENSURE MOVED E DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE AMEND�� NTS P�ECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS OF THE NHR DISTRICT WFR&�tSL=, ��\\dd 4 -0. - 10:50 P.M. Mayor And n returned to Old Business. C. Trial Co unding - Pro Posed Settlement City Manager review the Report Re: Trial Court CLEVENGER/ANDFRC u `�g Negotiations - Proposed Settlement. T� ;aM. D SARATOGA ` "" °" t ROVE SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD LDGIsLATICN. $ asseed 4 . S �'�"� WJD i�1VE RFII EIVED UNDER Mayor Anderson commended the Cif nager for his role in negotiating this settlement. about the loss of Peterson ove revenues the late in ondedtfotr the the settlement reached, he was concerned Consensus reached b x t the Co City regarding concerns e r cl to communt to by letter with the League of California Cities P by Councilmember erson. D. Freeway Agree nt Negotiations Report Mayor Anderson re rted on the recent meetings held on the aY' Agreement Negotiations. 7• NEW siNFee. `v A. Teal for Hiring Former City Engineer as Consultant ivrc r tKJUN MOVED TO RETAIN BOB SHOOK AS Cay GINEER ON A TING BASIS AT $55.00 AN HOUR THROUGH MARCH 31, 1989. asked 4.0. Revision of Hakone Garden Master Plan (JUN /CLEVENGER MOVED TO APPROVE GARDENS AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -0. THE HAKONE GARDENS MASTER C i, 0�uql gq §&Mi, ao& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council L i, FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director DATE: 12/29/88 SUBJECT: Appeal of subdivision (SD-88 -006) approval to divide an 11+ acre undeveloped property at 13602 Pierce Road into three lots. Applicant: Bowie /Saviano AarDellant: Pierce Canyon Htmeowners Association (continued fr(n 12/7/38). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- OVERVTF.W The public hearing to consider the appeal of SD -88 -006 was continued to allow the City Geologist to reconsider the extent and designation of a slide area shown within the proposed subdivision. The requested information was to determine compliance with the NHR Code requirements that certain slides are to be deducted from density figures and utilized when computing average slope. Additionally, the City Engineer was requested to report on the feasibility of a footpath through or adjacent to the subdivision. BACKGROUND The City Geologist has reviewed the proposed subdivision and the geotechnical reports in light of the City Council's request. His findings are listed in the attached letter dated December 21, 1988. To summarize, the City Geologist found the following: 1) the present state of the slide should be reclassified to I'M"; 2) the slide area is 40,940 square feet, larger than previously shown; 3) there is substantial evidence supporting the Geologist's opinion that the slide is correctable; and 4) the repair of the slide within the subdivision boundaries will support reclassification of the slide to a "Ps" designation. The NHR specific plan establishes policies to determine the densities of development within the plan area. Density policy 2(a) attached to this report, indicates that any uncorrectable geotechnical hazard designated as I'M" or "Mrf" are to be deducted from the gross acreage prior to applying the density formula. Further, specific plan policy requires that the slope area of a designated slide be included in determining the average slope used in calculating allowable density. The Zoning Ordinance implements the policies of the specific plan. 1 Ti- ci The NHR section of the City Code requires in calculating allowable density. Net section 15- 06.620, attached to this report slide area designated I'M" or "Mrf ". Staff has reviewed the regarding specific plan that if the slide were then the property would staff determined that if was reclassified to "Ps" of three lots. • that net site area be used site area is defined by and specifically excludes Geologist's findings and the implications and zoning requirements. Staff determined not repaired and ultimately remained "Md" field a maximum of two lots. Additionally, the slide area were repaired and ultimately then the subdivision would yield a maximum The Council will note from the record of Planning Commission proceedings that stabilization of the slide area was required as a condition of the tentative map approval. The Commission discussed the existence of the slide and the opportunity to correct the soils hazard which affects not only the subdivision itself but uphill properties as well. While the Planning Commission recognized that a requirement to repair the slide was limited to the boundaries of the subdivision, evidence was presented by the City Geologist that the slide could be stabilized by repair work within these boundaries. The City Engineer has reviewed the standards to develop a footpath development. The City Engineer's report for further reference. ALTERNATIVES site conditions and applicable in conjunction with this analysis is attached to this The recent information from the City Geologist regarding the slide designation and the opportunity for its repair presents two issues which may require Council policy direction. First, should "Md" or "Mrf" lands which can be corrected and reclassified in an environmentally sensitive manner be exempted from density calculations? And second, how and when should the Planning Commission exercise its authority to require correction.of private property slides that do not present an immediate hazard to the public safety? Exempting slides that are correctable, reduces allowable development by minimizing the net site area used in density calculations. Conversely, exempting correctable slides decreases the impetus for the property owner to perform the repair and eliminate the geologic hazard. Because, slide areas are used in calculating the average slope, densities consider the topography irrespective of the existence_ of a slide. Therefore, staff has concluded that the reduction in development achieved through the exemption of certain slides result in relatively small decreases in allowable development in the NHR zone and that properties with the same topography should yield the same density. The opportunity to correct a slide and enforcing this requirement is an issue with significant aesthetic overtones. Engineers and Geologists indicate that virtually any slide can be repaired if I costs and aesthetics were not concerns. In Saratoga grading and alterations to hillsides are serious concerns which involve extensive regulation and site specific review. In some instances, the repair of extensive slide areas require large amounts of grading, construction of visible drainage structures and tree removal. Therefore, staff finds that the decision to correct a slide which may not present an immediate safety hazard or constitute a public nuisance, should be subject to the same criteria applied to any other construction and grading project in the NHR zone. If inconsistent grading and removal of significant vegetation results from required correction measures then the slide should be considered incorrectable and exempted from density calculations. At the present time plans to repair the slide for the pending application are under review by the City Geologist. In addition, a plan to stablize the slide as required by the Planning Commission Resolution is also under review by the Geologist. Therefore, it is unclear which specific measures will ultimately be required to reclassify the slide. The aesthetic impact the correction will have on the surrounding environment cannot be determined until specific corrective measures are approved by the Geologist. one way to resolve this concern is to amend the Planning Commission conditions to require the City Council (or Planning Commission) review and approve of the Geologist's recommendations regarding the applicant's correction plan and implement the repair prior to recordation of the final map. In this way the City can achieve two goals: first, the reclassification of slide can occur prior to the creation of three lots; second, the aesthetic impact can be determined and the NHR and design review standards can be applied. CONCLUSION The project presents several difficult issues which to date have not been encountered in the NHR district. Staff has attempted to present the policy. implications these issues may have on this project as well as future projects which may also encounter these circumstances. Further, staff has also suggested one method to address these concerns presented by this project and the recent Geologist's findings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take appropriate public testimony; close the public hearing; discuss the recent geotechnical findings and their policy implications, affirm the Planning Commission decision; and direct staff to prepare the amendments necessary to ensure the goals of the NHR district are upheld. 3 ' February 15, 1989 Saratoga, CA. Re: Saviano\Bowie No. SD-88-006: 13502 Pierce Rd., Sirs, I attended the Planning Commission work session 4 Jan. 1989. The conclusion drawn from the meeting was that. we face two problems. bl The first and ma�g1� problem is whether to change the Specific Plan. Should we allow slides designated md (moving deep) to be partially corrected to pd (potential deep) and thus allow increased density over that presently allowed by the Specific Plan? No, low density is the only practical solution to the myriad of problems associated with development in the hillsides. The Specific Plan was designedto recognize special problems such as landslides, and appropriately reduce density more in such areas. Such a change in the Specific Plan, (as acknowledged by thePlanning Commission), would jnoui[e work sessions, public hearings,and meetings of wnole, etc. The second, and minor problem is the density issue Pertaining to the Saviano development. The Planning Commission recommends allowing greater density in this development than allowed by the present Specific Plap. This is clearly an incorrect procedure. The development can at present be only divided into two lots, only after 1) the Specific Plan is changed and 2) the slide is corrected can a third lot be considered. Note: Potential deep means potential deep. Ten years ago the slide was designated potential deep. Now it is moving deep. If it is partially corrected to potential deep again, how long will it take until it is again moving deep?? . SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 172— AGENDA ITEM FE) MEETING DATE: 0-) j�; l C� CITY MGR. APPROVAL 7V �T 'T ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: Adoption of Residential Design Handbook Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration and introduction of ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance amends the design review regulations for single family dwellings to require consistency with the Residential Design Handbook approved by the City Council on November 2, 1988. The ordinance is explained in more detail in the Memorandum from the City Attorney to the Planning Commission dated November 10, 1988, a copy of which is submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) City Attorney Memorandum to Planning Commission dated November 10, 1988. (b) Proposed ordinance. (c) Negative declaration. Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ ATKiNS0N • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 "VEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 1415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Residential Design Handbook DATE: November 10, 1988 . M. ATKINSON 11692 -1982) L. M. FARASYN 11915 -19791 On November 2, 1988, the City Council approved the Residential Design Handbook as recommended by the Planning Commission. Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance which amends the zoning regulations to require consistency with the policies and implementation techniques set forth in the Handbook. As you may recall, our original intention was to insert a reference to the Handbook in Section 15- 45.050 as something having a compliance requirement falling between a standard and a guideline. A copy of this section as it now appears in the City Code is attached. However, after giving careful scrutiny to this section, the City Attorney and the Planning Staff are now recommending a different approach. It is our opinion that except for the prohibition against an underfloor clearance exceeding five feet (which is a definitive standard), all of the remaining "standards" and "guidelines" now listed in Section 15- 45.050 represent the same implementation techniques specifically discussed in the Handbook. Moreover, the Handbook does a far better job. The proposed ordinance will eliminate everything in Section 15- 45.050 (on the basis that these items are now superseded by and contained in the Handbook), and substitute a single requirement that underfloor clearances must be five feet or less. This requirement is not a "standard" in the sense that a variance would be necessary for the granting of an exception, but the ordinance specifically states that the Planning Commission must still be able to make all of the design review findings. In other words, our handling of underfloor clearances would be exactly the same as provided by the existing Code. The ordinance will also add a new Section 15- 45.055 to the zoning regulations requiring the construction or expansion of any single- family main structure or accessory structure to be consistent with the Residential Design Handbook. This new section will serve to incorporate the Handpqok into the zoning regulations and authorize the Commission to enforce the 1r� fnjntation techniques described in the Handbook. . Toppb},-Sarlatoga-Uity Attorney S15-45-050 Additional standards and guidelines In addition to the standards set forth in Sections 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.040 of this Article, the following standards and guidelines shall be satisfied before approval is granted for the construction or expansion of a single- family main structure or accessory structure: (a) Standards. The proposed structure shall contain architectural and design elements which serve to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk. Such elements may include: (1) Multiple floor levels which follow natural slope so as to reduce the underfloor clearance to not more than five feet; (2) Multiple roof lines; (3) Decks and balconies; (4) Foundation types that minimize cut and fill and the need for retaining walls; (5) Fence lines,- walls and other features which blend with the terrain rather than angle against it. (b) Guidelines (1) Variety in design should be encouraged in order to avoid monotony of regularly spaced buildings of uniform height. (2) On wooded hillside lots, multi -story structures may be encouraged in order to minimize grading and vegetation removal. The use of decks should be encouraged to provide usable open space. but the decks should not encroach on adjoining properties in terms of privacy. (3) The proposed structure should be designed to optimize the use of natural elements, such as solar radiation, wind and landscaping for heating, cooling and ventilation. ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 45.050 AND ADDING SECTION 15- 45.055 TO THE CITY CODE CONCERNING DESIGN REVIEW The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 45.050 in Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15.45.050 Underfloor clearance All new single - family main structures and accessory structures, or additions thereto, shall be designed to follow the slope of the site so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and finish grade to not more than five feet. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to this requirement if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article." SECTION 2: A new Section 15- 45.055 is added to Article 15 -45 of the City Code, to read as follows: "S15- 45.055 Residential Design Handbook All projects for the construction structure or an accessory structure sha implementation techniques described in adopted by resolution of the City Council. the intent of the design review findings Article." or expansion of a single - family main 11 be consistent with the policies and the Residential Design Handbook, as Such Handbook embodies and illustrates prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s -1- The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -2- MAYOR RES -NO Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File NOAZO -88 -006 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Residential Design Handbook (Sections 15- 45.055 (new) and 15- 45.050). NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed amendment requires design review applications to be consistent with the policies and implementation tech- niques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The amendment is administrative in nature and no environmental effects will result. Executed at Saratoga, California this 14t�ay of November 1958 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Stephen Emslie DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER Valerie. Y ng, Associate Planner '` V SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J� �� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 15, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE 10K MONTALVO FOOT RACE ON SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1989 RECOM6ENDED MOTION: Approve in concept the holding of a foot race as proposed on April 22, 1989, conditioned on compliance with all requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval includes authorization for the Community Services Director to issue a Special Events Permit when he determines that all conditions have been satisfied. REPORT SUMMARY: Bradford Martin, a physical therapist who lives and works in Saratoga is requesting authorization to hold a 10K run in the Montalvo area on Saturday, April 1989, from approximately 8:00am to 10:00am. The race would be limited to 150 participants, and profits from the race would be used for the maintenance of hiking trails behind Montalvo. The race route, in addition to public roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the jurusdiction of the County Parks Department. Therefore, the City's approval of the race would be for only that portion of the route which is within the City's jurisdiction. A map outlining the route is attached. The requirements for a Special Events Permit include the following: a) Payment of a $50.00 non - refundable filing fee. b) Payment of $250.00 fully - refundable clean-up deposit. c) Mr. Martin assume financial responsibility for law enforcement personnel which may be required by.the Ccmm=ty Services Director. d) Mr. Martin obtain a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as a primary insured party for at least $1,000,000.00 in liability coverage. This race is almost identical to the one the City approved last year which was held on April 23,1988. FISCAL IMPACTS: None are anticipated. ATI'ACHM=S : a) Map showing route of foot race. b) Correspondence from Mr. Martin outlining details of event. MOTION AND VOTE: 5 A 6.2 M16-4. alat'Ll za< MILE MARK ®tog Volv4ee+rs u N AL E . I s-�R4� B G , 64LasG A �y z s o W A A i 1/ tae y 04 c k F ��� 2Q S p N F� SOHN y C e PA 40 v ° Z ov � R v;Ua g}a Finish+ PEACI4 Nill Sunset cL k LQt $� � N ® ana sf'a/tt�Fiv►iS� ParKih9 Lot *q -4Q Piedmoht ---) Q Peach N'I II --�© 6Leh Una Hume -4 (& LarK –) Q f efFer --?(g ParK Par K dr. MemdeI Soh v) —4Q Bonnie Brae Cn. 7 9 Ni II Movjakvo pj. ® Bonnie Brae IWy--P Q Me�del5oh n © Ovt pai-I,way © Vic Kery ® Lom i+0. - ® Al ohq --?(D Ko mina 6t.O""I s --�0 0c1� s +.�®lmy q ElevoIecl WalKuuy -to pAtoay 611M3 ovy 9 d MW+,alva Rd —� Evt-frAmce of No4alvo —;> Pin -tsh , Vol- ynvrE -C s_ a) EX i+ of M o neOv o pry ve way r Pi edni o nt b) M; d Peal. I+i Il I wile mark c) Peal, W II E (6 leh Uha. I"t%4crstc+ior J) 61.e j4 Una c Smse+ TA-- ersec+i d h e) Par tc £ Pefrer Z mile MarK F) 14 z 5{-u}lov, ov` Par K G) IMev,delsot+h1ParK1 11toy q area. h) Dill i Mot4alvv Rd. I) Bovinie. Brae Wy 3na',le Mary J) sohnle. grGe Wy t Meodel5ohr, k) McKdels -k i 4 airf area - L) Komw., i Aloha 11) Kowijna gm*le #A ri( >r L),4,rSkz +loh N) KOM!Vxa � QaK 5*; D) S +, cka rl e.s 4 oa !( P) Sf-. Charles 4 6'S s4. Q) 0 cat< 64. i 0" q R) AI b4o, 4 l4wy q S) f wy q, S mile Marti, T) Hwy 9 /uicKerylMo,�►vo Rd. area (A) E ✓ ir4vice To M a�, +alvo loorout poi►,t Roy Ky ►+t►I R A -e Vzma. -mm-14 1Yo Mom f ® ®fo ®Vo�unfCerS Low Tree J� 0 OWcaf -e aahon. g o T r a W t1d�� Cree -t-f Th.eghr i r —� N e fa• �-- r�nnnn cH• p,�vr! ►o ^� I L L n �nD �4L Ada, 0 L L � ems' K I �(e I w � - 9 ra►.a.o Y � r � L� r f f Love Temple- -, C r Sown, orA)ard A� t'ra i -T� %c i ' j' Norn� OrM4;� 1'ru�► r C i1 It T 'I L Paved Road J' ' � r l ' ►I, ;' j! Orthopedic Physical Therapy Specialists of Saratoga Nov 10, 1988 Dear Mr. Argow: City Of Saratoga Todd Argow 13777 Fruitvale Ave This letter is to outline the specifics related to the Villa Montalvo Run and Walk for Saturday April 22, 1989. The start of the run and walk would be at 8:00 am. The park should be opened at 6:45am so the volunteers can set-up. The start and finish will be in parking lot #4. Participants will be directed toward the appropriate lot. Parking will start in #4 and then #3 & 2. The lots will be blocked off until the prior lot is full. There will be a volunteer at the gate who will be checking names of runners at the gate. Only runners, volunteers and workers at Montalvo will be allowed in. This is to insure that only registered runners will be parking. The number of runners is limited to 150 and walkers to 50. Participants will be encouraged to ride together, this should allow for adequate parking for everyone. Prior to the start, volunteers will be instructed as to their duties. Volunteers will be placed a various locations on the run and walking course prior to the start of the event, see map. Volunteers are to warn runners about traffic and are not to stop traffic unless a vehicle may endanger a participants safety. Voulnteers are posted on the trails for direction and promoting safey. The walking event will not be timed and is in no way to be a competitive event in any sense of the word. No place awards will be given to walkers. There are two water stations on the running course and one on the walking course. The water station consists of a table with cups of water and a trash can placed a slight distance after the water table. The locations of the tables are displayed on the map. The sanitary facilities to be used are the restrooms in parking lot #4. The Red Cross, a paramedic and myself will be available for first aid if needed. There will be communication on the course via two-way radio. The running course will be marked with white chalk arrows and the walking course with white flour or small cardboard arrows on wooden stakes if it rains. The running course will be marked the previous day if it is clear or race day morning if it is raining. Both the walking and running course will be inspected prior to the event. The trails will be marked race day morning or late Friday afternoon before the event. Following the race, the parking lot area, walk and run course will be cleaned of any trash related to the event. The course will then be inspected with a Park Ranger for the approval on clean-up and verification in writing that the course has been cleaned to satisfaction in order to receive a full refund of the cleaning deposit. Post-race activities consists of displaying the times on a board, medals and ribbons will be given, free refreshments, and a random drawing for prizes donated by local merchants. 18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 -, Saratoga, CA 95070 9 (408) 866-1070 All runners except those registered for breakfast will be expected to leave at this time, about 9:45am. Those people having breakfast will meet on the patio in front of the house if it is sunny, or under the covered walk-way in front of the pavilion or in the pavilion if possible, if it rains. No kitchen facilities will be used. The food will be prepared and delivered. We will need tables and chairs to seat 50 people. These can be set-up race day morning, I should have volunteers to help and will certainly do everything possible to clean-up. The breakfast should be over no later than 10:45 am. I am expecting to have music in the form of horns and strings after the race and or during breakfast. There will be no sound amplification devices used for music or at any time during the event. The string instruments would need to be inside if it is raining. I will need to obtain permits from the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara Parks Dept, and Cal-Trans. Two off-duty Sheriffs will be present for traffic control. A public liability insurance policy will be purchased. This will be in the amount of one million dollars per claim with no aggregate limit and one million dollars for property damage. The parties to be named as insured in which the coverage is primary will be; Orthopedic PT Specialists Of Saratoga, Montalvo Association, City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, and the State of California it's officers and agents. Coverage is through American National Fire Insurance Company. Flyers about the race will be handed out at a preceeding run called the Great Race held in Saratoga. An article in the Saratoga News will probably appear prior to and or following the evnt. There will be a banner in Saratoga which will read; Orthopedic PT Specialists Of Saratoga Presents The Villa Montalvo Run, Sat April 22nd. Phone 866-1070. All entrants must pre-register either at my office, The Runners Factory in Los Gatos, and at the Montalvo office if the association agrees. A separate fee for the breakfast will be charged. Participants will be given their T-Shirt at the time they register. If you agree to the outlines in this plan I will need a writtent approval contingent upon the fact that all needed permits will be obtained, all fees paid, the insurance policy is recieved, and the event is held as outlined in this plan and or as outlined by changes made by parties involved such as the City, County, Association, or Cal-Trans. Enclosed is a $ 50.00 for permit. I will give you the cleaning deposit later. If you have any questions please call soon. Sincerely: .I r« ,' Bradford F. Martin SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 021 1 rT )qc69 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM 0 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Ordinance 47-o 8F-0 10 Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration and adoption of proposed ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance amends various sections of the zoning regulations relating to the definition of gross floor area, permitted uses in the PA District, front yard fencing and hillside fencing, as explained in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council dated February 6, 1989. (b) Proposed ordinance. (c) Negative declaration. (d) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 1989. (e) Resolution of Planning Commission recommending adoption of ordinance. Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ PAUL K. ROBERTSON ATK INS ON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Miscellaneous Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance DATE: February 6, 1989 J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance (Rev. 1/16/89) containing a variety of miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Some of these amendments were listed on the legislative calendar prepared by the City Attorney at the beginning of this fiscal year, and other amendments are the result of specific issues which arose during the Planning Commission's review of particular applications. The amendments are as follows: Section 1 - Amendment to Definition of Gross Floor Area: This amendment will add a new sentence at the end of Subsection 15- 06.280(b) to define the term "interior courts." After considering and discarding a rather large number of possible alternatives, the definition being suggested is "an area bounded by one or more buildings which is enclosed on each side by more than 50% of the length of such side." This language may initially appear to be rather confusing, but actually involves only two basic tests: (1) the area must be enclosed on more than three sides: and (2) the enclosure on each side must exceed 50% of the side length. The application of this definition is illustrated on the drawings submitted herewith. Example (1) shows an area which is not enclosed on more than three sides and therefore is not an interior court. Example (2) shows an enclosure on the fourth side which is more than 50% of the length of such side. Consequently, the area would be deemed an interior court. Example (3) illustrates an enclosure on more than three sides, but the length of one side is less than 50 %. Example (4) shows an interior court established by multiple structures, and example (5) illustrates that all internal areas within an interior court would be counted, even if irregular in shape. Section 2 - Permitted Uses in the P A Zoning District: This section will add financial institutions as a permitted use in the P -A zoning district. The amendment is intended to correct an inadvertent omission of a use which should have been specifically listed. -1- Section 3 - Front Yard Fencing: This section will amend the three -foot height limit for front yard and certain exterior side yard fences to permit a wrought iron entrance gate not exceeding five feet in height. The amendment was prompted by a recent variance application for a five -foot entrance gate, which was granted by the Commission. Section 4 - Hillside Fencing: This section amends paragraph (c), adds a new paragraph (d), and amends paragraph (e) of the regulations concerning fencing within hillside districts. Under the existing Code, fencing which encloses an area in excess of 4,000 square feet may be approved by the Planning Director. The ordinance will require that such approval be granted only by the Planning Commission. A new paragraph has been added to prohibit any fence that unreasonably impedes the movement of wildlife over an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site. With respect to wire fences, the existing Code merely states that: "Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts." The proposed ordinance will allow wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches and the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. Although chain link fencing has always been allowed for recreational courts, the ordinance will now require the wire to be black or colored to blend with the terrain. For purposes of clarity, a sentence has been added cross - referencing the regulation of barbed wire fencing as contained in,,%Vction 15- 29.050. Saratoga City Attorney WA INTERIOR COURTS EXAMPLE 1 EXAMPLE 2 EXAMPLE 3 EXAMPLE 4 ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15 -06.280(b) OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING GROSS FLOOR AREA, AMENDING SECTION 15- 18.020 OF THE CITY CODE TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE P -A DISTRICT, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 29.010(b) AND 15- 29.020 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING FENCING The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (b) of Section 15- 06.280 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) Gross floor area means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and including also interior courts with or without a roof, but excluding basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unenclosed balconies, and unenclosed areas underneath exterior decks or balconies. The floor area of a covered structure, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. Gross floor area includes all areas having an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet, except that in the case of a sloped ceiling, roof or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured from the point at which the interior height is five feet if any portion of such area also has an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet. The term "interior courts" as used herein means an area bounded by one or more buildings which is enclosed on each side by more than fifty percent of the length of such side." SECTION 2: Section 15- 18.020 in Article 15 -18 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: " §15- 18.020 Permitted uses The following permitted uses shall be allowed in a P -A district: (a) Professional, administrative and medical offices. (b) Financial institutions. (c) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. (d) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off - street parking facilities as set forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter. (e) Temporary Christmas tree sales between November 1st and December Rev. 1/16/89 -1- 31st, on a site not less than nine and one -half acres in size." SECTION 3: Paragraph (b) of Section 15- 29.010 in Article 15 -29 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) Front yards and exterior side yards of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height, except as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet, if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided, however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height. (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet." SECTION 4: Section 15- 29.020 in Article 15 -29 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15- 29.020 Fencing within hillside districts In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences and walls located within an HC -RD or NHR district shall comply with the following regulations: (a) Length of solid fences and walls. Solid fences and walls, having no openings to permit visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any street or adjacent property. This restriction shall not apply to retaining walls. (b) Parallel fences and walls. Parallel fences and walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fences or walls are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such fences or walls shall not exceed ten f eet. (c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission, which approval may be granted if either of the following findings are made: (1) The visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site; or Rev. 1/16/89 -2- (2) The fence is required for safety reasons. (d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site. (e) Wire fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, shall be permitted only if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches and the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts and shall similarly be colored to blend with the terrain. No barbed wire fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by Section 15- 29.050 of this Article." SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s* s s The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 1/16/89 -3- MAYOR RES -ND File No. AZO -88 -010 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution GS3- 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 Amendments to the City Code Section 15- 06.280(b) concerning gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the P -A district, and Sections 15- 29.010(b) and 15- 29.020 concerning fencing. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The amendments are intended to clarify the existing definitions of interior courts and acceptable fencing in the hillsides and correct an inadvertent omission of financial institutions in the professional- administrative zone district. Executed at Saratoga, California this 21st day of December—, 1988. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER i s CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: January 25, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Approval of Minutes: Meeting of January 11, 1989 BURGER/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 6 -0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS@ Mr. Roy Mollard, Applicant in Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 1, noted the length of time his Application had taken; now the Item was being continued to the Meeting of February 8th. Planner Jacobson responded that Staff had requested additional information since a variance would be required for square footage in excess of that allowed; the variance application had been made. He had informed the Applicant of the continuance. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on January 20, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CAL NDAR• 1. DR -88 -080 Mollard, 13977 Albar Ct., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,930 sq. ft. two -story single - family dwelling in the NHR zone dis- trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the applicant's request to submit additional plans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. SD -88 -013 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request for building site approval on two parcels measuring 27,704 and 28,837 sq. ft. in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. SD -88 -015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Dr., request for tentative map approval for a two - lot subdivision; lots to be 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from December 14, 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. DR -88 -087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. AZO488 -009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. AZO- 88-010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section 15- 06.280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district, and fencing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairperson Guch noted that Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2 were being continued. Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. The City Attorney requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 AND 6. Passed 6 -0. 4. DR -88 -087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ---------------------------- Commissioner Kolstad noted the expanse of the south side of the house and asked that landscap- ing be added; also, the addition of street trees to the front of the site would enhance the property. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission and stated that Condition 10 addressed landscaping; Staff could be directed to insure that landscaping screening along the southern property line and in the street area had been installed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. John Edwards, Project Manager, commented that landscape screening would be installed on lots in this subdivision; he questioned why this lot was singled out for consideration. He noted that the property owners decided what ground cover and landscaping would be planted. Commissioner Kolstad asked that two trees to soften the south side and a street tree in the front horseshoe area be planted. Applicant was agreeable to this request. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. KOLSTAD /SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -88 -087 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING CONDITION 10 TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING TO SOFTEN THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND PRESERVE PRIVACY AND ADDING A STREET TREE IN THE FRONT HORSESHOE AREA SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6 -0. 5. AZO- 88-009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Attorney reviewed discussions on the Amendment; during the revision process, additional policy considerations arose which he wished to bring to their attention; in (h ) Garage sprinklers: - The expansion of the garage only, would trigger a requirement for a sprinkler system; thus the question arose, if the residence was in the hazardous fire area, would the sprinkler system be attached to the early warning system? He felt that it should not; if the home already had an early warning system, the garage should be linked into the system. - Audible warning devices: the distinction between attached and detached garages had not been discussed. The Ordinance now read that if the garage were attached, the audible warning device would be required; if the garage were detached, the device would not be required. Was there a distinction between attached and detached garages with respect to the early warning system? If the garage were detached, and the house had the early warning system, would the garage have to be connected to the system? He recommendation was that it would not; the garage would still have the sprinkler system. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 PM. Passed 6 -0 Consensus reached to accept the City Attomey's recommendation; amended language to read; Where the garage is attached to a dwelling located in the hazardous fire area, and such dwelling is required to be equipped with an early warning system, then a garage sprinkler shall be required." BURGER /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6 -0. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AZO -88 -010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AMENDING LANGUAGE IN (h) GARAGE SPRINKLERS TO READ, "WHERE THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO A DWELLING LOCATED IN THE HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA, AND SUCH DWELLING IS REQUIRED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM, THEN A GARAGE SPRINKLER SHALL BE REQUIRED ". Passed 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli asked if the Applicants found that the square footage was comparable, would it be possible for the Commission to make the necessary findings. Chairperson Guch responded that it would be possible to have a discussion on whether or not the findings could be made; she advised the Applicant that the Commission was unable to make the findings at the time. Commissioner Harris suggested the Applicant be offered an opportunity to attend a Study Session and present modifications wherein the Commission's concerns could be addressed. At that time the issue of compatibility with the surrounding area could be reviewed as well as consideration of how the proposed square footage could be reduced. Applicants were agreeable to a Study Session. Chairperson Guch asked that Staff research the issue of compatible square footage in the area. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -88 -100 AND V -88 -043 TO JANUARY 25, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JANUARY 17, 1989. Passed 6 -0. Break: 9:30 - 9:45 P.M. 13. AZO -88 -009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated December 16, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:55 P.M. _SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney clarified that the amendment would only be added to those sections of the Sub- division and Zoning Ordinance that listed the circumstances when the early warning fire alarm system was required to be installed. Commissioner Burger raised the issue of an expansion of an existing home of less than 50% which, nonetheless, increased the total square footage to over 5,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and suggested that the 50% may not be the appropriate number; he agreed with Fire Chief Kraule's assessment of the situation and added that safety concerns may not be greatly increased by a small expansion of an existing home. Commissioner Burger questioned whether it was the square footage per se that triggered concern. Chief Kraule responded that this question was the source of an on -going debate; he cited the variables in putting out a fire, namely, the size of the home, how advanced the fire was when the Department was notified and the amount of resources necessary to control the fire. He noted the increasing size of homes in the City and stated that some number had to be set; the 5,000 sq. ft. figure seemed the most appropriate number. City Attorney advised the Commission that this Item could be Continued to a following meeting. The Commission reached consensus on Staff Recommendation Re: 2 Sprinkler Systems for Garages; a revised Ordinance Amendment would be brought back to the Commission for approval. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -009 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6 -0. 14. AZO -88 -010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section 15- 06.280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district and Sections 15- 29.010 and 15- 29.020 concerning fencing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated December 21, 1988 The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney stated that a revised Ordinance Amendment would be presented for review. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -010 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6 -0. RESOLUTION NO. AZO -88 -010 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARTOGA RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION 15- 18.020, PERTAINING TO GROSS FLOOR AREA, SECTION 15- 18.020 PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AREAS IN THE P -A DISTRICT, AND SECTIONS 15- 29.010(b) AND 15- 29.020 PERTAINING TO FENCING The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That the amendments to clarify the definition of gross floor area including interior courts, to add financial institution as permitted uses in the P -A District, and to add fencing requirements pertaining to front yards and exterior side yards and hillside areas attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as recommended for adoption by the City Council. Section 2: The reasons for such recommendation areas follows: The amendments will clarify and modify existing code provisions to ensure that fences harmonize with the surroundings and that the appearance of mass and bulk is minimized by calculating certain court yards in gross floor area. The addition of financial institutions in the P -A District will correct an apparently inadvertant ommision of this use from the permitted uses specifically listed. Section 3: The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Saratoga. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 25th day of January, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harris / C Chair, Planning Cohmission ATTES -L✓ Secre ry to the Planning Commission 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: OAS lz' TI C� CITY MGR. APPROVAL joZ� ORIGINATING DEPT.: Building Department SUBJECT: Code Amendments Concerning Early Warning Fire Alarm System and Garage Sprinklers Recommended Motion: Adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: The ordinance has been revised to incorporate the changes approved by the City Council at the time of introduction on January 15, 1989. The revisions are as follows: (a) The sprinkler systems for all garages, whether attached or detached, must be connected to an internal audible alarm system that will warn the occupants of a dwelling when the sprinkler system is activated. (b) If the dwelling is equipped with the early warning fire alarm system, the garage sprinklers must be connected to that system, whether the garage is attached or detached. (c) If the dwelling is not equipped with an early warning fire alarm system, the garage sprinklers must be connected to an outside audible alarm (in addition to the interior audible alarm) that will emit a sound 15 decibels above the ambient noise level at the property line nearest to the alarm. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Proposed ordinance as revised February 15, 1989. Motion and Vote: Introduced on February 15, 1989. • ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 14- 25.110(d) AND 15- 80.090(d) PERTAINING TO THE EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM; AMENDING SECTION 16- 15.110 PERTAINING TO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS FOR GARAGES; AND REPEALING SECTION 16- 25.050 PERTAINING TO SIZE OF BUILDING SEWERS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (d) of Section 14- 25.110 in Article 14 -25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(d) Determination of gross floor area and fifty percent expansion. For the purposes of this Section: (1) The determination of gross floor area, as defined in Subsection 14- 10.100(b) of this Chapter, shall include any basement or portion thereof occupied as habitable space; and (2) The determination as to whether a structure will be expanded by fifty percent or more in gross floor area shall be made in the same manner as provided in Subsection 14- 15.020(c) of this Chapter, relating to the requirement for building site approval." SECTION 2: Paragraph (d) of Section 15- 80.090 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(d) Determination of gross floor area and fifty percent expansion. For the purposes of this Section: (1) The determination of gross floor area, as defined in Subsection 15- 06.280(b) of this Chapter, shall include any basement or portion thereof occupied as habitable space; and (2) The determination as to whether a structure will be expanded by fifty percent or more in gross floor area shall be made in the same manner as provided in Subsection 14- 15.020(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to the requirement for building site approval." SECTION 3: Section 16- 15.110 in Article 16 -15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Rev. 2/15/89 -1- ,I t "S16- 15.110 Section 3802(h) added to require automatic sprinklers for certain garages Section 3802(h) is hereby added to the Building Code, to read as follows: (h) Garage sprinklers, In each of the following cases, a garage for the parking of motor vehicles shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system: I. Any newly constructed attached or detached garage. 2. Any existing garage that constitutes a portion of an existing dwelling which is altered, added to, or expanded so as to increase the floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of the amount of floor space under roof immediately prior to such alteration, repair, addition, or expansion. For the purposes of this paragraph, any alteration, repair, addition or expansion shall be considered as equalling or exceeding the above fifty percent limit where the work of construction or improvement is done at different time intervals requiring two or more building permits within a period of five years after completion of the first improvement, where although each is for a project encompassing an addition of less than fifty percent of increased floor space, but which when combined with other expansions during said five year period of time, increased the amount of floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of that amount which existed immediately prior to the commencement of the first of the several alterations, repairs, additions or expansions. 3. Any existing garage which is altered, added to, or expanded so as to increase the size of such garage by either 200 or more square feet or thirty -three or more percent of the original size, whichever is less. The area of a garage shall include all contiguous areas within the structure utilized . for workshop or storage purposes which are not constructed as habitable space in accordance with the requirements of this Code, whether or not such contiguous areas are designed or utilized for the storage of motor vehicles. Any automatic sprinkler system installed pursuant to this Section shall comply with the standards set forth in National Fire Protection Association Document 13D. All garage sprinkler systems installed pursuant to this Section shall be equipped with water flow switches that are connected to audible warning devices of sufficient number and adequately located within the dwelling so as to cause, when activated, a level of audibility of not less than fifteen decibels above ambient noise levels measured four feet above the floor with bedroom doors closed. If the dwelling serviced by the garage in which a sprinkler system is being installed is required to be equipped with an early warning fire alarm system pursuant to Chapter 16, Article 16 -60 of the Saratoga City Code, the water flow switches referred to herein shall also be connected to the digital alarm communicator transmitter or the fire alarm control panel described in Section 16- 60.020 of said Code. However, if the dwelling serviced by the garage is not equipped with such early warning fire alarm system, the water flow Rev. 2/15/89 -2- . switches shall be connected to an outside audible alarm that will cause, when activated, a level of audibility at the property line nearest to the alarm of not less than fifteen decibels above the ambient noise level at such property line. The provisions contained herein shall apply to both attached and detached garages. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because of the higher risk and greater intensity of fire in garages and storage areas." • SECTION 4: Section 16- 25.050 in Article 16 -25 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law , was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 2/15/89 -3- MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /Y')-7 MEETING DATE: Q /�,�- ORIGINATING DEPT.: Building Department AGENDA ITEM 0 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Code Amendments Concerning Early Warning Fire Alarm System and Garage Sprinklers 42-0 (F*'7'0-'D q Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration and adoption of proposed ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance clarifies the definition of gross floor area with respect to the requirement for installation of the early warning fire alarm system, and expands the requirement for installation of an automatic sprinkler system in both attached and detached garages, as explained in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council dated February 6, 1989. (b) Proposed ordinance. (c) Negative declaration. (d) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 1989. (e) Resolution of Planning Commission recommending adoption of ordinance. Motion and Vote: PAUL S. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ PAUL K. ROBERTSON ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (41S) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, Saratoga City Attorney . M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) RE: Code Amendments Concerning Early Warning Fire Alarm Systems, Garage Sprinklers, and Size of Building Sewers DATE: February 6, 1989 This ordinance deals with the following issues: 1. Early Warning Fire Alarm System Under the existing Code, the installation of an early warning fire alarm system is required whenever a new residence is constructed having a gross floor area in excess of 5,000 square feet, or an existing residence is expanded to increase the gross floor area by 50% or more. Chief Kraule has pointed out that the definition of "gross floor area," as contained in both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, specifically excludes basement areas even if such areas are utilized for living space. Although it may be appropriate to exclude basements for the purpose of determining bulk on design review applications, Chief Kraule argues that such exclusion should not be made for fire protection purposes where the basement is occupied as living space. Apparently, some cases have been encountered where installation of the early warning fire alarm system would have been required if basement living space was counted. Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed ordinance will amend the corresponding provisions in the subdivision and zoning regulations concerning the early warning system to include basements occupied as living space when calculating the gross floor area of a new or expanded structure. Chief Kraule has also suggested a further modification which has not been included in the proposed ordinance. Under the existing Code, the expansion of an existing residence will not require installation of the early warning system unless the structure is expanded by more than 50 %, even though the total size of the expanded structure may exceed 5,000 square feet. In other words, if a 4,500 square foot structure is expanded by 600 square feet, the system would not be required. This rule represents a policy decision made by the City at the time the early warning fire alarm system was implemented by the Saratoga Fire District. Because of the cost involved, it was felt that installation of the system throughout the entire structure should not be required where only a modest addition (i.e. less than 50 %) was being made. The Planning Commission reviewed this issue at its meeting on January 25, 1989, and decided not to change the existing policy. -1- 2. Sprinkler Systems for Garages Under the existing Code, the installation of automatic sprinklers is required in newly constructed attached garages having a capacity to accommodate three or more automobiles. The proposed ordinance will expand this requirement to include all newly constructed garages, whether attached or detached, and regardless of size. With respect to existing structures, the ordinance will require installation of a sprinkler system in attached garages if the dwelling is expanded by 50% or more (whether or not such expansion involves the garage area), and in both attached or detached garages if the garage itself is expanded by either 200 or more square feet or 33% or more of the original size, whichever is less. The proposed ordinance also will add a new requirement for sprinkler systems in attached garages to be connected to audible warning devices that will alert the occupants of the dwelling when the system is activated. If the dwelling is equipped with the early warning fire alarm system, the garage sprinklers must be tied in to this system. However, no such connections would be required for detached garages. The obvious justification for the expanded requirements is that the vast majority of residential fires in Saratoga originate in garage areas. These areas are more likely to contain a concentration of highly flammable materials, such as gasoline, paint and household chemicals. The requirement for installation of garage sprinklers should not impose an excessive burden because these systems are typically connected to the domestic water supply. The proposed ordinance also attempts to deal with the question of the area to be included as part of a "garage." Chief Kraule has expressed his concern over portions of garages which are actually used for workshop or storage purposes. The potential for fire and concentration of flammable materials may actually be higher in these areas than the portion of the garage where automobiles are kept. The proposed ordinance therefore defines a garage as including all contiguous areas utilized for workshop or storage purposes which are not constructed as habitable space in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. If a sprinkler system is installed, the proposed ordinance would require these areas to be included. 3. Size of Building Sewers Section 4 of the proposed ordinance repeals Section 16- 25.050 of the building regulations, which requires certain drainage pipes to be not less than four inches in diameter. The Building Department has requested this provision to be repealed since drainage requirements are adequately covered in the Uniform Building Codes. pel Saratoga City Attorney -2- ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 14- 25.110(d) AND 15- 80.090(d) PERTAINING TO THE EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM; AMENDING SECTION 16- 15.110 PERTAINING TO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS FOR GARAGES; AND REPEALING SECTION 16- 25.050 PERTAINING TO SIZE OF BUILDING SEWERS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (d) of Section 14- 25.110 in Article 14 -25 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(d) Determination of gross floor area and fifty percent expansion. For the purposes of this Section: (1) The determination of gross floor area, as defined in Subsection 14- 10.100(b) of this Chapter, shall include any basement or portion thereof occupied as habitable space; and (2) The determination as to whether a structure will be expanded by fifty percent or more in gross floor area shall be made in the same manner as provided in Subsection 14- 15.020(c) of this Chapter, relating to the requirement for building site approval." SECTION 2: Paragraph (d) of Section 15- 80.090 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(d) Determination of gross floor area and fifty percent expansion. For the purposes of this Section: (1) The determination of. gross floor area, as defined in Subsection 15- 06.280(b) of this Chapter, shall include any basement or portion thereof occupied as habitable space; and (2) The determination as to whether a structure will be expanded by fifty percent or more in gross floor area shall be made in the same manner as provided in Subsection 14- 15.020(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to the requirement for building site approval." SECTION 3: Section 16- 15.110 in Article 16 -15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Rev. 1/26/89 -1- °S16- 15.110 Section 3802(h) added to require automatic sprinklers for certain garages Section 3802(h) is hereby added to the Building Code, to read as follows: (h) Garage sprinklers. In each of the following cases, a garage for the parking of motor vehicles shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system: 1. Any newly constructed attached or detached garage. 2. Any existing garage that constitutes a portion of an existing dwelling which is altered, added to, or expanded so as to increase the floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of the amount of floor space under roof immediately prior to such alteration, repair, addition, or expansion. For the purposes of this paragraph, any alteration, repair, addition or expansion shall be considered as equalling or exceeding the above fifty percent limit where the work of construction or improvement is done at different time intervals requiring two or more building permits within a period of five years after completion of the first improvement, where although each is for a project encompassing an addition of less than fifty percent of increased floor space, but which when combined with other expansions during said five year period of time, increased the amount of floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of that amount which existed immediately prior to the commencement of the first of the several alterations, repairs, additions or expansions. 3. Any existing garage which is altered, added to, or expanded so as to increase the size of such garage by either 200 or more square feet or thirty -three or more percent of the original size, whichever is less. The area of a garage shall include all contiguous areas within the structure utilized for workshop or storage purposes which are not constructed as habitable space in accordance with the requirements of this Code, whether or not such contiguous areas are designed or utilized for the storage of motor vehicles. Any automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to this subsection shall be installed in accordance with the standards contained in National Fire Protection Association Document 13D. Where the garage is attached to a dwelling, the sprinkler system shall be equipped with water flow switches that are connected to audible warning devices of sufficient number and adequately located so as to cause, when activated, a level of audibility of not less than fifteen decibels above ambient noise levels measured four feet above the floor with bedroom doors closed. In addition, where the garage is attached to a dwelling in which an early warning fire alarm system is required to be installed pursuant to Chapter 16, Article 16 -60 of the Saratoga City Code, the sprinkler system shall be equipped with water flow switches that will send an alarm signal when activated to the ditigal alarm communicator transmitter or the fire alarm control panel as described in Section 16- 60.020 of said Code. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because of the higher risk and greater intensity of fire in garages and storage areas." Rev. 1/26/89 -2- SECTION 4: Section 16- 25.050 in Article 16 -25 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 1/26/89 -3- MAYOR introduced and after the and adopted at a regular held on the day of RES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No.AZO -88 -009 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the City Code Sections 14- 25.110(d) and 15- 80.090(d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system and amending Section 16- 15.110 pertaining to sprinkler system for garages. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed amendments are now more restrictive than the current City Code and will provide increased fire protection for residences. Executed at Saratoga, California this 16th day of 1988. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING / DIRECTOR'S AU HORIZED STAFF MEMBER CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: January 25, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Approval of Minutes: Meeting of January 11, 1989 BURGERI TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1989, AS PRESENTED. Passed 6 -0. Mr. Roy Mollard, Applicant in Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 1, noted the length of time his Application had taken; now the Item was being continued to the Meeting of February 8th. Planner Jacobson responded that Staff had requested additional information since a variance would be required for square footage in excess of that allowed; the variance application had been made. He had informed the Applicant of the continuance. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on January 20, 1988. 1. DR -88 -080 Mollard, 13977 Albar Ct., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,930 sq. ft. two -story single - family dwelling in the NHR zone dis- trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the applicant's request to submit additional plans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. SD -88 -013 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request for building site approval on two parcels measuring 27,704 and 28,837 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued to February 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 3. SD -88 -015 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Dr., request for tentative map approval for a two - lot subdivision; lots to be 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from December 14, 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. DR -88 -087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. AZO-88 -009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. AZO -88 -010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section 15- 06.280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district, and fencing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. Chairperson Guch noted that Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2 were being continued. Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. The City Attorney requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 AND 6. Passed 6 -0. 4. DR -88 -087 Lohr, 14801 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,194 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ---------- ------- ------ ------------ Commissioner Kolstad noted the expanse of the south side of the house and asked that landscap- ing be added; also, the addition of street trees to the front of the site would enhance the property. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission and stated that Condition 10 addressed landscaping; Staff could be directed to insure that landscaping screening along the southern property line and in the street area had been installed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. John Edwards, Project Manager, commented that landscape screening would be installed on lots in this subdivision; he questioned why this lot was singled out for consideration. He noted that the property owners decided what ground cover and landscaping would be planted. Commissioner Kolstad asked that two trees to soften the south side and a street tree in the front horseshoe area be planted. Applicant was agreeable to this request. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 EM. Passed 6 -0. KOLSTAD /SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -88 -087 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING CONDITION 10 TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING TO SOFTEN THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND PRESERVE PRIVACY AND ADDING A STREET TREE IN THE FRONT HORSESHOE AREA SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6 -0. 5. AZO- 88-009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A ----------- - - - - -- Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from January 11, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Attorney reviewed discussions on the Amendment; during the revision process, additional policy considerations arose which he wished to bring to their attention; in (h) ar Ee,sprinklers: - The expansion of the garage only, would trigger a requirement for a sprinkler system; thus the question arose, if the residence was in the hazardous fire area, would the sprinkler system be attached to the early warning system? He felt that it should not; if the home already had an early warning system, the garage should be linked into the system. - Audible warning devices: the distinction between attached and detached garages had not been discussed. The Ordinance now read that if the garage were attached, the audible warning device would be required; if the garage were detached, the device would not be required. - Was there a distinction between attached and detached garages with respect to the early warning system? If the garage were detached, and the house had the early warning system, would the garage have to be connected to the system? He recommendation was that it would not; the garage would still have the sprinkler system. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 EM. Passed 6 -0 Consensus reached to accept the City Attorney's recommendation; amended language to read, Where the garage is attached to a dwelling located in the hazardous fire area, and such dwellin is required to be equipped with an early warning system, then a garage sprinkler shall be required.' BURGER /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6 -0. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AZO -88 -010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AMENDING LANGUAGE IN (h) GARAGE SPRINKLERS TO READ, "WHERE THE GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO A DWELLING LOCATED IN THE HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA, AND SUCH DWELLING IS REQUIRED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM, THEN A GARAGE SPRINKLER SHALL BE REQUIRED ". Passed 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 6 Ms. Fanelli asked if the Applicants found that the square footage was comparable, would it be possible for the Commission to make the necessary findings. Chairperson Guch responded that it would be possible to have a discussion on whether or not the findings could be made; she advised the Applicant that the Commission was unable to make the findings at the time. Commissioner Harris suggested the Applicant be offered an opportunity to attend a Study Session and present modifications wherein the Commission's concerns could be addressed. At that time the issue of compatibility with the surrounding area could be reviewed as well as consideration of how the proposed square footage could be reduced. Applicants were agreeable to a Study Session. Chairperson Guch asked that Staff research the issue of compatible square footage in the area. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -88 -100 AND V-88-043 TO JANUARY 25, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JANUARY 17, 1989. Passed 6 -0. Break: 9:30 - 9:45 P.M. 13. AZO -88 -009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14- 25.110 (d) and 15- 80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A' Negative Declaration has been prepared. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated December 16, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:55 P.M. SIEGFRIEDIHARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney clarified that the amendment would only be added to those sections of the Sub- division and Zoning Ordinance that listed the circumstances when the early warning fire alarm system was required to be installed. Commissioner Burger raised the issue of an expansion of an existing home of less than 50% which, nonetheless, increased the total square footage to over 5,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and suggested that the 50% may not be the appropriate number; he agreed with Fire Chief Kraule's assessment of the situation and added that safety concerns may not be greatly increased by a small expansion of an existing home. Commissioner Burger questioned whether it was the square footage per se that triggered concern. Chief Kraule responded that this question was the source of an on -going debate; he cited the variables in putting out a fire, namely, the size of the home, how advanced the fire was when the Department was notified and the amount of resources necessary to control the fire. He noted the increasing size of homes in the City and stated that some number had to be set; the 5,000 sq. ft. figure seemed the most appropriate number. City Attorney advised the Commission that this Item could be Continued to a following meeting. The Commission reached consensus on Staff Recommendation Re: 2 Sprinkler Systems for Garages; a revised Ordinance Amendment would be brought back to the Commission for approval. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -009 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6 -0. 14. AZO -88 -010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section 15- 06.280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15- 18.020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district and Sections 15- 29.010 and 15- 29.020 concerning fencing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated December 21, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney stated that a revised Ordinance Amendment would be presented for review. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO -88 -010 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6 -0. I 1 f RESOLUTION NO. AZO -88 -009 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTIONS 14- 25.110(d) AND 15- 80.090(d) PERTAINING TO EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARMS AND AMENDING SECTION 16- 15.110 PERTAINING TO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS FOR GARAGES The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That the amendments to requirements pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system and to sprinkler systems for garages attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is recommended to be adopted by the City Council. Section 2: The reasons for such recommendation are as follows: The amendments will improve the public's safety by requiring counting basements toward requirements for installing early warning fire alarms, by requiring installation of sprinkler systems in three car garages. Section 3: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 25th day of January, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harris ATTEST: Secre A: RES -AZO juo d-j-(,A Iri Chair, Planning Colfimission the Planning Commission I e/2J 4P D SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: � � � � AGENDA ITEM \ MEETING DATE: Februa y 15, 1989 CITY MGR APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: �I�iteDance De��rt�nent ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: BID APPROVAL - EL QUITO PARK IMPROVEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Recommended Motions Authorize staff to go to bid on E1 Quito Park improvements. Report Summary Jeff Heid, landscape architect, has completed plans for improvement of El Quito Park. At the February 6, 1989, meeting the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the plans which call for improving the entrance which makes and aesthetic statement for the park. The plans also call for covering the existing pathways with asphalt, expanding the field for soccer, leveling and expanding the softball field to regulation size, expanding the bleachers, putting in a concrete base for dugouts, adding benches and a building a storage shed behind the backstop. Fiscal Impact An $80,000 Grant has been approved by the California Parks and Recreation Department for improvements to El Quito Park. Attachments otion & Vote 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �S� . AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Feb. 15, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING i0 SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - QUITO ROAD BRIDGES' Recommended Motion: Approve Cooperative Agreement and authorize Mayor to sign. Report Summary: Quito bridges at Austin and Bicknell to be replaced using 80% federal funds. The balance of 20% to be shared equally by Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara Valley water District. Saratoga is acting as lead agency for this project. The firm of Creegan & D'Angelo has been retained to do the design and construction which is expected this summer. Fiscal-Impacts• Saratoga's share is $39,200.00. Attachments: Cooperative Agreement. Motion and Vote: 0((- S- - O T 4 i • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated , 1988, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "Saratoga "), the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation ( "Monte Sereno"), and the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California ( "District "), is made with reference to the following facts: A. Pursuant to the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program ( "HBRR"), Saratoga applied for and received a commitment from the California Transportation Commission to allocate HBRR funds for participation in the replacement of two bridges on Quito Road which cross San Tomas Creek, identified as Bridge No. 37C0111 and Bridge No. 37C0112 ( "the Project "). B. San Tomas Creek is under the jurisdiction and control of the District and each of the bridges to be replaced crosses the common boundary line between Saratoga and Monte Sereno. C. It is expected that HBRR funds will be made available for payment of eighty percent (80 %) of the total Project cost. The parties hereto have agreed to share the remaining twenty percent (20 %) of the total ProjecLcost, as hereinafter set forth. D. The Federal Highway Administration has granted authorization to proceed with the Project, and approval has been granted by Caltrans to proceed with the Request for Proposals for Engineering Design. E. The parties desire to execute this Agreement in order to establish their respective rights and obligations concerning the administration, financing and construction of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. Scope of Project. The Project shall consist of the replacement of Bridge No. 37C0111 on Quito Road near Austin Way and Bridge No. 37C0112 on Quito Road near Bicknell, including the acquisition of any necessary right -of -way. All work shall be performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Saratoga, Monte Sereno, the District and all local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Project or. whose approval is otherwise required for receipt of HBRR funds. 2. Allocation of Project Cost. (a) Each of the parties has executed this Agreement in. reliance upon the commitment by Caltrans to contribute eighty percent (80 %) of the total Project cost. In the event an agreement for such contribution is not executed between Saratoga and Caltrans, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and each of the • parties shall be released from any further obligation or liability hereunder. -1- r I (b) Saratoga, Monte Sereno and the District agree that the • remaining twenty percent (20 %) of the total Project cost shall be divided equally between them. (c) The term "total Project cost," as used in this Agreement, shall mean the total of all direct expenditures relating to the Project, including, but not limited to, the cost of engineering, surveys, topographic maps, geotechnic and soils reports, environmental reviews and reports, preparation of plans and specifications and preparation of bid documents; right -of -way acquisition costs; demolition and construction costs; publication, printing and advertising costs; and personnel costs of Saratoga staff, based upon actual time expended on the Project. Project cost shall not include general overhead expenses incurred by any party. (d) Based upon the preliminary estimated Project cost, the allocation thereof between the parties would be as follows: Total HBRR Estimated Funds Monte Cost (80 %) Saratoga Sereno District Bridge 37C0 Ill 294,000 235,200 19,600 19,600 19,600 Bridge 37C0112 294,000 235,200 19,600 19,600 19,600 588,000 470,400 39,200 39,200 39,200 If, upon the opening of bids for the award of a construction contract, it is found that a cost overrun of no more than ten percent (10 %) of the estimated Project cost set forth above will occur, the parties shall proceed with the Project in accordance with this Agreement if HBRR funds are still available for payment of eighty (80 %) of the Project cost. However, if such bids indicate that a cost overrun exceeding ten percent (10 %) of the estimate will occur, the parties and Caltrans will endeavor to agree upon an alternative course of action. If no such agreement is reached within thirty (30) days, this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated by mutual consent and each party shall be responsible for payment of its respective share of the Project costs incurred to the date of termination. 3. Project Administration. Saratoga agrees to act as the lead agency for the Project and in such capacity shall perform the following duties: (a) Solicitation of proposals for engineering services and award_ of contract therefor, subject to approval by Monte Sereno and the District. (b) Arranging for the preparation of surveys, topographic maps, soils and geotechnic reports as may be required. (c) Conduct of environmental reviews and proceedings as may be required for CEQA compliance. (d) Obtaining such permits as may be required from other governmental agencies for construction of the Project. • -2- w j • (e) Performance of all acts and execution of all documents as may be necessary or appropriate for receipt of HBRR funds from Caltrans equal to eighty percent (80 %) of the total Project cost. (f) Contracting for the preparation of construction plans and specifications and submision of the same for review and approval by Monte Sereno, the District and all other local, state and federal agencies whose approval thereof is required. (g) Preparation of bid documents, advertisement for bids and award of construction contract(s), subject to approval thereof by Monte Sereno and the District. (h) Arranging for relocation or removal of any utility installations that conflict with the Project. (i) Administration of the construction contract(s), including supervision and inspection of the work to assure compliance with the approved plans and specifications, disbursement of advances to the contractor(s) based upon work satisfactorily completed, and processing of any change orders. (i) Issuance of final Project approval, with the concurrence of Monte Sereno and the District, and recordation of notices of completion. 4. Limitation on Powers of Lead Agency. sThe powers and duties herein conferred to Saratoga as the lead agency for the Project shall not include the power: (a) To make any material change in the approved plans and specifications for the Project without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and the District; or (b) To award or modify any contract for the performance of professional, consulting or construction services without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and the District. - 5. Payment of Project Costs. (a) In addition to its own respective share of the Project cost, Saratoga shall periodically advance the amounts to be paid with HBRR funds, pending a reimbursement for such advances by Caltrans; provided, however, Saratoga may, at its option, withhold any advance which is not legally required to be made if Saratoga has not received full reimbursement from Caltrans for all prior advances. (b) Monte Sereno and the District shall deposit with Saratoga their respective shares of the Project cost within fifteen (15) days after receipt of billing from Saratoga. A billing will be sent upon award of a contract for engineering design services, covering all estimated costs to be incurred until the start of construction. A second billing will be sent upon award of the construction contract(s), covering all estimated costs to be incurred for construction and completion of the Project. • (c) Upon completion of the Project, Saratoga shall furnish to Monte Sereno and the District a detailed accounting of all actual Project costs. If such -3- Yt' accounting shows that the amounts deposited by Monte Sereno and the District • pursuant to Paragraph (b) above exceed their respective shares of the actual Project cost, the excess shall be reimbursed within fifteen (15) days after the accounting is submitted. If such accounting shows that the. amounts deposited by Monte Sereno and the District are less than their respective shares of the actual Project cost, Monte Sereno and the District shall pay the deficiency to Saratoga within fifteen (15) days after the accounting is submitted. 6. Right -of -way Acquisitions. If it is determined that the acquisition of any right -of -way is required for the Project, the party having territorial jurisdiction over the property to be acquired shall be responsible for obtaining such right -of -way and conducting any proceedings that may be necessary in connection therewith; provided, however, no contract for legal services shall be awarded and no eminent domain action shall be commenced without the prior approval of the other parties and Caltrans. Right -of- way acquisition shall constitute a Project cost, to be allocated between Caltrans and the parties in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 7. Insurance Requirements. Saratoga agrees to include in the contract awarded for construction of the Project a requirement that the contractor, at all times during construction and until final acceptance of the work, maintain in full force $nd effect the following insurance policies: (a) Broad form comprehensive liability insurance having a combined single limit of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence, naming Saratoga, 0 Monte Sereno, the District, and their respective officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers as insureds thereunder. (b) Builder's risk insurance covering the replacement cost of the improvements, with a loss payable clause naming Saratoga, Monte Sereno and the District, as their respective interests may appear. (c) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by state law, together with employer's liability insurance having a coverage limit of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. 8. Bonding Requirements. Saratoga shall require the contractor who is awarded the contract for construction of the Project to provide performance and payment bonds in the amount of one hundred percent (100 %) of the contract price. 9. Project Records. Saratoga shall keep and maintain a complete copy of all costs and expenditures relating to the Project, together with a complete copy of all plans, specifications, reports, contracts and other documents relating to the Project, and the same shall be available for inspection by Monte Sereno and the District at any time during usual business hours. • -4- 10. Limitation of Liability. Saratoga shall not be responsible or liable to either Monte Sereno or the District for any act or omission made in good faith in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder as the lead agency, nor shall Saratoga be responsible or liable for any act or omission by any consultant or contractor retained for the performance of any services related to the Project. 11. Termination of Agreement. In the event a contract for construction of the Project is not awarded by July 1, 1989, this Agreement shall terminate unless extended by mutual consent of all parties hereto. Upon such termination, Saratoga shall refund to Monte Sereno and the District any balance of their respective contributions remaining after deduction of the Project costs incurred to the date of termination and payable by each party under the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. • Ap ved as to Form: Monte Sereno City Attorney Approved as to Form: CITY OF SARATOGA By Mayes' Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MONTE SERENO B Mayov Attest: Ci C rk SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT a Attest: Attorney for Water District -5- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �D MEETING DATE: 2 -15 -89 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Dept S `30 3 S"' AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for SD 88 -017 Lomita Avenue Recommended Motion: Approve Resolution No. SD -8- 017 -02 approving Final Map of Pronger. Report Summary• 1. SD 88 -017 is ready for Final Map Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. 4. All street improvements along'this„ property were done under SDR -1029. Fiscal-Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No: SD 88- 017 -01. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3• Location Map, Motion and Vote: r RESOLUTION NO. SD 88- 017 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Christopher pronger The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION l: The 0.483 Acre and 0.464 Acres Parcels shown as Parcel A and B on the Final Parcel Map, prepared by Vicra Corporation and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of February vote: 1989 by the following AYES: Councilmunbers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Anderson NOES: None ABSENT: None �L YOR ATTEST: CITY 7RK PIFT7111111111151M application has made to the Advisory under Subdivision Map ik the State of California *rdinance of the City of Saratoga, of tentative map #. • # i :..4 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No.SD-98-017 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with theSaratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and,general land use"and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 12/14/8$ being hereby made # TM: further particulars, and WHEREMS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord w th conditions forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map a dated the 14th day of November, 1988 and is marked Exhibit A in the, herainabove referred" file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of # approval . Page storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. C N L 7. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). 8. 9. 10. tin 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 6 in. aggregate base from Lomita to within loo ft. of proposed dwelling on Lot B. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal 2 1/2 in. A.C. on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling on Lot B. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. Engineered improvement plans required for access road construction. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Upon tentative map approval and in accordance with agreement reimburse $19,284.75 to City to pay for improvements to Lomita Avenue. 16. Parcel "B" - this is the undeveloped parcel. The sanitary sewer lateral will be constructed according to District standards and the Uniform Plumbing Code. Some details are listed below: A. There will be a clean -out constructed at property line or at the edge of the driveway easement. F f��► B. The on -site building sewer will be constructed according to ti,CC l the Uniform Plumbing Code. � '41 C. According to the contours shown on the parcel map, the property will require a backflow protective device. 17. Parcel "A" - On this parcel there is an existing residence. A. The location of the existing lateral sewer must be determined. B A clean -out at the property line, either at the edge of Lomita Avenue or to driveway, will have to be installed. C. Pending the method of sewering, a back -flow protective device may be required. D. TV inspection of the existing lateral will be required. The lateral will have to be upgraded to current standards, including the construction of a foundation cleanout. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of January, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Ccnmissioners Guch, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Burger NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan and Siegfried ATTEST: cr tart', P1 ning Commission Chairman, Planning Co 'ission REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson . DATE: December 14, 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.� APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -017, V -88 -044; 20600 Lomita Ave. APPLICANT /OWNER: Eagleston /Pronger APN: 517 -12 -32 Q N 4j . •/ p^ryp �j•,;�'�t'a �Q' s , �^ L s`'• ;' "� o ry OAK PL. •2 >� >' p �`� `� "V o (I,2)y C9 l41 C9) (.) 7.0 (41 •~ f S� •��'�` •tp ]'2 / y�'o �t ry o y 4, 1 397-22 11N41M9D IH79 FM;. .02 O 5 a 04 0 D7 O_C ; 4431. ` v i == �5 �((yy .pst • � S'i' 090! s'rsOO o� s� //—� �2C /� \7 3iQ p! �� • •o ,0 i 20 4 0 0 Z.375 377 -22-01 °! 14524 'gro 9n-o9- t/7-7p. VO K sr.e of \a 4 I y /49167 - Sa 'Jr >- Oij-a4 ° c3 453 tp o1 'o so 1D -'97- � 7-70-17 � 577 fA'S7 •!d �a 7.jO S�96i 11 1 rlil- -�rl 1412� / °• 14570 5 '0. aytc OAK a. SC HM, '517 - /o- 37 y7'I° 27 /7 )' 1 y O 97� a " �� .Q 2p4b1 a \''` 14586 A �0401� (Il �, 1114 5 -e oil, q -�' i s �'� 20581 -` 14112 (ti) (24) ? 10-Z7 517 - 1 II -51 ra 97- 14775 B 4Z05 7 / 14471. (2D 517-11 -11 14763 4It �5 o O� 517 -1r- 34 (5J 7 -11'50 14781 007 -11 3- ,pry 1 /,/_ �P c)7 -11 -s2 (t5 7 ry 4b10 0 D4 , 9 117 -10 2 O (la 7.11 14787 t Sn 11 S / O V ! ] -r0.2S 0VS ry`'1 p0 '90 14704 CF) 517-/!-33 a4) 4� ahrAO 5p'11-45 f, 1 4715 6) DV0 ry \ hk') 1a73x, 14715 14799g4 i� SI: it 14716 ` 3� e O I7 -10.24 �) 517 -II -47 c£) 91711- fl %. 2- O� M10 ,'b \� v �• 0 14 32 14799 C31J 20!040 ��, 4i •'\9 ry ti 517- 11-57 14784 H) 0 712 - s17-27- o1 '4 5 Z\ 34 1 qA0 M 14741 14805 i3)) 14 77- Obg 0 517-11-45 517-27'12 201.10 b b \\ 9 4• ^.0 CIO) (e) 517 - n-'w A 14 712 517.12 -10 y� ,�0 5 y S17 -27 -07 Lor.20 i,.� x.11 ,4y 14710 145111 -97 .�.4, ('f5) �4 13 14 917 -11 -44 41] -12.11 a ,'0 (II) (9 14500 1'7 0 `')) 14774 (32' V 517 -u -43 14517 J 917 -2705 X4711 . /29. S� y 21 9n 11 -58 99) 14H0 x.17-2]- 4 7�2�� C (C) 2o5 L1 ( 4 toaoo 517 -11-42 14823 517.27 -c7 51 �7 9n -u -59 (401 (.,�, 140 i0 DO 2°'45 GIx 14710 x47°0 47 517 -12-J1 (8) 517 - /I- C <a) 51727 01. a,7 -27 41 14 0` W H) 517 -2703 O 15) _ 517-12 -ZI 7-27 17 o2 4 CZ) C (41) 147 417 -12 -30 (A) X1- 14790 (A) 14791 517. 27-C (�) IOS1fl /457 517 -2704 14110 sl7 -f2 -22 517 -1227 pOyo1 517-11 -15 �7 27 -0) D) C. L rn 7 12- \' 92 -2(. 6 Y` yAZb SIb 9 -29 � Io540 h SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO SD NO 88 -017 Storm Drain Fees N.A. Park & Recreation Fees $2,600.00 Plan Check & Inspection Fees N.A. Final Map Check Fees $ 300.00 ti REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson 0• DATE: December 14, 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV., APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -017, V -88 -044; 20600 Lomita Ave. APPLICANT /OWNER: Eagleston /Pronger APN: 517 -12 -32 Q N >, y L•, ~. OAK PL. �, , Ste. Mh�`0 , `y1 p`�ry ' #1 '`! ° �> > V p (Iri)7 (Tt C41 C7) C.) 7,t) (q) lift' 'r S� +�� ,4 11674 1447D I 14475 IM;. •o tDJ .P 'o t 97, 3902 07 0_! °� '' ' 4.dr pg S' '•, s �' `ae 1,'` 31� 1& IA 44 �O, o'ts Z04 oo 997-2L -ol ?1,0 , dO 7jT S, f3 �r 15(7- 1i0 -15 •1,195 r / >• />.of o 14S �4 0 1 wtle 4D-oe7- 415 sq -lo•pf `aro °Z TR 1,y 14417 i� 4`t �� /a-ro -05 151 `el IIIRSQ 7 217.'9"14 'Pik of v�� 3 o ° ♦ (4) a 144.&1 47' f f0 [� `LO�p &477 `r X46 1`09'57 !t yl, 07.1° ', o i pJ�' 6j7 o1.4D 14570 • y 1 �4 sr 6CHWL .f,o pia �rf S _II -o2 I 317 v q1, ,1• 91717 - /D -,37 4.` X7.1 r •? 2c DA' �� 4) 47 ,k, � 0� Zo4 &' 14586 617: y�Y Q�• F�n Q v D41�18 (1) 9, 'e• 14445 117-11-'44 s,� a � 'It (4) f, 14972'51 (t3) (t4) y ,�t•4 , ? ` 517 -10-27 (4) 14775 14&7& (L7) 517-11 -51 14743 1a9 21 r4I= �0 �I- 517•If, 14701 017 - ti- 9p Vry0 1461& 117-1 /•S2 (ss �e1) 14 517 -ID.25 4 '117-10-2 Cu 517-11 -4q 14717 5 51T �I c 14704 �F) 517-11'33 '/ '14) 4 ^, phAp h 07 • W-10-23 (7) 517.111,48 ti 14 71.8 1473, 14716 1417 - 411,.54 r S1) a7 -ll &4o y. ', ry° O y �0 17 -1x_24 �) 51,•11-47 031.1 2- b� �� a� $c `S e� ry17 ��. 6 147!4 147j32 517 -1"13 14784 !H) 517.11-46 A 20640 C D ;>•12 -m 4) ^ (+1 LD) L7-27- . (3U �`;a,b2)�1 dA ° 1474& 146x$ 7-Z7- a1, z7 1z Q� 517.4-45 -96 72 20690 ryo 0 d l�, ^.B (10) 517 -u .. [ 51'7.27-0'1 7 517•IL-10 •4 S�ry0.69 ry -6 �{ 147 &0 14611 L 14 �• ID 14 Lo62o f17-IL-11 a 41 (11) (8' 146 &D L7 ,a 14774 1401-7 J` 917 -27-&6 ) �G o ' (121 ' (C) 147171 517.11 -43 (3.f. ., (29) *17-11-56 817.27 -4 14 °2o CA) Pob &1 51,-11-4L 14110 51�.27-A 1462"1 51, -27 -M ,7 to LOO CB) 517 -12 32 p3) 517-11,59 G (4&) (Y1 �Ip OO Lo945 1y;'27 -�1. ;;'Z, -.S 57.:7-16 - 617- 1'L•J, 1,8) 417-11 41 '517.27- &3� �0 W 161 M) -- 517 -12 -21 140'1° C41) 147 517-27-02 L421 Q 14790 417 -0 4 /7 -IZ-3o CA1 14791 517 -Z7 07 (A (Al P03L 45) 91, -27-o4 8 40 &0 517 -12'27 Lp5o1 517 -19 -19 517 -f2 -22 St7 Z7 -o1 (e) Po-3-50 917•)2 -26 � 6 h�Z7) 517• M-20 2&540 - w1,.12•to SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. e / MEETING DATE: 02,1-51 -r,� S ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM �e-- CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Repeal of the Limited Industrial Zoning District(AZO 89 -001) Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: With the rezoning of the Paul Mason site to MU -PD, there is no longer any need to retain the "limited industrial" classification in the zoning ordinance. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance will repeal Article 15 -20 and all other provisions in the zoning ordinance containing a reference to the "M" District. Since the only property remaining in the City having a limited industrial zoning classification would be the Passantino and San Jose Water Company sites, which are surrounded by the Mason project, Section 8 of the proposed ordinance provides for these sites to remain unclassified until further action by the Planning Commission. The Commission has determined that there is no immediate need to rezone these properties until it is ascertained whether they will be incorporated into the Mason project or remain under separate ownership in which event, an appropriate zoning classification can be determined when the owner of either parcel desires to change the existing use. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated December 1, 1988. (b) Proposed ordinance. (c) Negative declaration. (d) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 1989. (e) Resolution of Planning Commission recommending adoption of ordinance. (to be submitted at meeting) . Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR.. HENRY D. CRUZ ATKZNSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 1415) 967-6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Elimination of the Limited Industrial District DATE: December 1, 1988 J. M. ATKINSON (1892-19821 L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979) Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance which is intended to serve the singular purpose of eliminating the limited industrial district ( "M" district) from the zoning regulations. As you know, upon rezoning of the Paul Masson property from M to MU -PD, the small parcels surrounded by the Masson project owned by Passantino and the San Jose Water Company remain as the only sites within the City having a limited industrial district classification. The Planning Commission is already in the process of determining an appropriate district classification for these sites. The ordinance will repeal all references to the limited industrial district now contained in Chapter 15 of the City Code. In the event this ordinance is adopted before a final decision has been made with respect to reclassification of the Passantino and Water Company properties, Section 8 of the proposed ordinance provides for these sites to have an unclassified status pending further action by the Planning Commission. A Saratoga City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REPEALING ARTICLE 15 -20 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 10.010 in Article 15 -10 of the City Code is amended by repealing Paragraph 0); renumbering Paragraph (k) to (j); and renumbering Paragraph (1) to (k). SECTION 2: Article 15 -20 of the City Code is repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3: Section 15- 30.110 in Article 15 -30 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 4: Paragraph (i) of Section 15- 35.020 in Article 15 -35 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: I'M With respect to any site or structure located within a C -N, C -V, C -H, P- A, R -M or MU -PD district, not more than twenty -five percent of the number of required off - street parking spaces may consist of compact parking spaces. If, in the application of this Paragraph, a fractional number is obtained, one compact parking ,,..space may be provided for a fraction of more than one -half and one standard parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one -half or less." SECTION 5: Paragraph (r) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 of the City Code is repealed and Paragraph (s) of said Section is renumbered to Paragraph (r). SECTION 6: Paragraph (b) of Section 15- 35.060 in Article 15 -35 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) Retail establishments warehouses, storage facilities, restaurants -1- Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 0 5,000 to 12,500 sq. ft. 1 12,500 to 20,000 sq. ft. 2 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. 3 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. 4 50,000 to 75,000 sq. ft. 5 Each additional 75,000 sq. ft. 1" SECTION 7: Paragraph (a) of Secton 15- 46.020 in Article 15 -46 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued until the proposed improvements have received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any new main structure in an R -M, P -A or C district. (2) Any expansion over five hundred square feet to an existing main structure in an R -M, P -A or C district. (3) Any substantial exterior alteration, as determined by the Planning Director, to an existing structure in an R -M, P -A or C district. (4) Any addition over twenty -two feet in height to an existing main or accessory structure in an R -M, P -A or C district. (5) Any parking lot in an R -M, P -A or C district covering an area of one thousand square feet or greater. (6) Any structure, except a single - family dwelling or accessory structure, having a gross floor area of one thousand square feet or greater, located in an A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district." SECTION 8: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, any site which is then classified as a limited industrict district shall automatically become and remain an unclassified site having no specific district designation, pending further action by the Planning Commission. ,,.SECTION 9: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 10: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular VA meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -3- MAYOR RES -NO Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. AZO -89 -001 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION An amendment to the City Code repealing Article 15x20 and other provisions relating to the limited industrial zoning district. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION There are no industrial uses and properties zoned industrial in the City; therefore, the limited industrial district ( "M" district) is not required and is being eliminated from the City Code. Executed at Saratoga, California this 1st day of December , 1988. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUT ORIZED STAFF MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 25 1989 PURQCHEARINGS Continued Page 6 The City Attorn onded even if a site of similar size came into existenc ication for a re- zoning would have to de and heard by the Planning Commis ' at a public hearing. He asked that the record reflect the no intent on the part o to have this Ordinance apply to any other property nor was there any of :pLo perty plated at the time the action was taken. The Public Hearing was opened at 8. . There TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINQ AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0 MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -88 -007 PER THE 6 -0. —�j 12. AZO -89 -001 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance repealing Article 15 -20 and other provisions of the City Code relating to the Limited Industrial zoning district. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of December 1, 1988; he asked that Section 8 be amended to read, "Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, any site which is then classified as a limited industrial district shall automatically become and remain an unclassified site having no specific district designation, pending further action by the Planning Commission ". The Public Hearing was opened at 8:58 P.M. There were no speakers. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M. Passed 6 -0 SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -89 -001 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING SECTION 8 TO READ, "UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, ANY SITE WHICH IS THEN CLASSIFIED AS A LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME AND REMAIN AN UNCLASSIFIED SITE HAVING NO SPECIFIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION, PENDING FURTHER ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'. Passed 6 -0. i 1. Disg"ion of Planning Commission retreat agenda and selection of agenda su and Kolstad were selected for the agenda 2. Upcoming P1aXing applications and projects Planning Director Emsli tated that he would inform the Commissio of upcoming items. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Letter from Ronald Hay, President, ker Ra Homeowners Assoc. re: vehicular access between Parker Ranch and Star Ridge r and response from Planning Director. A representative of the Parker Ranch Hom ne requested direction of the Commission ow to pr 2. Minutes of Heritage Preserva Commission of Oral by Commission: None ADJOURNMENT: ition reviewed the letter submitted; she with necessary actions. 4, 1989, - Noted and filed. /Meeting he Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. mitt Caughey RESOLUTION NO. AZO -89 -001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING REPEAL OF ARTICLE 15 -20 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That the rezoning of the Masson Winery on Saratoga Avenue has been completed and the Limited Industrial zone district is no longer applicable to any other property in Saratoga. Section 2: That the remaining single family home will remain undesignated until such time as a specific development plan for this property is submitted and an application for zone change is submitted and the City takes formal action to zone the site. Section 3: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 25th day of January, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Harris Chair, Planning Comm ssion ATTEST: A: RES -AZO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. IS S21 AGENDA ITEM V MEETING DATE: 027 /* q% CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment to Zoning Regulations for the MU -PD District (Az0 88 -007) Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will amend the zoning regulations for the MU -PD District in order to accommodate the conceptual development plan for the Paul Mason site, as explained in the Memorandum from the City Attorney to the Planning Commission dated November 29, 1988. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated November 29, 1988. (b) Proposed ordinance. (c) Negative declaration. (d) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 1989. (e) Resolution of Planning Commission recommending adoption of ordinance. (to be submitted at meeting) . Motion and Vote: ATKI -N SON • FARASYN�T ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL P.O. BOX 279 HAROLD S. TOPPEL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD 1415) 967-6941 NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. - -- HENRY D. CRUZ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Attorney RE: Amendment to Article 15 -21 re MU -PD site area DATE: November 29, 1988 J. M. ATKINSON (1892-1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979) Article 15 -21 of the Zoning Ordinance was specifically adopted to establish regulations for development of the Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue. At the time, it was belived that the size of this property was approximately 25 acres. Consequently, Section 15- 21.030 provided that the minimum site area of any property zoned MU -PD must be 25 acres. This restriction was intended to insure that the Masson property would be master - planned as a single project, which has now been accomplished. However, the minimum site area specified in the City Code presents a new problem with respect to the particular conceptual development plan recently approved by the Commission. This plan contemplates separate residential units and separate improvements devoted to housing and extended health care for seniors. It is the developer's intention to sell the residential units as individual parcels, rather than a common interest or co- operative type of project. These sales could not be accomplished without a subdivision of the property to create the individual parcels. The proposed ordinance will amend Section 15- 21.030 in two respects: First, the minimum site area is changed from 25 acres to 20 acres, reflecting the reduction in size from the acquisition by Caltrans of right -of -way for the freeway interchange. The ordinance also recognizes that the Masson site actually consists of more than one lot of record and would allow such lots to be consolidated as a single project as long as they are contiguous to each other. Second, the proposed ordinance will add a new paragraph to Section 15- 21.030 allowing subdivision of the property after approval of the conceptual development plan, with the approval of such subdivision being granted by the Commission at the same time as your approval of the final development plan. The subdision must be "consistent with the types of uses and location of all improvements as shown on the conceptual plan." The procedure is rather unique in that a subdivision normally precedes development, whereas in the case of an MU -PD project, the subdivision lines are determined by a development plan which has already been approved. The logic of this approach is that the City has determined the nature and intensity of the development, including the size and location of all improvements, through the conceptual plan approval process. A later subdivision of the property does not operate to change the project itself, but merely serves to establish separate parcels which can then be transferred to the ultimate owners of the improvements. It should be remembered that any modification of the project requires approval by the Planning Commission. For example, if a unit owner desired to build an addition or otherwise modify the exterior elevation of a townhouse, this action could not be taken until the Commission has approved a modification of the final development plan. In order to insure that subsequent owners are aware of these restrictions, the proposed ordinance also amends Section 15- 21.150 to include an express requirement for the final PD permit to be recorded, along with a copy of the final site plan showing the location of all property lines, structures and other improvements. Haro . T el ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 21.030 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE MINIMUM SITE AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE MU- PD DISTRICT, AND AMENDING SECTION 15- 21.150 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF A PD PERMIT The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 21.030 in Article 15 -21 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15- 21.030 Site area (a) The minimum gross site area of the property included within the conceptual development plan referred to in Section 15- 21.130 of this Article shall be twenty acres, which may consist of more than one lot of record provided such lots are contiguous to each other. (b) After approval of the conceptual development plan in accordance with Section 15- 21.130, the final development plan referred to in Section 15- 21.140 may provide for subdivision of the property in a manner consistent with the types of uses and location of all improvements as shown on the conceptual plan. The proposed subdivision shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, which may be granted as part of the Commission's approval of the final development plan." SECTION 2: Section 15- 21.150 in Article 15 -21 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15-21.150 Issuance of PD permit (a) Upon approval of the final development plan by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, the Planning Director shall issue a PD permit to the applicant. Such permit shall contain all of the conditions of approval and shall be signed by the applicant to acknowledge the same. Failure by the applicant to sign the permit within thirty days after the date of issuance, or such longer period of time as may be allowed by the Planning Director, shall invalidate both the PD permit and the approval of the final development plan. (b) The PD permit, or a memorandum thereof, shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. The recorded document shall include, as an exhibit attached thereto, a copy of the approved final site plan showing the location of all property lines, street lines, structures, sidewalks, and common areas. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or -1- unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -2- MAYOR RES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. AZO -88 -007 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the City Code Section 15- 21.030 concerning the minimum site area requirement for the MU -PD district, and amending Section 15- 21.150 concerning issuance•of a PD permit. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The amendment does not reduce the development standards or relax the regulations on the planned development permit. It merely serves to establish separate parcels which can then be transferred to the ultimate owners of the improvements. Executed at Saratoga, California this r; day of 114W4414- DIRECTOR OF PLANNING bo DIRECTOR'S AU HORIZED STAFF MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 25 1989 HEARINGS Continued Page 5 Plan ing Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The Pu ic Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Gerald�azekas, Architect, concurred with the Staff Report; Applicants were amenable'to sug- gestions of Commission on adding architectural interest to reduce the perception of bulk. Commissione suggested adding hip elements to the roof to reduce the perception of bulk. TUCKER /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:34 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Commissioner Tucker stated she was happy to grant a variance; the slope was created unnaturally and the house would not impact adjacent homes. TUCKER/TAPPAN MOVD�APPROVAL OF V-88-045 PER THE�MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. iy i TUCKER/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -88 -103 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, ADDING A CONDITION THAT THE ROOF BE CHANGED`TO A HIP ROOF WITH GABLE ACCENTS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6;0.' X 10. GP -88 -002.1 Passantino, 13100 Saratoga Ave.,;consideration of an amendment to the ZC -88 -003 General Plan and Land Use Map'io change the designation from M (limited industrial), to M -10 (medium)density residential) and rezoning of property from L -I (light industrial)' to R -1- 10,000 (single family residential). Properties are currently tdeveloped with one single family home on an 18,200 sq. ft. parcel,,: A"Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from December 14,1988. ----------- ----- ----- ----------- - - - - -- ---- -- -- -- - -- -- -- ------ ------ - - -- -- - - --- - -- - --- - - -- Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 25, 1989. ,"' \ The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried was favorable to the General Plan Amendment; however, he suggested removing the light industrial zoning while holding any proposed zoning change in abeyance until such time as the property owner wished to present an application. Mr. Passantino, Applicantekated he was reluctant to change the current zoning; he cited the history of this property and incidents from his family life. He was favorable to the above suggestion. SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. The City Attorney agreed that it would make sense to accept Commissioner Siegfried's suggestion. Planning Director Emslie suggested that no action be taken on ZC -88 -003 at this time with the direc- tive that any, ,sdevelopment occurring on this property be accompanied by an appropriate zone change at the timgrof the application. However, he recommended that action be taken on GP -88 -002.1 SIE.G/FRIEDBURGER MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed,6 -0. SI ,GFRIED /BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF GP -88 -002.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- ON. Passed 6 -0. { 11. AZO -88 -007 City of Saratoga, consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning the minimum site area requirement for the MU -PD (multiple use planned development), Section 15- 21.030 and 15- 21.150. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from December 14, 1988. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of November 29, 1988 Commissioner Siegfried noted that the MU -PD designation was developed with the Paul Masson site in mind; he had received a phone call from Ms. Carol Machol who was concerned that provisions made for this site could be applied to other sites sometime in the future. Chairperson Guch thought there was no other property similar in size to the parcel in question. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JANUARY 25 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney responded even if a site of similar size came into existence, application for a re- zoning would have to be made and heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. He asked that the record reflect there was no intent on the part of Staff to have this Ordinance apply to any other property nor was there any other property contemplated at the time the action was taken. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 P.M. There were no speakers. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6 -0 BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -88 -007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. \AZO-89-001 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance repealing Article 15 -20 and other provisions of the City Code relating to the Limited Industrial zoning district. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. �r ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- The City, Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of December 1, 1988; he asked that Section 8 be amended'to read, "Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, any site which is then classified as a limited industrial district shall automatically become and remain an unclassified situ having no specific district designation, pending further action by the Planning Commission ". t/r The Public Hearing was opened at 8:58 P.M. There were no speakers. MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8 :58 P.M. Passed 6 -0 SlEUFR1ED/TUCKER`MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -89 -001 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION AMENDING SECTION 8 TO READ, "UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, ANY STTE�,WHICH IS THEN CLASSIFIED AS /A LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME AND REMAIN AN UNCLASSIFIED SITE HAVING NO SPECIFIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION, PENDING FURTHER ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ". Passed 6 -0. f 1. Discussion of Planning Commission "retreat agenda -and selection of agenda subcommittee. Commissioners Siegfried and Kolstad were selected -for the agenda subcommittee. 2. Upcoming Planning applications and projects, i. Planning Director Emslie stated that he would inform the Commission of upcoming items. COMMUNICATIONS: / \� Written: 1. Letter from Ronald Hay, President, Parker Ranch Homeowners Assoc. re: vehicular access between Parker Ranch and Star Ridge Courts and response from Planning Director. A representative of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association reviewed the letter submitted; she requested direction of the Commission on how to proceed with necessary actions. 2. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of January 4, 1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURWENT: X, The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Res tfully mitt rol A. Probst - Caughey RESOLUTION NO. AZO -88 -007 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTIONS 15- 21.030 PERTAINING TO THE MINIMUM SITE AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE MU -PD DISTRICT AND SECTION 15- 21.150 PERTAINING TO ISSUANCE OF A PD PERMIT The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That the amendments are required in order to ensure consistency between the zone district applied to the former Paul Masson Winery site and recent plans for right -of -way acquisition prepared by Cal -Trans for Route 85. Section 2: That the former Paul Masson Saratoga Avenue site is the only location in the City which will meet the minimum site conditions of the MU -PD zone; therefore, the reduction in minimum lot size will enable the zone to be applied to any other property in the City of Saratoga. Section 3: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 25th day of January, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Harris Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST; to t4d "Planning Commission A: RES -AZO