The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-19-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 AGENDA ITEM: —7A MEETING DATE: March 19, 1997 CITY MGR: • ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Library Commission regarding the proposed expansion of the Saratoga Community Library. Recommended Motion(s): 1. Approve the revised Request for Proposal(RFP) for the expansion of the Saratoga Community Library. 2. Approve the attached list of architects to receive the revised RFP. This list includes architectural firms that have contacted the Santa Clara County Library in order to be considered for providing services for proposed building projects in addition to names of several architects that have completed library projects in the Bay Area. 3. Approve the recommended Library Expansion Timetable. 4. Approve the proposed composition of the Library Expansion Committee. Report Summar At the January 7, 1997 Joint Council /Library Commission Meeting, the Commission recommended and the City Council supported placing a bond measure on the June 1998 ballot in order to fund the expansion of the existing Saratoga Community Library. As the attached letter from the Library Commission Chair indicates, the Council requested that the Commission draft a plan of action directed toward a successful Bond Measure for the June 1998 ballot. Attached is a copy of the revised Request for Proposal, a list of architects, a draft library expansion timetable and the proposed lists of individuals who would comprise the Expansion Committee. Approval of the listed recommendations is required in order for initial implementation of the library expansion to take place. Staff concurs with the Commission's recommendations and recommends that the City Council approve items 1 -4. Fiscal Impacts: At the January 23, 1997 Joint Powers Authority Meeting, the board approved Saratoga's Building Expansion Request. In doing so, the board approved the use of JPA funds for the preliminary architectural work needed in preparation for the election. At its October 24, 1996 meeting, the Joint Powers Authority adopted a Library Building Expansion Policy that allows for such requests to be granted. No general fund monies would be used for the preliminary architectural work. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The listed recommendations would not be approved and the Library Expansion Process would not begin. Follow Up Actions: Staff will mail out the RFP to the attached list of architects in addition to notifying the Green Sheet Trade Journal of the RFP process. The Library Commission, along with staff, will contact the appropriate Commissions, organizations and county staff in order to formally begin the Expansion Committee meeting process. Attachments: 1. Cover letter from the Library Commission Chair 2. Request For Proposal (RFP) 3. List of Architects 4. Library Expansion Timeline 5. Library Expansion Committee 2 February 27, 1997 Gillian Moran, Mayor Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Madam Mayor and Council, Congratulations on your decision to seek community support for expanding the Saratoga Community Library! We on the Library Commission are very excited and pleased to have your enthusiastic endorsement for the project. At our January 7 Joint Council /Commission Meeting, you requested the Commission draft an action plan directed toward a successful Bond Measure for the June 1998 ballot. Enclosed are drafts of a Preliminary Library Expansion Timetable, and an update to the Request For Proposal used in 1992. Also attached is a recommended composition for the Library Expansion Committee. We recommend the architect hired to do the initial drawings be the firm the city retains after the election to see the project through. It is the Commissions desire that an announcement be sent as soon as possible to the "Green Sheet' trade journal and the attached list of architects in addition to any firms the City wishes to contact. Please let us know if we, or the County library staff can be of any assistance in implementing this process. The Commission has reaffirmed their commitment to work diligently on this project. We are currently visiting recently renovated and enlarged libraries, formulating focus groups and beginning the public education process. Please consider these plans a draft for the Council. We look forward to hearing your recommendations for changes or additions. Sincerely, Marcia Manzo, Chair Saratoga Community Library Commission REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY EXPANSION INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga is requesting proposals from selected architects and architectural firms to prepare architectural documents for its community library. Creative and imaginative responses to the problems set out in the RFP as well as prior experience in the design of libraries will be considered in the selection process. BACKGROUND On January 7, 1997, the Saratoga City Council accepted the Library Commission's proposal to expand the Saratoga Community Library and tentatively approved to proceed with further planning. The major components of the expansion plan include: • Expanding the collection to meet the community's needs. • Creating specialized seating areas for both quiet and group study and expanding space for both quiet and group study and expanding space for children's story-times and class visits. • Providing adequate staff workspace and expanding the community room. • Improving interior lighting and providing a drive -up book drop. • Increasing number of parking spaces and providing xeriscape for Library grounds. The current Library facility is approximately 22,000 square feet. The Library Commission has proposed to expand the Library by an additional 22,000 square feet. Please refer to the Saratoga Community Library Needs Assessment and Building Plan for more detailed information regarding the Commission's recommendations. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The purpose of this project is to transform the Needs Assessment and Building Plan into reality. It is critical that the expansion: Provides for a library facility that is functional and makes maximum use of available space while preserving the architectural integrity of the current building. • Meets the recommendations of the Commission in a cost effective manner. SCOPES OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 1. The architect shall review the Library Needs Assessment and Building Plan to ascertain space requirements, functional relationship between various program areas, concepts and guidelines for final decision of the Library, and options for floor area expansion and site alternatives. 2. Based on the review of the Needs Assessment and Building Plan and consultation with appropriate city and county staff, the architect shall prepare schematic design documents and probable construction cost and submit them to the Library Expansion Committee /City Council for approval. The architect will need to submit at least two expansion proposals, one which meets the recommendations to expand the library by 22,000 square feet and one which meets the recommendations but on a smaller scale. These documents shall also include the overall parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and site plan for the entire Library facility and grounds. After the approval of the schematic design documents, the architect shall prepare design development documents for approval by the Library Expansion Committee /City Council. These design development documents shall consist of plans and drawings illustrating the size and character of the entire project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such other elements as may be appropriate. 4. The architect shall submit a final estimate of probable construction cost. The architect shall attend appropriate meetings with the Library Expansion Committee and shall make formal presentations to City Council as necessary to finalize this project. 6. A physical model showing the proposed expansion in relation to the existing library shall be prepared based upon the design development or schematic option selected by the City for further development. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The architect shall submit fifteen (15) dated copies of the proposal which shall contain the following elements: 1. A brief description of the background and capabilities of the architectural firm. 2. A detailed statement of direct relevant experience in designing libraries or institutional facilities. 3. Project leadership and staff assigned to this project and their qualifications. 4. Names and background qualifications of sub - consultants proposed to be used. 5. Description of honors and awards received for architectural work done by the firm. 6. A schedule of fees or hourly rate charged by the architectural firm. Estimate of number of hours by various staff which would be assigned to the project. A time schedule for completing the scope of work. 8. The name, address and telephone number of the person to whom correspondence should be directed. 9. Provision of any other information that may assist the City in ascertaining your or your firm's qualifications. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 30, 1997. Proposals postmarked but not received by May 30, 1997 will not be considered. Please submit proposals to: Larry I. Perlin City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS The Library Expansion Committee will review the proposals, and the most qualified architectural consultants will be selected and invited for an interview with the Library Expansion Committee. Prior to holding these interviews, the firms deemed to be most qualified will be required to prepare some preliminary design ideas for presentation to the committee when the interviews take place. Following the interviews, the Library Expansion Committee will select the firm which it feels has demonstrated the best qualifications and best design ideas for the expansion and remodeling of the community library building and an Agreement for Professional Services will be negotiated with City and County staffs. The negotiated agreement shall be submitted to the City Council for approval. It is anticipated that the selection of an architect will be made by early July. The architect or architectural firm must be able to complete design development and the final cost estimate by the end of January 1998 in order to meet the Committee's objective of having a ballot measure in June of 1998 to fund the project. INSURANCE The architect selected shall be required to furnish Professional Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance in the amount as required by the City of Saratoga. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT INQUIRIES For further information or inquiries, please contact Irene Jacobs, Administrative Analyst, at (408) 868 -1215. Enclosure: • Saratoga Community Library Building and Needs Assessment Plan, October 1991 and 1996 Needs Assessment update ARCHITECTS (List of firms that have contacted the Santa Clara County Library to request consideration for providing services for proposed building projects.) CPM Inc. 110 Sutter Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Hal Brandes Dahanukar Brandes Architects 907 East Greenhill Road Mill Valley, CA 94941 415/383 -7625 Patricia Dougherty Ehrlich Rominger 4800 El Camino Real Los Altos, CA 94022 415/ 949 -1300 Frants Albert Associates Andy Anderson, Marketing Assistant 481 Ninth Street Oakland, CA 94607 510/ 268 -0188 510/268 -0191 Fax Wayne Gehrke, AIA Group 4 /Architecture . - Research and Planning, Inc. 301 Linden Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 415/871 -0709 415/871 -7911 Fax Rohit M. Shah Vice President/ Regional Office Director HMC 1570 The Alameda, Suite 330 San Jose, CA 95126 -2305 408/977-9160 408/977-9170 Fax Ellen A. Dwyer Business Development Manager Hanscomb Associates, Inc. 750 Battery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 415/781-6677 415/781 -0906 Fax Wade Killefer Killefer Flammang Purtill Architects 1625 Olympic Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90404 310/399 -7975 310/399 -8545 Fax Lloyd Bakan Lloyd Bakan Consultants 1721 2nd Street #103 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/441 -3587 Jenny Nusbaum, Marketing Associate Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 510/845 -7549 510/845-8750 Fax Edward Dean NBBJ Library Design 130 Sutter Street San Francisco, CA 94104 415/981 -1100 415/955 -9393 Fax edean@nbbj.com 2 Cynthia Ripley Ripley Associates 303 Second Street Suite 800 North San Francisco, CA 94107 415/ 227 -0113 415/ 546 -7536 Fax Kim Thompkins The Steinberg Group 60 Pierce Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 408/295 -5446 408/295 -5928 Fax Lesley L. Miles, AIA Weston Miles Design 17300 Monterey Road #200 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408/779 -6686 408/778-9417 Fax 2/97 3 ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTS with completed library projects in the Bay Area Harris & Kasten until 3/14: 427 Casa del Mar Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 after 3/14: 485 Miramar Drive Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Simon Martin -Vegue Winklestein 501 2d Street #701 San Francisco, CA 94107 Spencer Associates 2570 W. El Camino Real #100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Wurster Bernardi & Emmons 555 deHaro Street #235 San Francisco, CA 94107 PRELIMINARY EXPANSION TIMETABLE 2/27/97 97 1 9& Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Saratoga Library Expansion Commission Chair: Marcia Manzo Organization Chair. J. Grantham Tour other libraries x x x x Compile list of ideas from tours x Submit Expansion Plan to Council x Prepare & mail RFP x x _ Manage time line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Coordination Chair: C. Foscato Consult with other groups x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Form campaign committee x x Request poll from campaign committee x Architect Selection Chair. K. Ceppos Review architect proposals x Submit architect to City x x City Council select architect x City hire architect x x Accept preliminary plans /estimates x x x x Public input for design Chair: S. Towse Work with consultant x x Plan focus groups x Conduct focus group meetings x Solicit initial public input x x _ Review poll input Public information Chair: D. McLaughlin Define FAQ's & answers x x _ Plan public mtgs x x Conduct informational public meetings x x x x x x x Election process Chair. E. Sessler Write ballot language x Coordinate ballot arguments x City Council place on ballot x File w /registrar of voters x Election _ _ x 2/27/97 LIBRARY EXPANSION COMMITTEE It is the Saratoga Library Commission recommendation to the City Council that the Commission function as .the Library Expansion Committee, with expanded community input. We see the following composition for the Committee: Marcia Manzo, Chair Karen Ceppos Jack Grantham David McLaughlin Ed Sessler Sally Towse Cathy Foscato, Monte Sereno County Library Staff Representative City Council Representative Friends of the Saratoga Libraries Representative Dolly Barnes, Ex Officio Planning Commission Representative, Ex Officio Heritage Preservation Commission Representative, Ex Officio Irene Jacobs, Staff Support SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z F46 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: MARCH 19, 1997 CITY MGR.: L471_� ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: . SUBJECT: Resolution appointing Interim Planning Director Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Resolution. Report Summar The attached Resolution, if adopted, will confirm the appointment of James Walgren as Interim Planning Director. The Council actually approved this arrangement on February 25, but the implementing Resolution was not before you at that time. Additionally, the Resolution clarifies a misunderstanding between Mr. Walgren and Mr. Peacock concerning the terms of compensation during the interim appointment. The Resolution states that Mr. Walgren will receive a 12% increase above his current salary in addition to the benefits afforded to other management employees. In Mr. Peacock's memo to the Council dated February 25, he stated that the 12o salary adjustment would include the allotment for management benefits, although this was not Mr. Walgren's understanding. Mr. Peacock did allude to this discrepancy during his remarks on February 25, and suggested that the matter be worked out between Mr. Walgren and myself. I believe the compensation terms set forth in the Resolution are fair in view of the added responsibilities Mr. Walgren will be assuming during his interim appointment. Further, Mr. Walgren's compensation would be set at a level that is internally consistent with those of the other mid - management employees of the City, and for these reasons, I recommend adoption of the Resolution. Fiscal Impacts: During the interim appointment, Mr. Walgren's salary would be increased by $547 per month. In addition, he will receive extra benefits, some related to his interim status as a management employee and some related to his increased salary which, all total, are worth between $300 and $350 per month. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution will not be adopted and the interim appointment will not be approved. Follow Up Actions: None required. Attachments: 1. Resolution making interim appointment. 2. Memo from Mr. Peacock dated February 25. 3. Job description for Planning Director. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 25, 1997' TO: City Council FROM: Harry Peacock, City Manager A..'W SUBJECT: Interim Organization Community Development e.-Pamel- and Staffing of the Department As I indicated in Potpourri last Friday and-as I have previously discussed with Council in closed session, I have talked to James Walgren and Joe Oncay about an interim arrangement for organizing the department until decisions are made regarding whether to replace Paul Curtis' position. What I propose the City Council approve is that Associate Planner James Walgren be appointed to the position of interim planning director, reporting directly to the City Manager. Internally, Associate Planner George White will oversee supervision of -all current planning and zoning activity as well as continue to act as staff to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Advanced planning projects will be assigned to Heather Bradley when she returns next month from maternity leave. James will be responsible for the planning staff and provide staff support to the SBDC and Team Saratoga. Building and Code Administration activities: will continue to be supervised by City Codes Administrator, Joe Oncay, but Mr. Oncay will begin to report directly to the City Manager rather than to the Community Development Director. Mr. Walgren has requested a 12% increase in compensation to act in this interim capacity. This would bring his compensation to $5,108 a month. It is my suggestion that Mr. Walgren's request be affirmed by the Council, but that the compensation be inclusive of the management expense allowance of $300 a month and that Mr. Walgren also receive the 5 days of annual administrative leave currently granted to management personnel. In this way Mr. Walgren's compensation will be consistent with the current Letter Of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Managers Organization. I believe this is important organizationally and the City Attorney believes that it is legally necessary to do so. So, Mr. Walgren's actual salary would be $4,758 a month. By way of comparison, the bottom of the salary range for the Community Development Director position is currently $5,031 a month. !� As for formal implementation, it would be appropriate for the Council to 1) instruct the City Manager to prepare a resolution which sets the salary and approves the job description for the interim position for action at your March 5th meeting, and 2) confirm my appointment of James to the position effective March 1st as required by Section 2- 20.050(d) of the Saratoga Municipal Code which requires that no department head be appointed by the City Manager without the consent of the City Council. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING DIRECTOR DEFINITION a• a c a• • ; Under administrative direction of the City Manager, to plan, organize and direct the City Planning Department; to plan for the future orderly physical development of the City; to plan and direct the formulation and administration of subdivision and land use controls; and to do related work as required. LWIPL.ES OF DUTIES o Plans, organizes, supervises, participates and evaluates the work involved in planning for the orderly development of urban and rural areas and administering subdivision and land use regulations; o Serves as the technical advisor to the City Council, City Manager and Planning Commission on planning, zoning, development and related matters. o Serves as Secretary to the Planning Commission and attends City Council and other Commission and Committee meetings as required; o Collects data concerning needs of the City for public improvements and zoning of land, and confers with property owners and project developers; o Represents the Planning Commission before the City Council and other public meetings and represents the City at various joint City, County, State and Federal meetings and functions; o Promotes public understanding of the General Plan and other planning programs. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Education: Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four -year college or university with major work in planning or a closely related field. Masters..degree desirable. Experience: Five years of increasingly responsible professional experience in public planning, including at least two years in a supervisory capacity. Knowledge of: Modern principles and practices of urban and environmental planning and municipal zoning; methods of preparing designs, plan estimates, reports, and recommendations relating to all phases of municipal planning programs and of State, County and City laws and regulations applicable to planning and zoning. Ability to: Prepare, revise, and interpret a sound planning and zoning program for the City; analyze and interpret data pertaining to planning, development and zoning; prepare ordinances and formulate recommendations for land use policies; prepare clear, concise, and comprehensive reports and recommendations; establish and mainroin cooperative working relationships. Supervise and coordinate the work of others in a timely fashion. ' C SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2—N5 MEETING DATE: March 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: 6A ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Co munity velopmen 6111) CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ' SUBJECT: GPA 96 -001 & AZO 96 -001; Binkley, 13570 Pierce Rd. Request to realign existing General Plan and Zoning District boundaries between two existing hillside parcels of record located off Pierce Rd. A Lot Line Adjustment between the two parcels has been approved by the Planning Commission contingent on City Council approval of this request. The realigned boundaries do not affect permitted residential uses or densities; approving the request would provide General Plan and Zoning District land use maps consistent with the reconfigured parcel boundaries. Parcel A is designated as Residential - Hillside Conservation and is located within a Hillside Residential District. Parcel B is designated as Residential -Very Low Density and is in an R -1- 40,000 District. Recommended Motion: Approve the General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Report Summary: In March 1996 the Planning Commission unanimously approved a Lot Line Adjustment request to realign a parcel boundary between two existing legal lots of record. The applicants' objective was to take approximately % acre of land from their 9 acre Parcel A and transfer it to their 19,602 sq. ft. Parcel B - thereby increasing Parcel B to 40,510 sq. ft. The boundary between the Residential - Hillside Conservation and the Residential -Very Low Density General Plan designations, and the corresponding Hillside Residential and R -1- 40,000 Zoning District designations, follows the existing lot line. The application included requests to realign these land use designations to match the reconfigured parcels. Binkley GPA and AZO Requests Page Two The realigned boundary would not affect permitted residential densities or development potential - one single family residence can currently be developed on each of the two lots, and only one residence would be permitted on each lot after the adjustment. Measure G Applicability: The Planning Commission approved the Lot Line Adjustment contingent on the City Council approving the associated General Plan and Zoning District map amendments. At the June 19, 1996 City Council meeting it was determined that the Binkleys' requested map amendments were subject to the Measure G voter initiative and could not be approved by the Council until the matter was decided by a public vote. The statutorily required process for amending the City's General Plan had been placed in abeyance until Saratoga voters had an opportunity to vote on the General Plan and Zoning District amendments in November. Now that the voters have passed the request, the City Council must complete the process by formally adopting the amendments, as required by state law. Environmental Determination: The proposed boundary amendment would not affect permitted residential uses or densities and would not result in an adverse impact on the environment. The City Council therefore adopted an environmental Negative Declaration for the project at the June 19, 1996 public hearing. Fiscal Impacts: None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A project notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the subject parcels and published in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: General Plan and Zoning District boundaries would not be modified, thereby voiding the Planning Commission's approval of the Lot Line Adjustment request. The applicant would still have two legal building sites, though Parcel B would be more irregular in configuration and more difficult to build on. Binkley GPA and AZO Requests Page Three Follow Up Actions: None. The City Attorney is recommending that GPA Resolution be adopted normally and that the AZO Ordinance be adopted as an urgency ordinance, which will then become effective immediately. This will save the Binkleys 30 -45 days of normal processing time in order to help facilitate a property transaction they are negotiating (neither the Binkleys nor the potential buyers were aware that this matter had not been concluded). Attachments: 1. GPA Resolution and AZO Ordinance 2. City Council minutes dated June 19, 1996 3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 27, 1996 4. Staff Report dated March 27, 1996 5. Map, Exhibit "A" james \exesumm \binkley City Council Minutes 8 June 19, 1996 C. Requests to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries at 13570 Pierce Road. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B (40,500 sq. ft.) within an R -1- 40,000 District. GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 (Applicant, Binkley) (APN 503 -14 -022 & 044) (continued from June 5) An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Community Development Director Curtis presented staff recommendations. He said the applicant wants to continue with the original plan rather than the one proposed by Councilmember Moran. He said that solution would have avoided Measure G and was feasible according to City codes. Bob Binkley, applicant, 21055 Sarahills Drive, stated that he had nothing to add to his statement made at the June 5 hearing. He had talked to his brothers and looked at the proposal. Unfortunately it would have cut into a very desirable part of the larger parcel. The decision was to go ahead with the original application. Linda Binkley, applicant, said she thought the idea that they have to go through a vote is incorrect. She said she has taught English for 30 years and the written word is never a very perfect tool. This is a piece of legislation written by attorneys who do a good job at writing but it is not perfect. She believed Council had the responsibility to interpret the words in the law. She said this problem is very personal and what they were doing was nobody else's business. She said they are not planning a development and what they are doing is not impacting the environment or their neighbors. They are doing it because it brings the lot into compliance. She said she thought Council was abdicating their responsibility. Their job is to recognize that spirit is part of the written word. It is interpretation. She said they do not fit the Measure G category. They are helping by bringing the lot into compliance. Nothing that Council does will change reality of the property, but it will change the beauty. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Community Development Director Curtis said the lot is a legal lot of record, non - conforming in terms of size, but it can be sold and built on as is. Mayor Jacobs said he agreed with Mrs. Binkley philosophically. However, Council has no right to exercise discretion as to the intent of Measure G. They must apply the law uniformly; otherwise, they would violate the law. Councilmember Burger agreed that Council's major job is to implement the law as it is written. She repeated that this is an object lesson and the result of poorly written public policy. She said the Binkleys were innocent bystanders and apologized to them. Councilmember Wolfe said it was refreshing to see some passion expressed. He said they are stuck with a law that might have to be tested in court and perhaps they should test it. Councilmember Moran said she believed that Council and Planning Commission will be able to give advice to voters. She said she was disappointed that the Binkleys were not able to take advantage of the alternatives suggested. Council has asked the City Manager, City Attorney and Community Development Director what their view is and they all say this needs to go to an election. WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Tucker said that Council has the responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga not to get into legal issues if possible. City Council Minutes 9 June 19, 1996 TUCKER / MORAN TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S DECISION THAT THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MEASURE G. PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE VOTED NO). MORAN /TUCKER TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER THROUGH THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. PASSED 4 -1 (WOLFE VOTED NO). MORAN /TUCKER TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT FINDING THAT NO SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -WILL BE CRATED BY THE PROJECT. PASSED 5 -0. City Manager Peacock said staff will draft the proposed ballot language, within legal restrictions, then will meet with the Binkleys so they can review it prior to Council's action, which should be no later than July 17. D. Appeal of denial of Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant lot at 18928 Ten Acres Road per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. DR -96 -007 (APN 397 -03 -081) - COSTA Community Development Director Curtis reviewed the staff report and said the primary issue is the extensive amount (about 2,300 cubic yards) of cut and fill required to accommodate the proposed house. The zoning ordinance that defines the standards for hillside lots requires the Planning Commission to make an exception when cut and fill is in excess of 1,000 cubic yards. He noted that this is not a hillside lot, but has an average slope over 10 %, so staff looks at it as though it were a hillside lot although they do not apply the strict exception findings. Mayor Jacobs said he had received material from Mr. Costa and had talked to him. Mr. Costa indicated that there had been substantial cut and fill in the neighboring area. Community Development Director Curtis said it is not that they do not allow it, but, they do look at it carefully. The criteria used in a hillside design is that cut and fill should be used to create a better design. These applications are considered on an individual basis and are not to be precedent setting. Most of the cut and fill is to create a yard space behind the house, not to level the pad for the house. The Planning Commission said if the house were designed in a different way, possibly as a two story house, it could be done without cut and fill. He said even if the cut were reduced by half, it is still significant and the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to look at any other proposal. Councilmember Burger said she had met with Mr. Costa and his contractor and asked for clarification of some issues. Community Development Director Curtis said the connection between this lot and hillside lots is that while this lot is zoned R1 -40, it has similar characteristics to a hillside lot and the intent is not to cut away hillside. While it is not treated as an exception, it is a design issue and they try to maintain the integrity of the slope, irrespective of what zone it is in. In regard to a redesign of the home, Planning Commission felt the lot was being created to fit the house instead of the other way around. However, the design of this home is similar to that of others on the street. This is a one -story house and others in the neighborhood are two- story. Mr. Curtis said the Planning Commission is not concerned about the style of the house but felt that re- design might have alleviated a significant amount of cut. They had suggested twice, prior to denying the project, that the applicant submit a re- design of the house. Community Development Director Curtis said the plan with reduced cut and fill was not submitted to Planning Commission and he did not know if a 25% reduction would have an impact on Planning Commission's decision. Neither staff nor Commission has had a chance to review the proposal before Council at this meeting. PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 3 - to an existing 3,388 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 44,330 sq. ft. in area and is located within the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, informed the Commission that he tried to address all the design handout criteria. He felt that the house was close to non - visible and that the design meets his clients' needs. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Chairman Murakami stated that he reviewed the second story segment as mentioned in the staff report. After review of the text contained in the analysis, his concerns were answered. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -004 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 4. LL-95 -002, GPA- 96-001 & AZO -96 -001- BE KLEY;13570 PIERCE RD.; Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between two legal lots of record. The application also includes requests to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B (40,500 sq. ft.) within an R- 1- 40,000 District. An environmental Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the lot line adjustment would be contingent upon the City Council's approval of the General Plan and zoning amendments. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a building site would be established for parcel B? Planner Walgren responded that a building site would not be established as part of this approval but that staff requested that the applicant show that there is a reasonable building site for parcel B. The setback envelopes are being shown on the plan so that when the lot is developed, it is known what the required setbacks would be. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that a home would need to be designed to be located within the setback lines. PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the creation of odd shaped lots and the problems that they could create in the future. Commissioner Asfour asked if staff was satisfied with the building site? Planner Walgren responded that the building site was the most feasible building site available given the . current configuration of parcel B. The building envelope, as shown, is based on today's setback requirements. Should the lot not be developed for several years, the building site would be subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time of development, as well as review by the City's geologist and arborist. Commissioner Abshire asked if the home could be built on the land that is being added? Planner Walgren indicated that the home would be located on the western most 10,000 square feet of the lot which is currently a knoll with several trees on it, noting that it was gaining a flat terraced area along the hillside. Commissioner Patrick asked the City Attorney if this zoning and General Plan amendments would be affected by Measure G? City Attorney Riback responded that this proposed general plan amendment was the type of amendment that would be subject to Measure G. He indicated that Measure G would go into affect 10 days following City Council's declaration of the vote, sometime in late April or early May. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his understanding that Measure G would only apply if there was an increase in density. He noted that this application was not increasing in density. City Attorney Riback stated that this amendment would be subject to Measure G because there would be a change in the General Plan land use designation from the Residential Hillside conservation to Residential, Very Low Density, an intensification in land use. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Bob Binkley, applicant, informed the Commission that he was in charge of administrating his father's estate. The lot line, as it exists today, does not encompass the pattern for the lot and he felt that it was appropriate to adjust the lot to conform to current zoning standards. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He stated that he also understood the effect of Measure G on his application. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -002 CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING - AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 5. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it could not take formal action on the application this evening as the project requires an extended review period to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This application has been scheduled to allow the Commission to review the comments as outlined in the staff report, take public testimony and requested that the Commission include any additional comments that it may have. The comments received this evening would be addressed at the next available meeting. He identified the following issues: 1) The circulation plan tends to isolate the 15 new homes from the existing neighborhood. 2) It is recommended that the pedestrian connection be either widened or shortened or both without affecting either of the adjoining lots in order to avoid a long, narrow tunnel affect. 3) It is recommended that construction be limited to single story homes of not more than 22 feet in height. 4) The perimeter landscaping has been found to be suitable for this portion of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the recommendation that the applicant provide a more residential wall plan similar to the Saratoga Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Avenue (the use of redwood and used brick columns versus a solid brick wall). 5) Staff also recommends that the developer be required to build a simple post and roof type of bus stop shelter to be maintained by the City in the future. He indicated that the wall plans submitted to the Commission this evening were submitted early this week as an amendment to the original wall plan. He informed the Commission that the original wall plan was proposed to be solid brick which included an arched - entryway over the new court. The new wall plan proposes to use an alternating brick and stucco design, eliminating the arched entryway. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she read the letter from the superintendent of the elementary school. She asked if there was a conflict between the hazardous substance report that came from the County and that of the soil sample? Planner Walgren responded that a conflict did not exist, noting that the County Environmental Health Department was -1 8 0 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 -Application No. /Location:. 13570 Pierce Road Applicant /Owner: BINKLEY Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP Date: March 27, 1996 APN: 503 -14 -022 & 044 Director Approval: %CZni 13b-/U Fierce Kd. 0 0 File No. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001; 13570 Pierce Rd. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 3/21/95 Application complete: 2/12/96 Notice published: 2/28/96 Mailing completed: .2/29/96 Posting completed: 2/22/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between two legal lots of record located off Pierce Rd. and Sara Hills Rd. The application includes a request to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. Parcel A is designated as Residential - Hillside Conservation and is located within a Hillside Residential District. Parcel B is designated as Residential -Very Low Density and is in an R -1- 40,000 District. An environmental Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve the Lot Line Adjustment request and recommend approval of the environmental Negative Declaration and General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 3. Environmental Negative Declaration 4. Map, Exhibit "A" t • File No. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001; 13570 Pierce Rd. ZONING• GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION• AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: EXISTING NET PARCEL SIZES• PROPOSED NET PARCEL SIZES• MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENTS: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Lot Line Adjustment: STAFF ANALYSIS PARCEL A PARCEL B Hillside Residential R -1- 40,000 Residential - Hillside Residential -Very Conservation Low Density 300 280 9 acres 19,602 sq. ft. (.45 acres) 8.44 acres 40,510 sq. ft. (.93 acre) 3.8 acres 40,000 sq. ft. (.92 acres) The applicant is proposing a Lot Line Adjustment to realign an existing parcel boundary. The City's Consulting Surveyor has performed a parcel title research on the two properties and has determined that they are two legal lots of record, allowing for this Lot Line Adjustment to occur. The Lot Line Adjustment conforms with both the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The State Subdivision Map Act states that local agencies shall limit their review and approval of Lot Line Adjustments to "a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the Lot Line Adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances ". The proposed land transfer conforms to all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum lot size, frontage, width and depth. Though Parcel B does not currently meet any of these minimum standards, the Lot Line Adjustment will bring it into conformance with current Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R -1- 40,000 district. The Lot Line Adjustment does therefor conform with Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements. 0 0 File No. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001; 13570 Pierce Rd. General Plan and Zoning District Boundary Changes: The boundary between the Residential - Hillside Conservation and the Residential -Very Low Density General Plan designations, and the corresponding Hillside Residential and R -1- 40,000 Zoning District designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant is proposing to realign this boundary to match the reconfigured parcels. The realigned boundary does not effect permitted residential densities or development potential - can currently be developed on each of residence would be permitted on each (The maximum allowable floor area for 7,570 sq. ft. to 7,470 sq. ft. and the for Parcel B would increase from 3,880 a result of the realignment.) Staff the proposed designation realignment consistency with property lines. Environmental Determination: one single family residence the two lots, and only one lot after the readjustment. Parcel A would decrease from maximum allowable floor area sq. ft. to 4,362 sq. ft. as is recommending approval of in order to maintain mapping The General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff finds that the proposed realignment will not increase development potential of the two parcels. To the contrary, the realignment will provide a more suitable building site for Parcel B than currently exists. Therefor, it is staff's determination that the proposed realignment of the existing General Plan and Zoning District boundary will have no environmental impact and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve the Lot Line Adjustment request and recommend approval of the environmental Negative Declaration and General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments to the City Council. e • RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APN 503 -14 -044 (Parcel A) and 503 -14 -022 (Parcel B) Hinkley; 13570 Pierce Rd. WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment between Parcel A and Parcel B has been filed with the Community Development Director of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment approval will be consistent with the General Plan and the regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will not conflict with easements for access through or use of, the properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does approve the Lot Line Adjustment as shown on Exhibit "A" and directs the applicant to file a deed or record of survey pursuant to Section 66412 (d) of the Subdivision Map Act with the City Engineer for checking and recordation. Section 1. The applicant shall obtain City Council approval of the General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments as a condition of, and prior to, recording the Lot Line Adjustment. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 27th day of March, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Siegfried ' Cha' Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Pklanning Commission 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. GPA -96 -001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY AMENDMENT Binkley; 13570 Pierce Rd. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment in order to realign a boundary between a Residential - Hillside Conservation designation and a Hillside -Very Low Density designa- tion to be consistent with the realigned property line for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -14 -044 (Parcel A) and 503- 14 -022 (Parcel B) per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on March 27, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment to reclassify a portion of Parcel A and Parcel B per Exhibit "A" by making the following findings: • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area B Plan Guidelines; and • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the existing land use designations and development patterns in the vicinity. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 27th day of March, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Siegfried —� C r n, Planning Commission A TEST: Secreta y to the Planning Commission f " 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. AZO -96 -001 ORDINANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY Binkley; 13570 Pierce Rd. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a Zoning District amendment in order to realign a boundary between a Hillside Residential District and an R -1- 40,000 District to be consistent with the realigned property line for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -14 -044 (Parcel A) and 503 -14 -022 (Parcel B) per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on March 27, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning District boundary per Exhibit "A ", by making the following findings: • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area B Plan Guidelines; and • The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the existing zoning districts and development in the vicinity. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 27th day of March, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick &Pierce NOES: None ABSENT:. Siegfried ~� ' Cha man Planning Commission ATTEST: ,4 7 . Secretaky to the P anning Commission f 1 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 - BINKLEY 13570 PIERCE RD. The undersigned, Director of Community Development 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, and based on the City's independent judgment, 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 Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between two existing hillside parcels of record located off Pierce Rd. and Sara Hills Rd. The application includes a request to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. The boundary between the Residential -Very Low Density and the Residen- tial- Hillside Conservation General Plan designations, and the corresponding R -1- 40,000 and Hillside Residential Zoning District designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant is proposing to realign this boundary to match the reconfigured parcels per Exhibit "A". NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Thad C. Binkley Trust 7246 Sharon Dr., Suite J San Jose, CA 95129 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION It is staff's determination that the proposed realignment of the existing General Plan and Zoning District boundary will have no environmental impact. The realigned boundary does not increase any development potential for either parcel. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of , 1996. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT All SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2 0 `�'� AGENDA ITEM: &-b MEETING DATE: March 19, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community velopmen CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: DR 96 -056 & UP 96 -016; Argonaut Associates Request for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center located on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. Plans include renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial - Neighborhood zoning district. Recommended Motion: Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and: • Approve the Design Review and Use Permit requests, and • Deny the applicants' appeal of the requirements that they underground the existing utility lines along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and replace the Blauer Dr. medians. Report Summary: The Planning Commission heard this application at several advertised public hearing meetings. The November 26, 1996 staff report to the Commission is attached and outlines the project details. The land use issues raised in this report were then addressed to the Planning Commission's satisfaction over the course of subsequent hearings. At the January 22nd adjourned meeting, the Commission voted 7 -0 to direct staff to prepare approval Resolutions for the February 12th meeting. These Resolutions included improvement conditions that ranged from requiring creek bank restoration at the northwest corner of the property, replacement and relandscaping of the Blauer Dr. medians, construction of a bus turnout and shelter and the 11 undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The applicants contested some of these requirements at the February hearing, specifically the undergrounding of the utility lines and the median replacement conditions. At staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission adopted these requirements by a unanimous vote. Though this project was called -up for review by a vote of the City Council at their February 25th adjourned meeting, the applicants are using this hearing to formally appeal the conditions of the Resolution requiring the undergrounding of the utility lines and the replacement of the Blauer Dr. medians. Environmental Determination: An environmental Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project by the Planning Commission at the January 8, 1997 public hearing pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Fiscal Impacts: None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A project notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the subject parcels and published in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project approval would either be overturned or modified, and /or the requirements to underground the existing utilities and replace the Blauer Dr. medians would be waived. Follow Up Actions: A Resolution reflecting the City Council's action will be prepared and scheduled for the next available Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Letter from applicants 2. Other correspondence 3. Planning Commission minutes dated November 26, 1996 and January 8 and February 12, 1997 4. Resolutions DR 96 -056 and UP 96 -016 5. Staff Report dated November 26, 1996 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" and "B" (colored renderings and a materials board will be presented at the hearing) james \exesumm \argonaut 2 STORM LAND CO. March 3, 1997 City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: DR96 -056, UP96 -016 ( "Argonaut Associates ") To: The City of Saratoga: We are in receipt of your letter of February 26, 1997 acknowledging that the City Council has appealed the approval of the Planning Commission regarding the above - referenced project. Please note that we are also appealing findings within the Planning Commission action. We specifically feel that the imposition of $300,000 in offsite improvement costs are unrealistic and arbitrary. Also, we feel the extensive remodeling of the median strips on Blauer Avenue are beyond the scope of the remodeling of the Argonaut Shopping Center. Please note that we will be bringing these issues forward at the meeting of March 19, 1997. Sincerely yours, ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES, LLC By: Edward D. Storm EDS:sar cc: Paul Hulme Carole Rodoni Alex DeLeon, S.J. Sung.Architects Deke Hunter, Jr. 20725 Valley Green Dr., Suite 200 - Cupertino, CA 95014 -1703 - (408) 287 -8402 - FAX (408) 996 -8425 SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20460 Saratoga - Los Gatos Road Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -0753 March 12, 1997 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca.95070 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Saratoga City Council, It has been brought to the attention of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors that you will be reviewing the plans for the remodeling of the Argonaut Shopping Center on March 19; 1997. We understand that these plans have already been approved by the City Planning Department and appreciate the fact that the Council is being so diligent regarding this project to take place in Saratoga. Our Board of Directors also reviewed these plans at the Board meeting on March 11, 1997, and were pleased to note much care had been taken by the owners and developers to give the Argonaut Center an upscale look keeping in mind the Saratoga image. They have included the vacant lot at the corner of Blauer Drive in their plans, also the parking lot area where the Goodwill truck now stands. This will create a grand entrance not only to the shopping center, but also to the surrounding neighborhood. The Board of Directors of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce have asked me to convey to you that they are delighted with these plans and applaud the owners and developers in their efforts to improve and extend the Argonaut Shopping Center in a manner that will attract shoppers, increase awareness of the Argonaut businesses and create a dcsiralt.-'.e and pleasing environment. Sincerel ei a hur Executive Director cc: Carol Rodoni, Property owner Paul L. Hulme, Property owner Ed Storm, Developer T.E.A.M. SARATOGA TOGETHER EVERYONE ACHIEVES MORE MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Saratoga City Council FROM: Dick Wood, Chair, T.E.A.M. Saratoga SUBJECT: Approval to Redevelop and Expand the Argonaut Shopping Center DATE: March 12, 1997 In response to the memo from the Deputy City Clerk, T.E.A.M Saratoga members are pleased to announce that they are in full agreement with the owners and the developers in their efforts to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center, and that they feel this project will enhance the Argonaut business community and encourage Saratoga residents to shop locally which in turn will bring tax dollars to the City. Colour Shopp( fit! Inters Since 19 Calif. Contractors Licer Colour ShoPPe Interiors 408 996 1224 P.01 Draperies '-�-SPEeialitl in 60foz O4amon3 #532025 • WALLPAPER DRAPERIES • CARPET SHUTTERS • UPHOLSTERY SHADES 12361 SARATOGA- *NNYVALE ROAD - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA - PHONE 408 -996 -1223 Correspondenceko: P.O. Box 252 • Saratoga, California 95071 -0252 • FAX 408 - 9961 -224 March 13, 1997 To: Sarat From: Carl City Council Subject: Argonautt Shopping Center Dear Honorable Coluncil Members, During their life ime our homes require occasional maintenance, repairs, and spruring up. In the natural course of things, as they begin to age they will need redecorating, maybe remodeling, and for sure somelmodernization. When the Argonaut Center was build and first occupied it was the pride of Saratoga and the many shops and stores were truly a convenience for t e residents of the surrounding area. The stores and shops are still a convenience for the residents but the building and grou ds are in dire need of revitalization. Many businesses h ve moved to other locations, perhaps creating a hardship for some residents, who like the easy access to many goods and service L. Now we are presented with the opportunity to truly modernize and revitalize a very prominent landmark in the city and we should not let this chance get by. The location and access make this center one of the most desirable in terms of convenience for our many residents, young and old alike. Yours truly, --- �2 Carl Orr PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she visited the site but that she did not go into the yard. She asked about the non - conforming nature of the existing guest home and whether there was any impact to the neighbors as the guest home is sited close to the rear fence? Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not believe that the guest home would impact the neighbor. Commissioner Bernald noted that there were three redwood trees to screen and buffer the home. Commissioner Siegfried asked about enforcement should the guest home be used as a rental unit. Community Development Director Curtis stated that staff would investigate complaints and noted that a condition is to be placed on the deed restricting the guest home from being rented out. Commissioner Patrick stated that the existing electrical wiring was not sufficient for a kitchen facility. Commissioner Pierce stated that approval would allow additional protection that the City would not otherwise have. Therefore, he could support the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -050 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 6. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES; SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. AT BLAUER DR.; Request for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. An environmental Initial Study and prepared for this project pursuant Environmental Quality Act. subsequent Negative Declaration have been to the requirements of the California Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that no action would be taken this evening as a 20 -day review period for the Negative Declaration has not yet been completed according to CEQA. Staff recommended that public input be received followed by Commission discussion and direction to the applicant and staff. These PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 8 - applications would need to be continued to a specific date. He indicated that items to be considered are as follows: architectural style, colors, signage, and tying the creek with passive recreational amenities to make it an integral part of this project. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Alex DeLeon, project architect, stated that the shopping center owners would like to renovate the current shopping center with a face lift to three sides of the building. He identified the proposed shopping center modifications as follows: parking layout to be redesigned; parking lot to be resurfaced and sealed; additional landscape islands are proposed to break up the parking lot; new landscaping is to be installed on the southern and western portions of the lot; existing trees to remain on the northern and eastern portion of the lot; new lighting system is to be installed; installation of a pre -cast sound wall along the eastern property line; the existing redwood fence is to be retained; sound wall to be installed three to four inches in front of the redwood fence; removal of the existing chainlink fence to be replaced with an open fence design; picnic tables are not proposed due to health and safety concerns (i.e., if a fence is not installed to keep pubic away from the edge of the property, individuals could slip and slide due to the hill, becoming a liability to the owner); installation of new sidewalks on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; bus duck out to be installed as required by the County Transportation Department; access to the main entrance of the shopping center would be through the existing curb cut; project designed to meet Americans of Disability Act (ADA) requirements; a new monument sign is proposed, to be relocated further to the right of the existing monument sign; separate trash enclosure proposed for pad A; the existing trash enclosures located to the rear are to be redesigned; and the roof line is proposed to be the same height as the existing roof line. Mr, DeLeon clarified that he used multi- tiered architectural elements and that a series of arches and port holes are used to break the horizontal mass. The north side of the shopping center would be made a working part of the shopping center (office space) to make it less of a back side to the building. The architectural elements to be used are keystone arches. It is proposed to use a light color for the main body of the building to brighten up the center. It is to be off set with darker and richer colors on the roof and facade trims of the arches. He felt that the contrast in colors would add excitement to the center. He stated that a 6,000 and 3,500 square foot building are proposed across the street. Mr. DeLeon stated that Safeway was currently at 30,000 square feet and that it would be expanded by 10,720 square feet. Parking is at 493 spaces, noting that the traffic study indicates that there are 50 to 55 spaces more than the proposed uses require. This would allow introduction of food service. Community Development Director Curtis concurred that the number of parking spaces proposed is sufficient and that when a use is proposed, the use would be evaluated to ensure sufficient parking is provided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Richard Noodleman, 20420 Pierce Road, townhome community resident, stated that there are 25 individuals who reside adjacent to the shopping center. He stated that the residents are excited about the upgrades and expansion of the center. He addressed concerns as stated in the letter submitted to the Commission this evening. The main concern relates to traffic safety and nuisance issues. He expressed concern with loitering of teenagers and homeless individuals as well as with the harassment that is occurring. He stated that there were problems associated with: noise associated with delivery trucks; invasion of privacy; garbage collection; burnt out lights, and with the general lack of maintenance. He stated that he would like to work with the developer to address the residents' concerns. He requested the installation of a six -foot soundwall setback from the existing redwood fence to mitigate noise and to create a sound barrier to the residential properties. The soundwall would also create a greenbelt, separating the townhomes from the shopping center. He also requested that the northern portion of the lot be made into a less of a traffic flow area and that trucks be required to use the back side of the shopping center. He further requested that an on going 24 -hour patrol be required to mitigate noise and vandalism. Chairwoman Kaplan acknowledged receipt of the letter submitted by Mr. Noodleman addressing area resident's concerns. Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated his support of improvements to the shopping center but that he was not sure if the design fits in with the residential neighborhood. He stated that the entryway to the Safeway Store is in the same location. He expressed concern with the bottleneck that would occur in the middle of the shopping center. He asked if thought had been given to moving the entryway south on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Relocation of the entryway would eliminate much of the traffic at the intersection. He recommended that the hours of operation be restricted to cut down on noise and loitering impacts to the adjacent residential area. Deke Hunter, co- applicant, felt that he could address most of the issues raised by the neighbors. He informed the Commission that he has been the owner of the shopping center for a little over eight months and that he has tried to mitigate the loitering that has been occurring to the north of the property. He is also trying to improve traffic safety and the appearance of the shopping center. He informed the Commission that there is a 15 -foot drop from Blauer Drive to the back of the shopping center. He felt that lighting, and landscaping will help guide traffic. He stated that he would be willing to meet with a neighborhood committee to address the residents' concerns (i.e., soundwall, installation of landscaping). Commissioner Patrick asked why the color scheme was selected as they appear to be Orange County or Florida colors. She also asked why earthtone colors were not selected? She also asked about the architectural style selected as it is not considered to be a rural or woodsy appearance associated with Saratoga. Mr. Hunter stated that the architectural improvement was to take advantage of the existing glass line that is in place. He felt that a lighter color scheme would improve the center's presentation to help the tenants become successful. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 10 - stated that there are a variety of architectural styles in Saratoga. He said that he tried tc pick up some of the harder surfaces to make maintenance easier and to give the shopping center a newer look. He clarified that the trees to be replaced are the series of older trees located in the parking lot as well as the landscape median. Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Hunter had knowledge of proposed uses for buildings A and B? Mr. Hunter responded that small businesses are proposed for buildings A and B. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she received a letter at her home from Kenneth Fieldbauer dated November 18, 1996 expressing concern with the remodel, specifically expressing concern that the property is constrained with a building that could not exceed 12,000 square feet at the corner of the property. Mr. Fieldbauer also expressed concern that a 6,000 square feet would be out of balance. She expressed concern with the architecture style of the building (i.e., projection of a 35 -foot tower. She recommended that the applicant look at the Town of Los Gatos for architectural styles. She stated that she did not like the use of pink stucco. She said that residents have expressed concern with the hours of operation. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the hours of operation for the Safeway Store were legal non - conforming hours. To change the hours of operation, a determination would need to be made that the hours of operation are a nuisance. He indicated that this process was a complicated one. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if traffic to the north side could be limited by signage (i.e., employee parking or time restrictive parking? Mr. Hunter stated that he would be willing to work with staff and that he was not here with a "take it or leave it" attitude. He stated that he would be willing to make the necessary modifications. Commissioner Abshire asked if there are any special plans for Blauer Drive. Mr. Hunter stated that it has been recommended that improvements be made to the median with the installation of landscaping. Commissioner Pierce asked why a softer look to the design was not proposed (i.e., use of wood or tile)? Mr. DeLeon responded that rural material was not used due to the history of the shopping center and its maintenance. Materials such as stucco were selected so that they would be permanent, durable and maintain their new appearance longer. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the same stucco material could be used but giving it a "woodsy" appearance? Mr. DeLeon responded that the use of material was not addressed because it was not a problem before this date. Commissioner Patrick recommended that attention be given to Blauer Drive for safety reasons, tying the two intersections together; that consideration be given to incorporating the creek area and that it be opened up; and that additional trees be planted to soften the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 11 - architecture. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if any other Commissioners have a problem with the tower element? Commissioner Murakami stated that he did not believe that the architectural design reflects the feeling of the City. He noted that Los Gatos has new shopping malls under design that have a softening affect and recommended that they be viewed for ideas. He stated that he appreciated the comments expressed by the neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had a problem with the 35 -foot tower element. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was having a problem with the stucco facade and the brick look. She stated that she would not have a problem with the tower if it was softened with a wooden look. She felt that the use of wood would make the design conducive to the residential neighborhood. She recommended that the applicant view the shopping center in Los Gatos located at Blossom Hill -Los Gatos Road. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the Commission address whether the expansion of the out pads are appropriate as part of the shopping center development. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern with the out buildings as they are located too close to the corner. She asked about the environmental clearance for the gas station site. Community Development Director Curtis stated that environmental clearance would need to be obtained. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that additional landscaping be incorporated in the Blauer side of the project. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE OUT BUILDINGS ARE APPROPRIATE PROVIDED THAT ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF AND GREATER SETBACKS ARE PROVIDED. Commissioner Siegfried requested that the comments and concerns raised by Mr. Kocir relating to access and traffic problems be addressed. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if the food services provide would provide sufficient parking as raised in a letter addressed to Planner Walgren dated November 5, 1996? She also asked if staff was aware of the other questions being raised? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the letter addresses a parking study that evaluates the parking needs for the center and whether the uses proposed would provide sufficient parking. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with softening of the shopping center's appearance. He noted that other Commissioners have addressed various degrees of concerns. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 12 - recommended that the Commission provide the applicant direction. Commissioner Patrick noted that the Commission has expressed concern with the hard edge, ridges, modern Orange County, non - wood -type appearance in the design. Chairwoman Kaplan requested better depiction, cross sections and color board of the fencing and planting material to be proposed. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS APPLICATION TO JANUARY 8, 1997 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE DESIGN TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMISSION AS EXPRESSED THIS EVENING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS No Director's Items were noted. COMMISSION ITEMS No Commission Items were reported. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 11/6; 11/12/96 2. Planning Commission Notices for 12/11/96 Citv Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 11, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk ITTC 112696.SAR PLANNING COMMISSIf MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Patrick felt that the home, as designed, is large and that it would spread around the corner lot, impeding the vision of the comer lot. This would create a dangerous situation. Therefore, she could not approve the application. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he resides on Surrey Lane. He agreed that the design of the home is large. He said that he liked the design of the home and that he would approve it if the tower element is eliminated. Commissioner Abshire stated that it is a well designed Spanish California style home. He felt that the tower element was an integral .part of the design. He said that he would support the design of the home with the elimination of the tower element as the neighbors are opposed to the size of the home. Commissioner Pierce also felt that the home was well designed but that it was large. If the tower element is eliminated, he could support the application. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what would be the appropriate action to take if the tower element is to be eliminated? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the project could be approved conditioning the removal of the tower element with staff reviewing the final design. Planner Walgren clarified that should the exemption from the floor area reduction be denied, the tower element is to be eliminated and that no portion of the house is be taller than 18 feet. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96- 058, DENYING THE EXEMPTION OF FLOOR AREA REDUCTION AND WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE HOUSE IS TO BE NO HIGHER THAN 18 FEET. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. 3. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES; SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. AT BLAUER DR.; Request for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in a Commercial - Neighborhood zoning district. An environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Continued from 11/26/96 to consider design alternatives; City review deadline is 4/25/97). Senior Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He said that staff feels that more thought needs to be given to improving left turns out of the center onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. He indicated that staff asked the applicants to investigate whether there was sufficient right -of -way along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to allow a left turn out pocket or some other alternative that may PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 4 - work (i.e., installing boot detectors on the ingress aprons that would be tied to the Blauer Drive and Pierce Road signals). He said that the architecture of the center still remains an issue because the design does not provide something distinctive enough for the shopping center. Chairwoman Kaplan asked City Engineer Perlin if the applicant was to realign the road, would that help mitigate the flooding situation? City Engineer Perlin stated that the flooding situation may have been solved with the improvements installed last fall. He informed the Commission that the state would be reviewing drainage design improvements for this area. He felt that staff's recommendation for the installation of a left -turn pocket made sense. He agreed that something needs to be done to ease the ability of south bound exiting traffic. Commissioner Abshire asked if any modifications have been proposed to the park area located on the north side of the property line? Planning Walgren responded that the park area remains as proposed at the November 26, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Alex DeLeon, project architect, provided the Commission with a three dimensional perspective of the proposed shopping center. He said that he drove around Saratoga to get a feel of its architecture. He felt that there are two architectural styles found in the City of Saratoga: a rural and an upscale estate design. He indicated that he originally drew upon the upscale design. He informed the Commission that the owners are requesting the design of a fresh new look. The design proposes the use of towers, columns, portals, and arches to unify and break up the building. He informed the Commission that there is over a fifteen foot drop from one end of the building to the other. He indicated that the tower element would be the focal element of the center. He informed the Commission that some of the bays between the columns do not have store fronts and that the trellises were introduced in these areas to allow plants to grow and fill in the blank space. He noted that the color scheme was toned down to two neutral tan/earth tone shades. Mr. DeLeon addressed the creek area. He stated that it is proposed to remove the chain link fence and replace it with a six foot high wood fence. He informed the Commission that his clients spoke with their attorney regarding the suggestion of installation of landscaping and outdoor furniture. The attorney has advised that nothing be done to encourage individuals to utilize the creek because of liability. He said that a sound wall is proposed on the east and north side property lines to help provide the townhome owners with privacy and security. He stated that motion detector activators and speed bumps are to be installed to provide the residents with added security and to slow traffic down. Mr. DeLeon said that the trash enclosures would have locked gates. The Existing trees on the north and northeast sides of the property would remain with the exception of those trees that need to be pruned for the installation of a sound wall. The lower Blauer Drive elevation has existing pear trees located on pad A and that they are to be pruned and retained to match those located on the other side of the street. PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 5 - Mr. DeLeon noted that the plans depict the bus stop dug out that was requested by the Transit Authority and also shows the location of the bus shelter. He informed the Commission that the project's traffic engineer was present to address circulation of the shopping center. He addressed the pull out lane and the left turn pattern of the shopping center. He said that the free standing sign was proposed to be proportioned and scaled to the size of the building. He noted that the proposed sign exceeds the forty foot maximum allowed under the Sign Ordinance. The center has 900 linear feet of street frontage and that he did not believe that the 6' x 12' sign would stand out. Commissioner Pierce asked if consideration was given to using other roofing material (i.e., slate or concrete material). Me. DeLeon responded that a single, continuous membrane is proposed for maintenance and to retain color. Richard Hopper, project traffic engineer, informed the Commission that he performed the traffic and parking analysis for the shopping center. He addressed the distribution of traffic in and out of the center, noting that the analysis was conducted over a period of time. Left hand turn volume out of the center of the driveway was approximately 15 %. The distribution of traffic to the center is approximately 45% to the north from the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, 35% to the south and 20% on Blauer Drive. The volume traffic to be generated during the afternoon peak hour is projected at 160 vehicles making a right turn and approximately 55 vehicles turning left onto the street. A volume of traffic on the Saratoga - Sunnyvale about 2,100 vehicles. The amount of traffic that turns left out of the driveway is small in comparison to the total traffic to be generated by the center and to the flow of traffic on the street. If the Commission was considering adding some measure of interrupting traffic signals at either side of the center, it would result in stopping traffic for a very small traffic volume. He indicated that there were other alternatives (i.e., using the traffic signal at Blauer to make the turns, control the median area to allow left turns into the center and to the street opposite the center but not allow left turns out of the two side streets). Anyone heading south would be forced to use Blauer Drive as the safest alternative. He indicated that there is a problem with traffic heading south leading into the left turn lane to the Blauer intersection, resulting in traffic leaving the center on the acceleration lane, creating an unsafe situation. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Hopper if he investigated staff's suggestion of the use of a tripping mechanism for the Blauer Drive and Pierce Road signals? Mr. Hopper felt that the signals could be interconnected to create a periodic interruption of traffic flow along the streets. Breaking the traffic flow for a period of time would interrupt traffic coming out of the center. He felt that there were other alternatives to solve the problems. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she would be concerned with the criss- crossing of traffic out of the center. She felt that it may be better to eliminate the left turns and divert traffic to the Blauer Drive traffic signal. City Engineer Perlin felt that the elimination of the left turn from the entrance and diverting traffic southbound may be a viable solution. However, the Brandywine residents may be precluded from heading north if this alternative is used. If this is to be considered, he recommended that the residents of Brandywine be notified. PLANNING COMMISSI( MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Pierce asked if a traffic safety problem exists? City Engineer Perlin informed the Commission that there have been a few accidents at this location. He felt that safety could be addressed through redesign. He recommended that the traffic engineer be requested to submit a redesign for staff review. Mr. Hopper stated that he would pursue alternatives. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if there would be enough room to allow egress out of the site should double parking occur. Mr. Hopper stated that double parking occurs in shopping centers and that he would look at the design of roadway. It was noted that the drive aisle was at 30 feet and would allow adequate circulation. Commissioner Patrick asked why the stone work was not going all the way up the columns? Mr. DeLeon stated that the use of stone work was a nice design element. He felt that when a single homogenous material goes all the way up, it makes the column appear bigger. Commissioner Patrick recommended the use of round stones instead of vertical stones to mitigate the flat, monotonous design. She also recommended that the stones go up higher than proposed. She expressed concern with the triangular shape of the pyramid roofing. She recommended that a softer edge be utilized. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern with the lack of trees used to break up the expanse of the building. Mr. DeLeon stated that if you place trees in front of the facade, you would be blocking the building signs. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that there were a number of wall elements with no signs connected to them that would not be hindered by tree plantings. She recommended that the entrance of the shopping center be given a better treatment. Commissioner Bernald expressed concern with the concrete soundwall located to the east of the site. She did not know how the trees were going to survive with concrete pillars and post located adjacent to them. Mr. DeLeon stated that concrete precast panels with piers are to be installed every 10 to 12 feet and that some areas would be jogged around the trees. As such, he did not believe that there would be a significant impact to the root system of the trees. Ed Storm, developer, said that a big effort was made to redesign the center to give it a different appearance. It was decided that a design was needed to attract residents. He stated that opening the creek area to the public would not be done unless the City takes full liability (indemnify property owners). Trees are not proposed to be planted in front of the building so that building and retail activity can be seen. He said that he was trying to be responsive to the needs of the community. Consideration was given in the design of the median at Blauer Drive. He requested approval of the design and stated that he would be willing to work with staff regarding turning movement. Richard Noodleman, 20420 Pierce Road, furnished the Commission with correspondence on behalf of the homeowners association. He said that he met with Mr. Storm in December to address the homeowners' association concerns. He has not been able to go over the issues raised in a letter of response from Mr. Storm received yesterday. He said that he was not supportive of a park -like setting or creek -side gathering area because of the existing loitering problem. He PLANNING COMMISSI( MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 7 - felt that the situation would be made worse with a park setting. He felt that the installation of vegetation would discourage individuals from staying there. In his letter dated December 22, 1996 to Mr. Storm, he addressed locking the dumpsters. In the letter from Mr. Storm, it was indicated that the dumpsters were not to be locked. He said that security and safety issues are of concern to the homeowners. He recommended that an on -site security person who could monitor situations and deal with problems immediately be required. He also recommended that a hot -line be provided to enable the homeowners to communicate with management. Dr. Noodleman requested that the window located on the north face of the building be frosted so that privacy is maintained to the townhomes located across the way. He felt that additional dialogue was needed to determine the location of the soundwall, its elevation, and the material to be used. He expressed concern with pedestrian safety and suggested that a pedestrian walkway be installed. He requested that these issues be dealt with prior to project approval because of their impacts to the adjacent residents. Mr. DeLeon stated that a pedestrian line of travel could be installed (i.e., restripping of the asphalt for pedestrians to utilize). He said that there is a grade elevation difference, noting that the individuals closer to the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road are down the hill from the parking lot. The sound wall is proposed at six feet and that it would mitigate sound. However, it may appear too much of a barrier. Regarding the issue of the window, he said that this was the only window proposed in this area and that it would be a benefit to allow management to look out. He informed the Commission that the material for the sound wall is to be precast with the back side stuccoed. Mr. Storm informed the Commission that the dumpsters will have latches but that they would not be permanently locked. He felt that the soundwall will help mitigate the view of the dumpsters and that the sound wall will prohibit intrusion to the shopping center, affording additional security. He indicated that a full time on -site security guard could not be guaranteed but that the property manager's phone number would be made available to the residents. He stated that he would be willing to work with the residents and staff to address their concerns regarding the height and the details of the soundwall. He informed the Commission that the project was under a time constraint and requested that the Commission act on this application this evening. Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Storm has access to a private security. Mr. Storm responded that he does have access to security within an hour of being contacted. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Commissioner Abshire felt that the shopping center lacked a prominent feature that would attract shoppers to it. He felt that there was a better alternative to the installation of a six foot fence to the creek. Commissioner Patrick encouraged the opening of the creek area and making it accessible to the public although she understood the liability concerns. She did not believe that blocking the area PLANNING COMMISSII MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 8 - off with a fence was the answer. She did not see an architectural feature that would attract her to the shopping center. She appreciated the willingness of the applicant to improve the center. She also understood the time constraints as explained by the applicant. Regarding the architectural design, she felt that the design takes on the appearance of a Cupertino or Hamilton /Bascom Avenue design (a generic design). She supported the installation of the stripped walkway and that left turns onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road be blocked. She expressed concern with the installation of a soundwall because individuals would be blocked off from commerce. Commissioner Bernald stated that she did not believe that the design was specific to Saratoga. She said that she did not like the use of 3 to 4 feet stone. She also did not like the color of the turquoise tower roof material. She expressed concern with the median and the use of concrete on Blauer Drive. She also expressed concerned with the liability of the creek and recommended that other options to the fencing with installation of landscaping be considered. She said that she did not like the turquoise towers and recommended that this element be toned down. She stated her appreciation of the changes that have been made through this review process. She stated that she hoped to see more changes as the review process proceeds. Commissioner Pierce recommended that the medians be dressed up. He also recommended that the crosswalks incorporate stamped concrete. He said that he was not crazy with the proposed design of the center but stated that he could approve it if an alternative roofing material is used (i.e., slate roof). Regarding the area next to the creek, he did not believe that it would create a problem if the area was fenced off. He felt that an attractive wooden fence that is offset would satisfy his concern. He shared Dr. Noodleman's concern with the security of the dumpsters. He requested that this issue be resolved. He did not believe that it would be necessary to have a security guard present at all times and that he felt that the clear glass window in the manager's area would be more of a help than a hinderance. He stated that he liked the landscape as proposed and that he did not believe that it would be necessary to install trees next to the buildings He liked the use of trellis and recommended that addition trellis be used to add continuity from the out buildings to the main building. Commissioner Siegfried supported Commissioner Pierce's concerns. He stated that his main concern with the building is the green roof. He felt that an alternative roofing material could be used. He agreed that something needed to be done to Blauer Drive with regards to the median. Also, something needs to be done in terms of the circulation pattern in order to avoid left turns out of the shopping center. He agreed with the developer that making the creek area accessible to the public would add to the existing loitering problem. He did not see a reason to require a full -time security guard. He recommended that a condition be added to require that the neighbors be furnished with a phone number and to ensure that the manager has short term access to a security guard. If problems occur, more stringent requirements could be imposed under the use permit to provide public safety. He agreed to allow the applicant to work with staff and the adjacent residents to work out the height and materials to be used in the median to be located to the north of the project. He stated that he would support the application with the identified changes. PLANNING COMMISSI( MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1997 PAGE - 9 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she did not support the two free standing buildings. She said that the monument sign has not been addressed. She noted that the existing sign blocks her view into the parking lot. She said that she did not want to see a big sign approved and that she would need to see some color representation of the proposed sign. She requested that the light standards be reviewed to ensure that the entire area is well lit, particularly the Blauer Drive corners. She felt that it was important to have the dumpster locked by means of a keypad or other alternatives. She did not have a problem with the clear window located to the north of the site. She did not want to see the installation of a soundwall to the north of the site. She did not believe that there were enough trees proposed in the parking lot. She said that she was not impressed with the design of the shopping center as it is a continuous, long building. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:43 P.M. - Community Development Director Curtis recommended that this item be continued to a work session to discuss design alternatives and to review color chips. Mr. Storm said that he would support a continuance as long as it is a short continuance. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION DR -96 -056 AND UP -96 -016. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A WORK SESSION ON JANUARY 22, 1997, 5:00 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Planning Commission of the following: Upcoming Planning Commissioners' Institute. He requested that he be notified if any Commissioners wish to attend. January 17: Planning Commission retreat to begin at 9:00 a.m. The following four topics are scheduled for discussion: signs, City geologist presentation, work program, and the review of the City's budget with recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council by February 3. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Bicycle Committee Appointment. Chairwoman Kaplan appointed Commissioner Bernald to the Bicycle Committee. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the applicant was proposing to install gas burning fireplaces because PLANNING COMMISSIOP- 'INUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 2 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES; SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. AT BLAUER DR.; Request for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. (Continued from 1/22/97 to prepare approval Resolutions for Commission review and adoption; City review deadline is 4/25/97). Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the only issue on tonight's agenda relates to the conditions of approval. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that Public Works Director Perlin was present this evening to clarify condition 12 contained in the resolution of approval. Public Works Director Perlin addressed condition 12 as follows: Condition 12a refers to the requirement to underground utility services on site. Condition 12b refers to the undergrounding of utilities on Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road. The intent is to have the applicant participate in an assessment district and pay a proportional amount for undergrounding approximately 700 ft. of overhead lines in the future, reducing the cost to the applicant. The city would be requesting that the applicant agree to participate in the district and to post a performance bond for $300,000. Condition 12c clarifies what exists on the improvement plans (i.e., installation of curb and sidewalk along both Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Blauer frontages, including a bus turnout and bus stop and shelter. Condition 12d refers to the median island on Blauer Drive. The applicant is to submit plans to the Public Works Department for approval depicting layout of the median and landscape. Condition 12e requires the posting of a performance bond for the improvements required under conditions 12c and 12d. He stated that the City Council is interested in pursuing undergrounding utilities along Saratoga Avenue beginning at Fruitvale heading toward the Village and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road beginning at Pierce Road. Staff has begun the process to form an assessment district along Saratoga Avenue. He expects that the undergrounding of utilities would occur in 1998 or 1999. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 3 - Ed Storm, developer, addressed the following conditions: Condition 2d - it was his belief that the proper way to handle the south left turn lane was by median control on the property. He requested the deletion of the two bullets. Condition 2e - clarification needs to be included that seven parking spaces were given up in order to accommodate additional landscaping (no credit given for seven spaces for future applications). Condition 12e - expressed concern with the maintenance of the median landscape as it a public right of way and with the liability associated with its maintenance. Condition 12a - he did not believe that the additional 12,000 square foot was a large financial expansion to justify $300,000 worth of undergrounding of utilities. It appears to be a disincentive to proceed with expansion and improvement of the site. It was his belief that others were having the utilities undergrounded without having to pay for its cost. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, addressed the ingress and egress of the shopping center on Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road directly across from Brandywine Drive. He noted that a signal light is not installed in this area. He said that there are ten different traffic patterns that can be taken without a signal light. He asked if consideration was given to restricting left turns into the shopping center? Chairwoman Kaplan informed Mr. Kocir that the resolution contains a condition that addresses his concern. Commissioner Siegfried informed Mr. Kocir that the Commission eliminated the ability to make a left turn out of the shopping center. Public Works Director Perlin said that several alternatives were discussed at the last meeting and that it was his belief that elimination of left turns out of the center was the solution accepted. He said that the medians are to be maintained by a landscape and lighting district. He stated that with the passage of Proposition 218, it makes it difficult to establish a landscape and lighting district. He said that the City is looking at entering into an agreement with the property owner to perform the maintenance. He indicated that some property owners pay for the undergrounding of utilities, depending on the development or improvements made to their property. Staff felt that the improvements, in this request, are substantial and would require participation in the undergrounding of utilities. Under Rule 20, the City will be contributing to the undergounding of utilities. He said that the Kennedy subdivision was conditioned to pay for undergrounding of utilities, entered into an improvement agreement and have posted a bond. Commissioner Siegfried said that he recalls that property owners were required to underground utilities but that he did not recall whether property owners were required to post a bond. He felt that in order to ensure that the owners or future owners participate would be to require a guarantee to be posted. Mr. Storm stated that liability for the maintenance of the median would need to be addressed by the City Attorney. He felt that there was a difference between a subdivision and improvements to a retail center by which you can pass the subdivision improvement costs to the buyer of the property. He said that improvement costs would not be past on to the center's tenants. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Pierce said that he paid the cost of undergrounding utilities for a remodel to his home. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that two new buildings are being proposed under this application, not just a renovation of the center. Public Works Director Perlin said that there is a 50% threshold of expansion or improvement that triggers participation in a districtAf the property owners decide to wait on the renovation, the property would not be included in the district until such time that an expansion and /or improvements are requested by the property owner. Planner Walgren said that condition 2e addresses the landscaping and creek bank improvements. The application includes a request to deviate from the parking standards. The plans are being approved as depicted on Exhibit "A" with no special restrictions in terms of future uses. He recommended that a paragraph be included in the resolution of approval that clarifies that the parking is approved and that there is to be no restriction, no matter the type of use proposed. Commissioners Patrick/Bernald moved to close the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Commissioner Pierce expressed sympathy with Mr. Storm's concern regarding the expense of undergrounding of utilities. However, the request is for a major development and that it would be capitalized over many years. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -056 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. Condition 2d - first bullet amended to delete the words "diverting" and "of." Condition 2d - second and third bullets to be deleted. Condition 2e - amended to further clarify that parking for future uses will not be restricted. Condition 12 to be replaced with amended condition 12 distributed to the Commission this evening, further amending condition 12b to require the applicant to maintain the landscape median subject to city attorney review of the liability issue. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP -96 -016 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -056 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Argonaut Associates Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined pursuant to Article 15- 46.040 of the City Code: (a) The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) The proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (c) The proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district, and will not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (d) The proposed site development plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (e) The proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures are consistent with the Saratoga Commercial - Neighborhood zoning ordinance and all other applicable development regulations and design policies. 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 File No. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016; Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Blauer Dr. connection with this matter, the application of Argonaut Associates 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) except as otherwise modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit, the following shall be submitted to Community Development Department staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans and four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, all incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Revised landscape plan indicating an effort to retain and incorporate as many existing healthy trees as possible. All landscaping per the approved /modified plan shall be installed. C. Creek bank improvement plans for the northwest corner of the parking lot indicating the removal of the chain link fence along the creek to be replaced with half solid /half open wood fence, per Exhibit "A ", along the property line. A riparian enhancement plan shall also be prepared to remove non - native planting and debris along the creek bank and revegetate the area with native plants. 3. Prior to installation of any new signs in the Argonaut Shopping Center, the applicants shall prepare a comprehensive sign design program for Community Development Director review and approval. 4. Pursuant to the applicant /owners' agreement with the neighboring property owners, the following maintenance requirements shall apply: a. All dumpsters shall be visually "walled -off" and gated, with the potential to be locked. b. Motion sensor triggered down - directed hooded light fixtures shall be installed and maintained along the north and east sides of the main building. C. Speed bumps shall be installed along the north and east sides of the parking lot. d. Masonry or precast soundwalls, not to exceed 8 ft. in height, shall be constructed along the north and east property lines. Final construction plans shall be subject to City Arborist review and approval. File No. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016; Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Blauer Dr. 5. Exterior colors and materials shall be medium earthtone as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, pursuant to the approved plans and material board. 6. Provide one fire hydrant capable of delivering no less than 1500 GPM. Said hydrant shall be located at or near the northeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Blauer Dr. The exact location shall be determined by the fire chief. 7. The two new free standing structures, one at the northeast and one at the southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Blauer Dr. , shall be provided with an early warning fire alarm system with a commercial fire alarm panel. Said alarm system shall be installed in accordance with current California State Fire Marshal, N >F >P >A., and Saratoga Fire District standards. 8. The two new free standing structures shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Said system shall be designed and installed in accordance with current California State Fire Marshal, N.F.P.A., and Saratoga Fire District standards and specifications. 9. The existing shopping center and Safeway grocery story shall be provided with an early warning fire alarm system with a commercial fire alarm panel. Said system shall be zoned and installed in accordance with current California State Fire Marshal, N.F.P.A., and Saratoga Fire District standards. 10. The existing shopping center and Safeway grocery store automatic sprinkler system shall be retrofitted with a post indicator valve. The valves in the pit shall be eliminated. 11. The existing shopping center and Safeway grocery store may need to be retrofitted with attic area separations. Said separations shall be installed in accordance with the current edition of the Uniform Building Code. 12. Subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director, the following improvement requirements shall apply: a. All utility services to existing and new buildings on both properties shall be placed underground. b. Overhead utility lines along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, fronting both properties, shall be placed underground. To accomplish this, the owner (applicant) shall agree to participate in a future Underground Utility District formed by the City to underground utility lines along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Further, the owner (applicant) shall contribute to the future Underground Utility District, the proportional cost of undergrounding the utilities along both properties, in relation to the total File No. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016; Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Blauer Dr. cost of the District, as determined by the Public Works Director prior to commencement of the underground construction. Prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property, the owner (applicant) shall post a performance bond or other acceptable security in an amount to be determined by the Public Works Director, but not to exceed $300,000, to guarantee the contribution to the future Underground Utility District. C. City standard curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be installed along the frontages of both properties. A bus turnout with bus stop improvements including a bus shelter, as required by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, shall be installed along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Improvement plans depicting the above shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property. d. Existing median islands on Blauer Drive shall be removed and replaced with new landscaped median islands to be maintained by the owner (applicant). The owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide for the maintenance of the median landscaping. Prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property, the owner (applicant) shall submit an improvement plan depicting the proposed layout and landscaping of the new median islands to the Public Works Director for review and approval. e. The southbound left turn egress from the main entry shall be eliminated /diverted. f. The owner (applicant) shall post a performance bond or other acceptable security in an amount to be determined by the Public Works Director to guarantee completion of the improvements described in paragraphs c, d and e above prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property. 13. The owner (applicant) shall retain permits from Caltrans, the City of Saratoga, and /or any other appropriate agencies prior to commencement of any work. 14. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic- es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. An Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and submitted for Community Development staff review and approval incorporating, to the degree feasible, stormwater File No. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016; Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Blauer Dr. infiltration measures. Examples of appropriate measures include: a. Schedule for regular parking lot cleaning. b. Pervious paving materials at perimeter of parking lot to collect and drain sheet flow stormwater. C. Filtered storm drains at locations where stormwater may drain through garbage enclosures, and filtration systems built into storm drains wherever feasible. 15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City.or held to be the liability of City in connection with. City' s defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 16. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced 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 fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 12th day of February, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Murakami M oAff., I*&. � An I am I/o/t, Chair, Planning 16mmisstIqJ ATTEST: Secretary, Plann' g ommission RESOLUTION NO. UP -96 -016 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Argonaut Associates Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicants, Parking Demand Study and has approved the Argonaut Shopping Center, including Pads A and B, per Exhibit "A ". No further parking consideration shall apply to any future use within the Argonaut Shopping Center or Pad A (i.e. restaurants, and all other potentially parking intensive commercial uses, are permitted) . Pad B shall comply with then current City Code parking /commercial use requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds: a. That the proposed supermarket expansion is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the Saratoga General Plan. b. That the proposed supermarket expansion would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts. C. That the proposed supermarket expansion will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga municipal code. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Argonaut Associates for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Resolution DR -96 -056 shall apply. File No. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016; Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. /Blauer Dr. Section 2. Conditions of this Use Permit must be completed within twenty -four (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 fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City- of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of February, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Murakami Chair, Planning Tommisjbk3h ATTEST: �w 1 cw�'5 1 XTO . Secretary, Plann n ommission REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 Application No. /Location: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. Applicant /Owner: ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP Date: November 26, 1996 APN: 393 -01 -024, 025, 026, 027, 028 & Director Approval:-- pp royal: Sara.- Junnyvale Kd. at 131auer Dr. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 9/25/96 Application complete: 10/25/96 Notice published: 11/13/96 Mailing completed: 11/14/96 Posting completed: 11/07/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located on the east side of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. at the intersection of Blauer Dr. in a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. An environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached staff analysis and environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, take public testimony, and direct the applicant regarding the issues raised in the staff report and during the public hearing. The project could then be given final consideration at the next available meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. 3. y a 4. -&.,1 h----- ItAfl! DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. Site Area: Argonaut Shopping Center: Pad A: 25,215 sq. ft. Pad B: 14,918 sq. ft. General Plan Designation: STAFF ANALYSIS 347,622 sq. ft. (7.9 acres) Retail Commercial Zoning District Designation: Commercial- Neighborhood Measure G: Not Applicable Net Building Square Footage Increase: ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER Retail Office PAD A PAD B TOTAL PROJECT DISCUSSION: Project Overview: Existing 90,229 sq. ft. 517 sq. ft. WIM Proposed 3,279 sq. ft. 4,260 sq. ft. 6, 000 sq. ft. 3,500 sq. ft. 90,746 sq. ft. + 17,039 sq. ft. 107,785 sq. ft. The applicants are proposing to renovate the Argonaut Shopping Center by adding 3,279 sq. ft. of retail space and 4,260 sq. ft. of mezzanine office space to the existing buildings. The 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway would expand into 7,441 sq. ft. of adjacent vacated space plus the new 3,279 sq. ft. - for a total of 40,790 sq. ft. Pad A and B would each be developed with a new 6,000 sq. ft. and 3,500 sq. ft., respectively, single story commercial building. Pad B is physically separated from the Center across Blauer Dr., but it is being reviewed as part of this comprehensive redevelopment. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. The Argonaut Associates first submitted their application in May 1996. Preliminary design plans had been reviewed by the City Council and Planning Commission at an informal joint study session meeting. Comments were made towards ensuring that sufficient landscaping was provided and that the architectural style of the buildings was appropriate for Saratoga. Some concern was raised regarding the idea of having a free standing building at the corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Blauer Dr. - Pad A. These plans were withdrawn and a new application was submitted in September. The new application uses a similar site plan, with the two independent structures on Pads A and B, but it incorporates a different architectural style. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The General Plan designation for the property is Retail Commercial, which allows for typical commercial and office uses. These designated properties are intended to serve the community and /or their immediate neighborhood. They are not regional in orientation and tend to be located in relatively small complexes. The Argonaut Shopping Center is one of Saratoga's largest Retail Commercial developments. The property is zoned Commercial - Neighborhood, consistent with its General Plan designation. Staff finds that the proposed renovation and expansion of the Argonaut Shopping Center is consistent with Saratoga's land use designations for the property. Other Department /Agency Review: This application has been reviewed by the Cupertino Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Health Department, San Jose Water Company, Saratoga Fire District, PG &E, the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency and the City Engineer and Arborist. None of these agencies have raised any concerns with the proposal, and their comments and standard conditions would be incorporated into any approval Resolution. Environmental Initial Study: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has prepared an environmental Initial Study to determine if there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed subdivision. If significant impacts are identified, the developer must show that these impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that special circumstances exist to justify the impacts, before the project can be approved. In order to answer the wide range of environmental questions covered by CEQA, staff required that the following studies be DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. performed and submitted for inclusion as attachments to staff's Initial Study: Traffic and Circulation Study A traffic and circulation study prepared by RKH - Civil and Transportation Engineers is attached which concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant affect on area traffic and circulation. The increased traffic generated by the 17,039 sq. ft. of new commercial construc- tion would not generate enough traffic to reduce the current LOS of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Both studies have been reviewed by the City Engineer, who has concurred with their findings with the exception of the safety of the ingress and egress from the main entry. Since the two closest traffic signals at Pierce Rd. and Blauer Dr. are only set to change when a vehicle trips their detector loops, these signals do not change often - resulting in a continuous flow of traffic along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. with infrequent breaks. As a condition of approval, the applicants will be required to investigate providing perhaps a southbound left turn merge pocket for vehicles exiting the main entry, if room can be found to accomplish this. Another option might be to provide some type of detector loop system at the main entry driveway that would trip the Pierce Rd. and /or Blauer Rd. traffic signals if vehicles began to back -up at the driveway. Parking Demand Study Saratoga's parking ordinance .requires one parking space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross building area, and one space for every 75 sq. ft. of restaurant area. The 3,500 sq. ft. Pad B building provides its required 18 parking spaces. At a total of 104,285 sq. ft. the Center, including Pad A, would require 521 spaces using a straight retail calculation. The proposal provides for 493 parking spaces. RKH's attached study uses accepted Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation data to conclude that 493 spaces should be more than sufficient. Their addendum letter further concludes that even anticipating a typical percentage of food service uses, there should be sufficient parking. Planning staff has reviewed these studies and accepted their findings. It is very usual that the more uses that are collective- ly provided at a single destination, the less aggregate parking is needed. Staff does not find that the development will result in any significant environmental impacts as defined by CEQA. Staff is therefore recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached environmental Negative Declaration. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. Design Issues: An extended noticing and review period is required for projects subject to CEQA - the Planning Commission cannot formally act on the Negative Declaration until the December 11, 1996 meeting. Since this is a relatively major project for Saratoga, staff has chosen to use this interim review period to begin public hearing discussions of this proposed development. Staff has identified the following issues for discussion: • Architectural Design Staff has expressed concerns to the applicants regarding the chosen architectural style of the buildings. The redevelop- ment of the Argonaut Shopping Center provides the City with a rare opportunity to see that it is redone in a style compati- ble with the "rural" character of Saratoga. An example of what staff would consider to be a more appropriate style might be the recently remodeled Cornerstone Shopping Center in Los Gatos (intersection of Blossom Hill Rd. and Los Gatos Blvd.). The Planning Commission has previously reviewed these plans at a study session meeting and generally found the architectural style to be acceptable. If the Commission feels that these plans are appropriate, staff would recommend at a minimum that the color scheme be revised to replace the proposed off -white and "pinkwater" with darker, richer, colors. • Creek Bank Enhancement Staff had encouraged the applicants to remove the chain link fencing and non - native vegetation along Rodeo Creek to visually open up the creek to the project. The applicants responded by proposing to remove the existing fencing and replace it for safety purposes with an open -slat wood fence. Staff still feels that the fencing should be removed altogeth- er. In addition, if roughly a dozen parking spaces were eliminated at the northwest corner of the parking lot, a portion of the existing paved area could be removed and the creek bank could be widened and restored. These kinds of improvements would take advantage of the creek's uniqueness and visually tie the creek in with the Center - public benches and tables could even be provided. These types of remedial creek enhancement efforts are also encouraged as part of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regional clean stormwater efforts. And since the Parking Demand Study has determined that the Center exceeds its needed parking by >50 spaces, eliminating twelve spaces shouldn't cause a problem DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. • Building Height The maximum height permitted in the CN district is 20 ft. The applicants' plans show the existing buildings to be roughly 22 ft. tall and the Safeway building at 30 ft. in height. The remodeled buildings would remain at approximately the same height with new 35 ft. tall tower elements. The new Pad A building would be 24.5 ft. tall and the Pad B building 21 ft. tall. The 20 ft. height limit can be modified through the condition- al Use permit process, and staff feels that the proposed building heights are appropriate for the scale of the project. • Soundwall The applicants are proposing a 6 ft. tall masonry soundwall along the entire east property line. This wall should be continued along the north property line where the Center abuts the townhomes. However, the wall will need to be built in a manner that would not destroy the many existing trees along these property lines as they provide substantial buffering between the Center and the adjacent homes. The City Arborist will need to review the wall construction plans and oversee its installation. • Landscaping The applicants are proposing to remove the existing trees and vegetation and provide all new landscaping. The City Arborist has noted that the majority of existing trees are not well suited for a parking lot, but that the Chinese Pistachio trees in particular could be retained to provide both a young and more mature tree canopy. Since these trees are placed so irregularly around the Center, staff is not recommending that they be required to be retained. However, the project landscape architect should make an effort to retain as many existing healthy trees as possible. • Bus Stop Shelter The Transportation Agency has requested that the applicants incorporate a bus stop turnout on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at the location of the existing bus stop. The Agency's policy is that they only provide shelters along their major routes, and then only a specific type of shelter that allows for advertis- ing space. Staff is recommending that the developer be required to design and construct a simple wood post and roof shelter with seating. Once the renovation of the Center has been completed, the City would be responsible for the mainte- nance of the shelter. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - Hunter /Storm Argonaut, LLC Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. • Free Standing Sign The applicants are proposing a 10 ft. tall, 15 ft. wide, free standing sign on the south side of the main entrance. The sign would identify the Argonaut Shopping Center, Safeway and Longs Drugs. Staff feels that the sign is proposed to be much larger than is necessary and is recommending that it be proportionately reduced in size by roughly one -half. The sign ordinance also limits free standing signs to not more than 40 sq. ft. in area - the sign supports, or the base in this case, can be excluded from the 40 sq. ft. limit. • Blauer Dr. Medians The old misshappen medians on Blauer Dr. have been filled in with asphalt. Staff is recommending that these medians be replaced and landscaped. RECOMMENDATION• Review the attached staff analysis and environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, take public testimony, and direct the applicant regarding the issues raised in the staff report and during the public hearing. The project could then be given final consideration at the next available meeting. RECEIVED November 19, 1996 NOV 211996 The Saratoga Planning Commission PLANNING DEPT, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: A.P.N.: 393 -02 -007 Attn: James U'16L�041�1u- I am unable to attend the meeting referenced above regarding a design review for Argonaut Shopping Center. I have reason for concern since the neighbors surrounding this center have had to live with the trash blowing into our yards for lack of the owner keeping his property at least as orderly as we do. Argonaut Plaza is the worst looking, most ill -kept shopping center in the valley. Not only is the trash making it to our yards, but the whole center looks like a ghetto most of the time and so does the entrance to Argonaut Place because of the lack of attention given to the center. I have no objection to a well -kept orderly center. What guarantee do we have as neighbors and patrons that this will not only continue but escalate if the center is made larger" If these problems can be addressed and some kind of policing be done, not only by the owner, but by the City of Saratoga, then perhaps this would be workable. Thank you for your consideration of these problems. Sincerely, Peg Towns 13035 Regan Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 FILE: TRASHCAN RECEIVED NOV 211996 I"LANNING DEPT. 20420 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 November 18, 1996 Paul L. Curtis Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: A.P.N. 393 -01 -040 Dear Mr. Curtis: Thank you for your notice of hearing on Tuesday, the 26th, regarding the possible further development in the Argonaut Shopping Center. I wish to register my concerns. I am a resident, living behind the North parking lot of the center most adjacent to the Safeway loading dock and Olympic Pizza. We have had chronic ongoing problems with teenage loitering, petty vandalism and excessive noise coming from these areas. We have a current concern about this situation and an even larger concern with respect to further development of the area. I plan to try and attend the Tuesday, November 26, meeting. If I am unable to I wish to pursue this through whatever venue would be appro- priate. If you need to contact me directly, my day phone number if (408)369 -4203. Sincerely yours, F. Richard Noodleman We SARATTOGA CITY COUNCIL /� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2 0 �3 AGENDA ITEM: V MEETING DATE: March 19, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Devwiopmenlow CITY MGR. APPROVAL: �' I SUBJECT: DR -96 -059, Pinn Brothers Construction, 19825 Douglass Lane. Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision Regarding an Exception to the Floor Area Reduction Standard for Structures in Excess of Eighteen Feet in Height. Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary: At the February 12, 1997 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered a proposal by the appellant to construct a new, two story 6,092 square foot home in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The applicant also requested an exception from the 1.5 percent floor area reduction required for each foot of building height in excess of eighteen feet. This standard reduced the allowable floor area on the subject site by 12 per cent from 6,092 to 5,368 square feet; a difference of 724 square feet. City Code section 15- 45.030(f) allows the Planning Commission to grant such an exception if the following findings can be made: 1. That there is a predominance of two story structures in the neighborhood; and 2. That all of the required Design Review findings contained in Section 15- 45.080 can be made. A copy of the two cited Code sections are attached for reference. As the attached report indicates, staff supported the exception request based on the number of existing two story homes in the area (illustrated by the two story map attached to the staff report) and on the determination that all of the required Design Review findings could be made to approve the project. The Planning Commission disagreed with the staff recommendation regarding the requested exception, citing general concerns over the size of the proposed home in relation to the existing neighborhood. The Commission subsequently denied the exception request but approved the project subject to the condition (condition #2d in the attached Resolution DR -96 -059) that the applicant revise the project plans to comply fully with the floor area reduction standard. An excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes is attached for reference. The applicant is now appealing the denial of the exception request. The appellant has submitted a revised elevation of the proposed home that purportedly shows how the front of the structure would appear after the required floor area reduction. This plan is attached as Exhibit "B ", however, without a scaled version of a revised site and floor plan staff cannot verify that this is an accurate depiction. Fiscal Impacts: None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the appeal, the applicants would not be required to reduce the structure's size from 6,092 sq. ft. to 5,368 sq. ft. Follow -up Action: A Resolution will be prepared and scheduled for adoption at the next regular City Council meeting reflecting the Council's action. Attachments: 1. Letter from appellant, with two story map exhibit 2. Staff Report for DR -96 -059 dated 2/12/97 3. City Code sections 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.080 4. Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/12/97 5. Neighborhood Correspondence 6. Exhibit "A ", plans 7. Exhibit "B ", revised elevation submitted by appellant PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. Mailing Address: 19750 Douglass Ln. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -9219 fax (408) 868 -9227 Corporate Office: 1475 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 250; San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 252 -9131 fax (408) 252 -2632 Grounds for Appeal The purpose of this appeal to the City Council is to request an exception to a City ordinance that was denied by a tie vote of the Planning Commission. The address of the project is 19825 Douglass Lane (lot 2). This lot is one of the eight lots of the Sisters of Mercy subdivision. The Design Review submittal, DR -96 -059, was a request for Planning Commission Design Review approval to construct a new 6,029 sq. ft., two -story single family residence on a 44,991 sq. ft. parcel and a request for an exception from the floor area reduction requirement for buildings over 18 ft. in height per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The Planning Commission voted and approved resolution DR -96 -059 but denied the request for the exception to the floor area reduction. During the meeting a member of the Planning Department staff clarified the intent of the floor area reduction ordinance with the following explanation, "The Exception Ordinance, adopted in 1992, was to be an incentive to encourage individuals to construct one story homes where the homes were all single story. The rule was not meant to apply in the larger zoning districts or in areas of town where mostly two story homes already exist. In granting an exception, it is making a finding of whether the neighborhood has a predominance of two story homes or whether two story homes are acceptable." The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor area up to the maximum allowed, provided that Design Review findings can be made and there is a predominance of two story structures in the neighborhood. The commission's approval of resolution DR -96 -059 substantiates the requirement that all Design Review findings can be made. The neighborhood (see attached plan) has a predominance of two story homes. The Planning Commission recently approved a two story and granted the exception for the floor area reduction on lot 1. Lots 3 & 4 were presented to the Planning Commission last year, both homes were single story homes with roof heights equal to the two story homes on lot 1 & 2. Both homes were approved and granted the exception for the floor area reduction thus allowing the exception on three sides of the denied lot. Prior to the meeting, this firm supplied all adjacent neighbors with copies of the design review plans for their review and convenience. Please note, there were no negative letters written from neighbors or any neighbor or person speaking against the project at the meeting. Please consider these facts and grant this requested appeal. _ AXIS ?INGr "TWO- S%Ri L04MVAN p .� Arrrao VL-p W rW E oc,GF�icoN. -: - ® l°RO Po s� Pu-tu R E Z • S—� Ky I,�t�i �Ky e -TI MC* StN&L& S'LMI , 461 f4l&J4 _ -. ArrrR.o Yep W tTw E OGGEimoN. 'rW 0.5'foct-f 'C/4ALt�.AZ t,0iy 11 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -96 -059, 19825 Douglass Lane Applicant/ Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Staff Planner: George White, Associate Planner Date: February 12, 1997 APN: 397 -16 -150 Director Approval: z kA MEN I o � z 19825 DOUGLASS LANE File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 9/24/96 Application complete: 10/24/96 Notice published: 1/29/97 Mailing completed: 1/30/97 Posting completed: 1/24/97 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review approval to construct a 6,092 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 44,991 square foot parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is part of the eight - lot Sisters of Mercy Subdivision which the Planning Commission approved in April of 1993. It is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The application includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR -96 059. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -96 -059 3. Arborist Reports dated 12/27/96 4. Two -Story Residence Map 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Very Low Density (RVLD) MEASURE "G" Not applicable. PARCEL SIZE: 44,991 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.30 GRADING REOUIRED: Cut: 228 cu. yds. Max Depth: 1.5 ft. Fill: 228 cu. yds. Max Depth: 3 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Brick and beige stucco exterior, dark brown tudor style wood trim, masonry details and a brown slate roof . PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE: 23.30 HEIGHT• 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Garage: 471.5 sq. ft. 1st Floor: 4,026 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 1,594.5 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6,092 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 60 ft. Rear: 123 ft. Right Side: 33 ft. Left Side: 32 ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 30% 26 ft. 6,100* sq. ft. Front: 52 ft. Rear: 65 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. *This is the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. With a reduction in floor area for heights above 18 feet the maximum allowed floor area would be 5,368 square feet. PROJECT DISCUSSION In April of 1993 the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map to subdivide the Sisters of Mercy property on Douglass Lane into eight parcels. New homes for Lots 1, 3 and 4 have already been approved by the Planning Commission. The subject property is located on the south side of the Sisters of Mercy subdivision directly opposite the street opening for Donna File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane Lane. The lot is currently developed with a single family structure that served as the residence for the Sisters of Mercy order. The property also contains a swimming pool. DESIGN REVIEW Residence: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,092 square foot two -story residence at a height of 26 feet. The design of the proposed residence incorporates traditional architectural elements, a varied roof line, details such as brick facade at the front elevation, tudor wood trim with a stucco exterior and a slate roof. Heritage Status of Existing Structure: The existing residence, known as the Crowell House, was built in the 1880's and is listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory - though it has never been a designated City landmark. The Heritage Preservation Commission toured the structure, and documented it via video tape, at the time the subdivision was approved. Their findings then were that the structure had been altered to the point where it was no longer historically significant. The HPC has therefor not expressed any objections to the demolition of this structure. It should be noted that the main objective of the HPC is to document these structures for posterity - the City has little authority to require these structures to be preserved. The original subdividers had cooperatively designed the subdivision around the home at staff's request to at least provide the opportunity for the home to be purchased and retained. Grading: Grading is minimal and is limited to the amount necessary to construct the foundation for the new house. Trees: There are 14 ordinance protected trees on the site, 4 Coast Live Oaks, 4 Monterey Pines, 2 Douglas Fir, 1 Deodar Cedar, 1 Atlas Cedar, 1 Valley Oak, and 1 Southern Magnolia. In addition there are 8 non - ordinance sized trees within the limits of development. Eleven non - ordinance size Monterey Pines exist outside of the development area. Only one protected tree, a Coast Live Oak (tree #9 on the Arborist map) , is proposed for removal to accommodate construction of the driveway. Three large Coast Live Oaks, 1 Valley Oak, 1 Douglas Fir and 1 Deodar Cedar will be impacted by the proposed circular driveway. The City Arborist has recommended that the Douglas Fir (Tree #5) be removed because it is growing through the crown of the adjacent large Valley Oak. The Arborist has also provided driveway specifications for an at- grade, pervious surfaced driveway to minimize impacts to the adjacent trees. Even with this precaution, it is expected that the Deodar Cedar will not withstand the effects of development and will eventually have to be removed. File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane Staff has visited the site on several occasions and believes that the predicted development impacts on the protected trees are too great to warrant the approval of the circular driveway. Tree numbers 1, 2 and 3, in particular, all large Coast Live Oak specimens, will be unduly affected by the driveway configuration. Since the proposed circular drive is not necessary for adequate ingress and egress to the site, staff suggests that the driveway be redesigned to avoid any interference with the driplines of these three trees. Condition number 5a.in Resolution DR -96 -059 reflects this recommendation. Lastly, the Arborist has recommended that trees number 1 and 2, which exist in the public right of way directly adjacent to the property, be further protected from oncoming vehicles by the construction of a barrier to the specifications in the Arborist Report. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. Floor Area Reduction Exception: The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the 1.5 percent floor area reduction required for each foot of maximum building height exceeding 18 feet. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this exception if the Design Review findings can be made and there is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood. As demonstrated on the Two -Story Residence Map there are a number of two -story structures located in the neighborhood, and staff believes the Design Review findings can be made. Exceptions were granted for both Lot 3 and Lot 4 in this subdivision. If the exception is not granted, the applicant would be required to reduce the maximum floor area by 724 square feet, from 6,092 square feet to 5,368 square feet. Conclusion: Staff finds that the proposed residence is well massed and detailed, it is compatible in terms of scale and design with existing neighboring residences, and it is in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The project complies with all other development regulations and all the Design Review findings can be made to support the application. Therefor, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request. RECONMENDATION Approve the Design Review request by adopting the attached Resolution DR -96 -059. RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -059 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pinn Brothers Construction; 19825 Douglass Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 6,092 square foot two -story residence at a height of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the necessary findings could not be made to support the floor area exception request pursuant to Article 15- 45.030 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreason- able interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements and will be screened by existing trees on the lot. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed and undeveloped areas, in that the residence is located to minimize removal of ordinance protected trees, and the amount of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structure's foundation and terrace. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding area, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements which minimize the perception of bulk and is similar in scale, style and size to other homes in the neighborhood. -The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height and design of the File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane residence is compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood and the residence is setback in compliance with the minimum required setbacks. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. 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 Pinn Brothers Construction 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 or Grading Permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporat- ing this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate page. C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution shall be noted or otherwise incorporated into the final plans. d. Subject to staff review and approval, the final construction plans shall be modified to comply with the allowable floor area standard and the required 1.5 per cent reduction for each foot of building height in excess of 18 feet. 3. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front -yard shall exceed three feet in height. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 5. All requirements of the City ArboristIs Reports dated 12/27/96 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: • The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading ,plan. • Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." Trees adjacent to the barn on lots 5 and .-6---.shall also be fenced. • Subject to review by the City arborist and approval by staff, a relocated driveway which minimizes interference with the dripline of tree number 3 as identified in the Arborist Report. Driveway shall be of pervious material and constructed at grade. • A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. • Trenching for utilities shall be shown on the site plan and located, as much as possible, outside of the driplines of all trees which will be preserved during construction. • The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $12,139 (equal to 250 of the value of existing trees on site) pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. • Details for a barrier to protect tree number 1 and 2 from oncoming traffic to the specifications of the Arborist report. All required permits shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. • The grading beneath trees #3 should be kept to not more than three feet from the foundation of the structure. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permitp. all of the protection measures shall be completed, which includes but is not limited to the following: File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane • Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. Fencing shall consist of chain link material with a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on 2 inch galvanized pipe driven 2 feet into the ground. • Bark chips shall be placed inside the protective fencing under the canopy of each tree. A 12 inch area around the root collar of each tree shall be left bare and dry. C. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: • Native replacement trees valued at $8,404 shall be installed and inspected by staff. This is equivalent to one 48 inch box, two 36 -inch box, one 24 -inch box, and three 15- gallon native trees. • Tree #1 and #2 shall be pruned by an ISA certified Arborist pursuant to the Arborist Report. • The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protection measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the tree preservation bond shall be released. 6. Demolition of the existing home shall be done with great care to avoid damage to tree #3. The work shall be done from the inside of the structure, only after all tree protection fencing and mulching is in place. 7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain- ing a Tree Removal Permit with the exception of tree #5, 7 and 9 pursuant to the Arborist reports of 11/5/96. 8. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. 9. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 10. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 11. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. File No. DR -96 -059; 19825 Douglass Lane 12. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic- es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 13. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 14. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced 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 fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 12th day of February, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Patrick NOES: Pierce, Siegfried ABSENT: Murakami Chair, Planning ommiss ATTEST: �i 6A It *5 - Secretary, Pla i Commission BARRIE D. i )ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 PINN BROS. 19825 DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA - Prepared at the Request of: George White City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench November 5, 1996 Revised 12/27/96 Job #10 -96 -346 .• L,! BARRIE D. DATE ^ and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 PINN BROS. 19825 DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of George White, Associate Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence with attached garage after the demolition of the existing residence in the context of potential damage to adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be minimized. Abstract There are 14 trees adjacent to construction that qualify for protection. There are eight smaller trees in or adjacent to the construction zone that will also be affected. However, none of the smaller trees are good candidates for transplant. There are 11 trees near the northeast corner that would not be greatly affected. Two large trees ( #3 and 6) would be mostly directly affected by the proposed plan. Mitigation recommendations are provided in order to prevent unacceptable damage to these trees. The value of the 14 trees is addressed according to ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Standards, Seventh Edition. Findings There are 14 trees on site protected by regulation that would apparently be affected by construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their relative canopies. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating the tree's assigned number. These numbers are referenced throughout this report.. The data sheets following this text provides a health and structure rating for each tree. The structural part of the evaluation focuses primarily on the potential for failure of individual branches or of the entire tree. The protected trees are classified as follows: 4 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 4 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata). 2 Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit) 1 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 1 Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) 1 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 1 . Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) In addition to these trees, there are 11 Monterey pines in two rows on the northeast corner of the property, three of which are smaller than 12 inches @ 2 feet. These eleven trees are presently outside the limits of construction. f PINN BROS. 2 19825 DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA There are eight small assorted trees, some fruit bearing and some ornamental, in or adjacent to the limit of construction. Specific Trees Tree #1 is a very healthy 22 -inch diameter coast live oak which has fairly good structure. The recent AC paving installed at Douglass Lane arcs around the root collar .of this tree about 4 inches form the outer bark. Tree #2 is a 21 -inch diameter coast live oak with good health but which has relatively poor structure. The mass of this tree is leaning at an acute angle as a result of competition for sunlight. The roots of this tree are no doubt entangled with the root mass of tree #1. A tree with an acute angle that reaches 40 feet (at an almost horizontal angle) will always be in danger of uprooting, but it appears that the danger may be lessened by the intertwined root structures of the two trees. Nevertheless, it is highly advisable to perform a pruning procedure called end - weight removal by drop crotch pruning' .on tree #2, while at the same time, crown thinning of tree #1 on its west side. Pruning of both of these trees needs to be considered in unison and not as separate entities. These trees are likely to live many years if they'could be properly pruned on a regular periodic basic. Tree #3, is a 49 -inch diameter coast live oak that is in good health for its age and has excellent structure. However, there is dead wood through out the understory of the canopy that should be removed. In addition, many of the branches are horizontally inclined. It does not appear that cabling is currently necessary. However, this tree will need end - weight removal pruning regularly throughout its life. It will be necessary to remove a west - facing limb for driveway clearance. The roadway beneath its canopy must be installed on top of existing grade. Compaction of native soil beneath must not be greater than 82 %v. The roadway must be of pervious materials. No trenching beneath the canopy will be allowed. This tree also has bark damage due to sycamore bark moth larvae. However, this damage is superficial and not considered serious. Tree #3 also has considerable leaf damage due to the gall wasp Drycosmia dubiosus. This damage is not life threatening. Other oak trees on the adjoining construction site also have the same symptoms. Trees #10 through 13; all Monterey pines, have symptoms of pine pitch canker disease (Fusariutn subglutinans). This disease is manifested by the dead or dying branch tips and the swollen tissue with drippy resin sites on these branches 2 to'3 feet from the tips. The other Monterey pine trees on the property have these symptoms, as well. Although these trees are in poor condition, they are not presently a significant hazard. However, these trees will in all probability continue to decline. ' Drop - crotch Pruning Detail PINK BROS. 3 19825 D&GLASS LANE SARATOGA Affects of Proposed Construction Tree #2 stands approximately 2 feet from the edge of Douglass Lane and tree #1 stands about 12 inches into roadway of Douglass Lane. Once the existing chain link fence is removed both trees are in danger of damage by oncoming vehicles. Tree #5 is a large Douglas fir, growing through the canopy of a fine oak, #6. It is in marginal condition. I suggest that it be removed for the benefit of tree #6. Tree #6, a 49.5 -inch diameter valley oak, is in excellent condition. It will be necessary to use the protective measures specified for tree #3. Tree #7 (a 17 -inch diameter deodar cedar) will be severely damaged by loss of root structure as a result of grading and soil compaction for driveway construction. The damage to these trees would be too severe to expect that they could recover. Recommendations 1) Materials used to edge the pervious surfacing beneath trees #3, 6 and 2 must be done without excavation or trenching under the canopies of the trees. Interlocking pavers with snap edge will be used without excavation. 2) To prevent long term damage from soil compaction a temporary protective chainlink fence must.be constructed at the dripline of each tree or group of trees (unless otherwise noted) before any construction or grading equipment arrives on site and must remain in place until all construction is completed, including cleanup operations (see notations on the plan). The protective fence must be left in place at all times during construction unless supervised by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). The chainlink fence must be 5 feet minimum height, mounted on 2 -inch galvanized pipe, driven 2 feet into the ground, and be able to keep out even foot traffic. 3) To compensate for the loss of absorbing root tips install a soaker irrigation line on top of the undisturbed soil surface approximately 2 feet inside the protective fencing. Irrigate each tree with approximately 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks until at least 8 inches of rain has fallen. In the case of 5/8 -inch Aquapore Porous Pipe, a 10 -inch diameter tree would require 3.5 hours of soaking with 100 linear feet of soaker line at a reduced pressure of 10psi. 4) To reduce soil compaction and evaporation, install a 3 inch layer of bark chips inside the protective fences over the entire area beneath the canopy of each tree with the exception of the 12 inches around the . root collar, which must be left bare and dry. The spreading must be done by hand and before the irrigation ( #7) begins. This insulating layer will reduce soil compaction and further encourage root tip growth. PINN BROS. 4 19825 DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA 5) To minimize the exposure to disease or structural damage, tree branches which are in conflict with construction or with construction equipment must be managed as follows: Branches up to 3 inches in diameter may be cut by construction workers so as to leave a stub of at least one foot in length from the branch's point of attachment to the larger branch. Branches larger than 3 inches must be removed by an ISA- certified arborist. Any "stubs" from branches 3 inches in diameter or smaller must also be removed by an ISA - certified arborist prior to project completion. 6) Recommend a permanent barrier be installed in the roadway of Douglass Lane to protect trees #1 and 2 from oncoming vehicles. One alternative is the installation of 2 or 3 steel pipes, 6 inches in diameter installed vertically with 4 feet above grade painted caution yellow and with 4 feet below grade sealed for corrosion in a concrete casing. The pipes would be filled with concrete and installed approximately 5 feet east of the trees in the roadway adjacent to the curb. Value Assessment Value of trees to be removed The value of tree #9 is $1,166. It is equivalent to one 36 -inch box and three 15- gallon box native trees. Value of trees #5 and 7 totals $7,238. That is equivalent to five 36 -inch boxed plus one 24 -inch box native tree or one 48 -inch box and one 36 -inch box native tree. The total value of trees which will be affected by construction ( #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8) equals $60,697. A 25% bond equals $12,139. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Associate Barrie D. Coate Barrie D. Coate and Associates MLB:Ia Enclosures: Plan Charts BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Coast Live Oak (010) * 22 2 3 3 0 3 6 1 q _ Quercus a rifolia sq. in 380 X $27 /sq. in = $10,260 X sp. class ( 100 %) = X cond ( 90 %) = X loc ( 75 %) = 4)„125 Final Value 2 Coast Live Oak (011) 21 2 3 3 0 39 5 -gal = $36.00 Horticultural Consultants C7 # ¢ Coast Live Oak (009) 49.6 } 15 -gal = $120 52 40 81 2 1 pW ,;, U � 4 Dou las Fir 012 19 in 20 p W W 2 1 Q = ¢O 24 " box = $420 "box (408) 353 -1052 a w a a Q Cl ¢ U 32 v� W ¢= Z Z z w ¢ i' J J o ¢¢ ,�, J .! J" V W �, i `�' �$ -- p cn p 0 Ln F- i w z Q W ¢ Q z w J O a J ac 4) 36 = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "bOX = $7,000 41 53 1 U) v Q W>- F- = i— cn W } o W U [[ O W U u) p cn F- ¢ W U U Q 5 W U N Q :2 >- Q >- U' z 72 °box = $15,000 i C W 0 °° = Q W ¢ J�p0E- Q¢W�o U W >oW5WWW QzUwQ��zJpppooz Y >-inLU W to (n wwo Key# Plant Name o o 0 oN = N =to ¢��o�z�oopaUZz¢¢¢a F OMMENTS 1 Coast Live Oak (010) * 22 2 3 3 0 3 6 1 q _ Quercus a rifolia sq. in 380 X $27 /sq. in = $10,260 X sp. class ( 100 %) = X cond ( 90 %) = X loc ( 75 %) = 4)„125 Final Value 2 Coast Live Oak (011) 21 2 3 3 0 39 1 4 sq. in 1931 X $27 /sq. in = $9,342 X sp. class ( 100 %) = $9,342 X cond ( 60 %) = $5,605 X loc ( 75 %) _ $4204 Final Value 3 Coast Live Oak (009) 49.6 52 40 81 2 1 sq. in 1931 X $27 /sq. in = $52,137 X sp. class ( 100 %) = $52,137 X cond ( 90 %) = $46,923 X loc ( 90 %) _ $42231 Final Value 4 Dou las Fir 012 19 20 70 2 4 2 1 2 _ Pseudotsu a menziezii sq. in 284 X $27 /sq. in = $7,668 X sp. class ( 50 %) = $3,834 X cond ( 90 %) = $3,451 X loc ( 90 %) = J6 Final Value 5 Douglas Fir (013) 32 36 85 36 3 2 �I 3 sq. in X $27 /sq. in = $21,276 X sp. class( 50 %) = $10,638 X cond ( 65 %) = .$6,383 X loc ( 65 %) _ $4149 Final Value 6 Valley Oak 49.5 1 53 1 50 80 1 1 1 2 Quercus lobata sq. in 1923 X $27 /sq. in = $51,933 X sp. class( 100 %) = $51,933 X cond ( 90 %) = $46,740 X loc ( 90 %) _ $42066 Final Value JOB TITLE: Pinn Bros. (19825 Douglass Lane) ' indicates number used in previous survey Page 1 of 3 JOB # 10 -96 -347 DATE: 11 -5 -96 1 = best, 5 = worst BARRIE D. COATS & ASSOCIATES Deodar Cedar 17 18 80 33 1 2 IT -1 -1 T Cedrus deodara sq. in 227 X $27 /sq. in = $6,129 X sp. class ( 70 %) _ $4,290 X cond ( 90 %) = $3,861 X loc ( 8b %) = $-69 Final Value 8 Atlas Cedar 21 4 12 25 4 5 3 9 _ 1 3 5 -gal = $36.00 Horticultural Consultants sq. in 398 X $27 /sq. in = $10,746 X sp. class ( 70 %) _ $7,522 X cond ( 75 %) = $5,642 X loc ( 75 %) = $4231 Final Value 9 Coast Live Oak 9 10 20 21 1 2 -- -F L F- Quercus a rifolia sq. in 64 X $27 /sq. in = $1,728 X sp. class ( 100 %) _ $1,728 X cond ( 90 %) = X loc ( 75 %) _ $1166 Final Value 1 0 Monterey Pine 1 15 1 1 1 1 17 1 45T-3 } 15 -gal = $120 Pinus radiata sq. in 177 X $27 /sq. in = $4,779 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,434 X cond ( 45 %) = X IOC ( 65 %) _ 0 Final Value 11 Monterey Pine w pp 1 1 ,;, U L 3T-3T-F7--FT-1-F-1 sq. in 133 X $27 /sq. in = $3,591 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,077 X cond ( 45 %) _ $485 X loc ( 65 %) _ _ _ _ _ $315 Final Value 12 ui 16 p w 18 45 � Q 24 "box = $420 (408) 353 -1052 a> w a> a> a Q CCU `i' w IM ? Z = p Z w i -j p �n -1 ,--, Q w in i •^• "' � '- O u') 0 �n � i p w Z H� W Q Z w O a 0 O 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 C w> _ F- w > O w U p� O w U (n p cn Cr w V cn 5 w __ (3 u_ Q �} Q } (s Z 72 "box = $15,000 _ m� �_ C m _ m W O °° Q w owE a Q w Cc w� 0> 0LU NZ z ¢ w N ww Q�n pQ W } w m (n w cn w VLU :2 Z> Key # Plant Name p g p p o N = u.) (n w w 00 O� ? Q Q w w ww w pC COMMENTS _ z aE Cc U aE p – t– O p a U z z aE aE l2 a 7 Deodar Cedar 17 18 80 33 1 2 IT -1 -1 T Cedrus deodara sq. in 227 X $27 /sq. in = $6,129 X sp. class ( 70 %) _ $4,290 X cond ( 90 %) = $3,861 X loc ( 8b %) = $-69 Final Value 8 Atlas Cedar 21 4 12 25 4 5 3 9 _ 1 3 Cedrus atlantica sq. in 398 X $27 /sq. in = $10,746 X sp. class ( 70 %) _ $7,522 X cond ( 75 %) = $5,642 X loc ( 75 %) = $4231 Final Value 9 Coast Live Oak 9 10 20 21 1 2 -- -F L F- Quercus a rifolia sq. in 64 X $27 /sq. in = $1,728 X sp. class ( 100 %) _ $1,728 X cond ( 90 %) = X loc ( 75 %) _ $1166 Final Value 1 0 Monterey Pine 1 15 1 1 1 1 17 1 45T-3 o 3 3 Pinus radiata sq. in 177 X $27 /sq. in = $4,779 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,434 X cond ( 45 %) = X IOC ( 65 %) _ 0 Final Value 11 Monterey Pine 13 1 1 14 1 45 30 3T-3T-F7--FT-1-F-1 sq. in 133 X $27 /sq. in = $3,591 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,077 X cond ( 45 %) _ $485 X loc ( 65 %) _ _ _ _ _ $315 Final Value 12 Monterey Pine 1 16 18 45 33 4 3 sq. in 201 X $27 /sq. in = $5,427 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,628 X cond ( 30 %) = $488 X loc ( 60 %) _ _ _ $293 Final Value JOB TITLE: Pinn Bros. (19825 Douglass Lane) * indicates number used in previous survey JOB # 10 -96 -347 DATE: 11 -5 -96 Page 2 of 3 1 = best, 5 = worst BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES Monterey Pine 17 18 45 33 4 3 = 5 -gal = $36.00 Horticultural Consultants sq. in 227 X $27 /sq. in = $6,129 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,839 X cond ( 30 %) = $552 X loc ( 60 %) _ •w.+31 Final Value 1 4 Southern Magnolia 13 8 U U w 24 1 2 �n # 0 cr w >- 15 -gal = $120 24 "box = $420 (408) 353 -1052 a w a a pwp Q [C C3 sq. in 158 X $27 /sq.,in = $4,266 X sp. class ( 90 %) = $3,839 X cond ( 90 %) _ $3,456 X loc ( 70 %) _ $2419 Final Value w S= Z Z z w— ¢`n J^ 0 ¢u, J► J L- } V w ,;, i ,� �' �_ O(0 0 O O v' F- w Z Q w CC a Z w -i O a J Q a 36 "box = $1,320 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 N .9 w} ~ ~ pp= P Cn w > O w U O w U (n O v, F- � w V Q 5 w c� (5 Q � > Q > cs 72 "box = $15,000 = 0° F- J Z) 1= = M = m w0 g0° a a = U w Q w- a: a Q w U pC 0 w O �w 0y �Q Ow U) Y Z U w wQ ww D a> w m (n w (n w °o ? 10- Key y Plant Name 0 � 0 0 N (n (n w w 00 0 cc: Z cc w Q Q w w w w w CC COMMENTS sq. in X $27 /sq. in = X sp. class ( %) = X cond ( %) = X loc ( %) _ Final Value O = 2 Z Ct: CC U CC D H H D 0 0 a U Z Z Cr CC Cr 13 Monterey Pine 17 18 45 33 4 3 sq. in 227 X $27 /sq. in = $6,129 X sp. class ( 30 %) = $1,839 X cond ( 30 %) = $552 X loc ( 60 %) _ •w.+31 Final Value 1 4 Southern Magnolia 13 8 16 25 24 1 2 Ma nolia grandiflora sq. in 158 X $27 /sq.,in = $4,266 X sp. class ( 90 %) = $3,839 X cond ( 90 %) _ $3,456 X loc ( 70 %) _ $2419 Final Value sq. in X $27 /sq. in = X sp. class ( %) = X cond ( %) = X loc ( %) = Final Value sq. in X $27 /sq. in = X sp. class ( %) = X cond ( %) = X loc ( %) = Final Value sq. in X $27 /sq. in = X sp. class ( %) = X cond ( %) = X loc ( %) _ Final Value sq. in X $27 /sq. in = X sp. class ( %) = X cond ( %) = X loc ( %) _ Final Value JOB TITLE: Pinn Bros. (19825 Douglass Lane) ' indicates number used in previous survey JOB # 10 -96 -347 DATE: 11 -5 -96 Page 3 of 3 1 = best, 5 = worst IJr J \\ L.�r \\ � uJ \\ � • gL AR IF4`It 1. 445 V ��u�ael ' raver I \ 14 �t Good Specimen • jc root worm n0 t, s� E �.\ 441- -- I ` ✓ r 3 1 to S ILT FENCE�� - - Q An Analysis of Trees Pinn Bros. Property, 19825 Douglass Lin. W Z City of Saratoga Job #010 -96 -347 Z IJr � Q O F`f 450.50 .\ I I �+ C. - i' PAD 446.0 \ ,t G.S. 449.00 1 ej ff 3 ° Of 41M1 _ ` r rAr`% / 8 � r 4ro • i s \ 412 _ \ .�• / X41. \ J...1 a. s ,4r 005� lD i Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. Q An Analysis of Trees Pinn Bros. Property, 19825 Douglass Lin. W Z City of Saratoga Job #010 -96 -347 Z Z � Q O J BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Los Los Summit Road Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 353 -1052 i Horticultural Consultants C'nn Itino A,4.n .-,c I An Analysis of Trees Pinn Bros. Property, 19825 Douglass Lin. Saratoga Prepared for: City of Saratoga Job #010 -96 -347 n,it . 11 /G /QF De.. 1 9 /9'1 /OL 11 -04 -1996 1:28AM FROM PBC -SARA FIELD OFFIC 4088689227 P004 12iK. eoNSr. I pie.. �4 W"A7M 'Sttllp 1 Y lyt 1. TWO • s`��i "'ri4A4l4A��V 2067 COLUSA WAY, SAN JOSE7, CA., 95130 408/374 - -3939: FA >r 374 -4073 P. 2 1545.020 Compliance with development standards. No single - family main structure or accessory structure shall be constructed or expanded within any A, R -1, HR, R -OS or R -M district unless the proposed structure or expansion complies with the floor area standards contained in Section 1545.030 of this Article and the setback require- ments contained in Section 1545.040 of this Article. In the event of a conflict between the floor area and setback requirements in Article 1545 and the standards set forth in the R -OS zone district, the more restrictive standard shall govern. The Planning Commission shall have authority to grant a variance from such regulations pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.98 § 10, 1991; { Ord. 71.113 § 9, 1992) 1545.030 Allowable floor area. (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "allowa- ble floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof), plus any accessory structures. For purposes of calculating allowable floor area, any space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be doubled. The allowable floor area is based upon the size and slope of the lot and the height of the main structure to be con- structed or existing thereon as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (b) Maximum standards. The standards set forth in this Section are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the findings pre- --_.. scribed in Section 15- 45,080 of this Article. (c) Slope adjustment. If the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent, the net site area of the lot shall be reduced by a percentage amount based upon the average slope and calculated as follows: 15- 45,030 subsection (c) of this Section, if any, the floor area standard for the lot shall be determined in accordance with the table set forth below: Size of Lot Floor Area (net site area) Standard 5,000 - 10,000 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft. plus 160 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq. ft.* 10,001- 15,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. plus 170 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq. ft.* 151001 - 40,000 sq. ft. 4,050 sq. ft. plus 78 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq. ft.* 40,001 - 80,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. plus 20 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq. ft.* 80,001- 200,000 sq. ft. 6,800 sq. ft. plus 10 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 80,000 sq. ft.* 206,000+ 8,000 sq. ft. is the maxi- mum allowable square footage. *Where division of the net site area by 1000 results in a fractional number the product shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (e) Maximum floor area allowed for R -1, HR and A Zone districts. The maximum allowable floor area shall be as prescribed in the following table: Average Slope Percentage of Net Site Zone District Maximum Floor Area of the Lot Area to be Deducted R -1- 10,000 4,400 10.01 -20% 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent R -1- 12,500 4,830 of slope over 10 %* R -1- 15,000 5,220 20.01 -30% 30% plus 3% for each 1 percent R -1- 20,000 6,000 of slope over 20 %* R -1- 40,000 7,200 Over 30% 60% HR and A 8,000 *Where the average slope is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. 1.. (d) Floor area standards. After reducing the net site area by the amount required for the slope adjustment under (f)' Floor area reduction for certain zone districts. After the allowable floor area is calculated in subsections (d) and (e) of this Section, the maximum allowable floor area for all structures shall be reduced by 1.5 percent for each one foot of maximum building height in excess of (Saratoga 5 -95) 15- 45.030 eighteen feet in height. This deduction shall apply only to new construction built after May 15, 1992, including new main structures, additions thereto, and new additions to existing main structures, for all lots located in any R -1 zone district. The maximum building height of any structure shall be determined in the manner prescribed in Section 15- 06.340. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor area up to the maximum prescribed in subsections (d) and (e) of this Section, provided that all of the following findings are made: (1) There is a predominance of two-story structures in the neighborhood; and (2) All the findings in Section 15- 45.080(a) through (f) are present. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 §§ 24, 25, 1991; Ord. 71.86 § 2, 1990; Ord. 71 -106 § 7, 1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Amended during 5/95 supplement) 1545.040 Setbacks. Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure, located within an R- 1- 10,000, R- 1- 12,500 or R -1- 15,000 district will exceed eighteen feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each one foot of height in excess of eighteen feet. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 § 26, 1991) 1545.050 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 natural or finish grade, whichever measurement is greater, to not more than five feet. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to this require- ment if the Commission is still able to make all of the find- ings set forth in Section 1545.080 of this Article. (Amended by Ord. 71 -106 § 8, 1992) 1545.055 Residential Design Handbook. All projects for the construction or expansion of a single - family main structure or an accessory structure shall be consistent with the policies and implementation techniques described in the Residential Design Handbook, as adopted by resolution of the City Council. Such Handbook embodies and illustrates the intent of the design review findings pre- scribed in Section 1545.080 of this Article. 1545 -060 Requirement for design review; public hearing. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit (Saratoga 5-95) 348 shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single - family main structure or accessory structure in any A, R -1, HR, or R -OS district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any multi-story main or accessory structure to be constructed upon a hillside lot. (2) Any conversion of a single -story structure to a multi- story structure, except where such conversion does not result in any exterior modifications to the existing structure beyond the installation of skylights in the roof. (3) Any single -story structure over eighteen feet in height. (4) Whenever design review is specifically required under the terms or conditions of any tentative or final subdivision map, building site approval, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning. (5) Any main structure to be constructed upon a lot having a net site area of less than five thousand square feet. (6) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expan- sion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet. (7) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expan- sion, the allowable floor area may be exceeded pursuant to Section 15- 45.030(d) of this Article. (8) Whenever, in the opinion of the Planning Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory struc- ture may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or may create a perception of excessive mass or bulk, or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may cause excessive damage to the natural environment, or may result in excessive intensification of the use o_r.development of the site. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear, on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended by Ord. 71.98 § 11, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 10, 1992) 1545.070 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing property lines, easements and dimensions, structure setbacks, building envelope, topogra- phy, location of all trees over twelve inches in diameter as measured two feet above grade, and areas of dense vegetation and creeks. (2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Planning Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if re- quested by the Planning Director. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Landscape plans. (9) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encum- brances and restrictions which benefit or burden the proper- ty. (10) Such additional exhibits or information as may- be required by the Planning Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty-eight inches in size and eleven reduced sets on sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. (11) A geotechnical clearance as defined in Section 15- 06.325 of this Code, if required by the City Engineer. (b) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71 -106 § 9, 1992) 1545.080 Design review findings. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site 349 15-45.090 of the proposed main or accessory structure, when con- sidered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neigh- borhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unrea- sonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appear- ance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mini- mize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environ- ment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 § 27, 1991) 1545.090 Expiration of review approval; extension; tolling of time period. (a) Design review approvals granted pursuant to this Article shall expire twenty-four months from the date on which the approval became effective, unless prior to such expiration date a building permit is issued for the improve- ments constituting the subject of the design review approval and construction thereof is commenced and prosecuted diligently toward completion, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for such improvements. (b) Design review approvals may be extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding twelve months. The application for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. A public hearing shall be conducted on the application for extension and notice thereof shall be given in the same manner as prescribed (Saratoga 5 -95) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 5 - 3. DR -96 -060 - PINN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, 20775 PONTIAC AVENUE Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,048 sq. ft., one -story single family residence on a 14,668 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Chuck Bammarito, representing Pinn Brothers Construction, informed the Commission that this is a spec home. Commissioners Siegfried /Patrick moved to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Abshire said that he found the design to be compatible with that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Pierce said that the design did not appear to be massive and supported its design. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR- 96-60. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. 4. DR -96 -059 - PINN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, 19825 DOUGLAS LN.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,092 sq. ft., two -story single family residence on a 44,991 sq. ft. parcel and a request for an exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for buildings over 18 ft. in height per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the existing Crowell house structure listed on the Heritage Resources Inventory at time of subdivision review. The Heritage Preservation Commission requested that the structure be documented. It was their belief that the changes that have occurred to the building over the years have significantly decreased the historical significance of the structure. They had no concerns or objections to what happens to the structure having achieved their objective of documenting the building. Staff required that the map be configured to retain the building to engage future possibility of purchasing the property and retaining the home. The applicant proposes to remove the structure as no one has stepped forward to purchase the home. Staff recommends that the leg of the circular drive within tree #1 be eliminated to preserve the tree and that a single access be allowed to the garage. Also, being requested is an exception to the allowable floor area. Staff supports the request to the floor area reduction exception. He said that the city arborist recommends mitigation measures to protect the tree if the applicant wishes to retain the circular driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 6 - Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chuck Bammarito, representing Pinn Brothers Construction, said that Mr. and Mrs. Rocke have purchased the property. He informed the Commission that he met with Mr. Coate regarding oak tree #1 and mitigation measures were discussed to protect the oak tree with the installation of the circular driveway. He said that he recently found out that the circular driveway is proposed to be eliminated. He suggested that the condition be modified such that the horseshoe driveway is to be resolved at a staff level and with the city arborist to mitigate any impacts to existing trees. He noted that barricades are requested to be installed around trees #1 and #2 and that he would agree to install them. He recommended that the condition relating to the circular driveway be amended to read: "The revised driveway configuration is to be submitted for review and approval by Planning staff and the city arborist. The driveway is to be constructed under the recommendation of the city arborist." In response to Commissioner Pierce's question Mr. Bammarito said that the width of the driveway is 12 feet and that it could be narrowed to 10 feet to meet the concerns of the City. He indicated that pervious pavers would be used. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Bammarito how he felt about reducing the floor area reduction by 724 square feet? Mr. Bammarito stated that he would like to retain the square footage proposed as the square footage is similar to the house next door. Commissioner Abshire felt that the preservation of the tree was essential to the approval of the '- design of the home as the trees would screen the large home. He asked which would be preferred, elimination of the circular driveway or the square footage of the home? Mr. Bammarito said that the home does not impact the trees but that the driveway may. It is his intent to mitigate the concerns of tree protection. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, said that she was interested in preservation. She asked how the homeowner would be impacted if required to use a single access driveway versus a circular driveway? Does the arborist report get implemented immediately or is the plan implemented over time? Mr. Bammarito said that the horseshoe driveway was a preferred architectural style. The arborist's mitigation measures are to ensure that once construction starts and ends, the trees are protected. Irwin van Haas project designer, addressed the circular driveway. He said that Mr. Rocke has strong feelings about the circular driveway. He noted that the design avoids the canopy of the tree(s) and that he did not believe that it would impact the tree(s). Commissioners Patrick/Siegfried moved to close the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. ,, . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Siegfried felt that the exception to the height would fit in with the design of the neighborhood. His concern was that of the circular driveway. He stated that he could support the horseshoe driveway subject to reducing the width of the driveway and incorporating the city arborist' recommendation so as not to impact the oak trees. He felt that the horseshoe driveway was an architectural feature. Commissioner Pierce said that he would like to have the applicant work with staff regarding the horseshoe driveway. Commissioner Patrick said that this was a spectacular site. She expressed concern with the size of the home given the area and its location. She also expressed concern with the existing trees. She felt that staff and the city arborist can resolve her concerns. Commissioners Bernald and Abshire concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments. Commissioner Abshire felt that too many exceptions to height are being approved. He said that he would support staff's recommendation in this case but that he would not support future height exception requests. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she would agree to hold down the size of the home to the degree possible. She expressed concern with the impact of the circular driveway to the existing trees, especially during construction. She stated that she could not support the request. Commissioner Siegfried said that reducing the size of the home from 6,000 square feet to 5,400 square feet would not be a noticeable difference. Planner Walgren said that alternatives for the location of the driveway have not been exhausted. He felt that there may be some flexibility for further arborist consideration. He clarified that the exception is not a variance. He said that the Exception Ordinance, adopted in 1992, was to be an incentive to encourage individuals to construct one story homes where the homes were all single story. The rule was not meant to apply in the larger zoning districts or in areas of town where mostly two story homes already exist. In granting an exception, it is making a finding of whether the neighborhood was all two story homes or whether two story homes are acceptable. Commissioner Pierce said that he was more concerned with placing large homes in infill areas that have small homes. This area is one with larger homes and that this home would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, he supported the design and the size of the home. Chairwoman Patrick said that she did not believe that the neighborhood supports the size of the home. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -059 WITH THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE REDESIGNED TO PROTECT THE TREES. IF IT CANNOT BE REDESIGNED TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY. ARBORIST AND STAFF, THE HORSESHOE DESIGN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1997 PAGE - 8 - IS TO BE ELIMINATED. THE MOTION FAILED ON A 3 -3 VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED; NOES: BERNALD, PATRICK, KAPLAN; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: MURAKAMI. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -059 WITH THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE REDESIGNED TO PROTECT THE TREES. IF IT CANNOT BE REDESIGNED TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY ARBORIST AND STAFF, THE HORSESHOE DESIGN IS TO BE ELIMINATED AND DENIAL OF THE EXCEPTION TO FLOOR AREA. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PIERCE AND SIEGFRIED VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried said that the home has been reduced by 700 square feet and that it may impact the design of the home. Planner Walgren said that if the floor area is reduced proportionally within the footprint of the existing building, staff would approve it prior to issuance of a building permit. If there is a substantial change in the configuration of the home, it would be brought back to the Commission as an informational item. 5. S -97 -001 - CARSON ESTATE COMPANY, QUITO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER; Request for Sign Program approval to replace the existing monument sign and tenant signs at the Quito Village Shopping Center with a new comprehensive sign design program. The shopping center is located on the south side of Cox Ave., east of Saratoga Ave., and is within a Commercial - Neighborhood zoning district. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Patrick asked if some of the signs are proposed to be wood and some metal? Planner Walgren said that the current sign program allows sand blasted wood with individual internally illuminated letters. This program proposes the same aluminum metal painted frame around each sign with a plastic background of three different colors. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the two anchor tenants not included in the uniform sign program would be included in the color scheme? Planner Walgren responded that the two anchor tenants would comply with the uniform sign program as the colors vary. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:12 p.m. Susan Bowers, sign designer, said that the sign program was one that would give the center more of a "Village" look. Commissioner Bernald asked Ms. Bowers to address the fact that each sign varies and are different in color. Ms. Bowers said that three standard colors are proposed. She said that she tried to come up with a standard color scheme for the center with the frames and letters to be of the same color. The sign program would be more consistent than what is currently being seen. To: Saratoga City Council I am a homeowner located adjacent to the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, Douglass Estates. I have reviewed the plans for 19825 Douglass Lane, that were submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. I support the appeal requesting the granting of the exception to the floor area reduction. The size of the proposed home is consistent with our neighborhood. Address 3 ( `O � cv--r Date (Printed) ��) ":)—C-A� C-1- 11 � , �S(' �- A- � To: Saratoga City Council I am a homeowner located adjacent to the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, Douglass Estates. I have reviewed the plans for 19825 Douglass Lane, that were submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. I support the appeal requesting the granting of the exception to the floor area reduction. The size of the proposed home is consistent with our neighborhood. Homeo er Signature I J-110 Date i (Printed) '4 /V To: Saratoga City Council I am a homeowner located adjacent to the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, Douglass Estates. I have reviewed the plans for 19825 Douglass Lane, that were submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. I support the appeal requesting the granting of the exception to the floor area reduction. The size of the proposed home is consistent with our neighborhood. �11�un �Ww Homeowner Signature b Address Date �Per'�'s �:eNSE�P'z (Printed) C6 To: Saratoga City Council I am a homeowner located adjacent to the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, Douglass Estates. I have reviewed the plans for 19825 Douglass Lane, that were submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. I support the appeal requesting the granting of the exception to the floor area reduction. The size of the proposed home is consistent with our neighborhood. -A!, L4 n Homeowner Signature (Printed) -FAO-� r Address 3- ll- q% Date -1 �--1%Ed/ !A: :e: I- M -H WtSC; SAKA r IhLU IJhh IL; 4Wh%UbLV6r" / Y- 1 To: Saratoga qty Council I am a homeowner located adjacent to the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, Douglass Estates. I have reviewed the plans for 19825 Douglass Lane, that were submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. I support the appeal requesting the granting of the exc n ion to the floor area reduction. The size of the proposed home is consistent with our neighborhood - -- -- Q y /q-7 Datc lm� ��. q yvo8 L/L 30b'd E96E696SIb :OI IN3Wd0lHA30 133dSH:W0NA GS:60 G6 -ZI -E0 3 712 -1997 12 :47PM FROM PBC -SARA FIELD OFFIC dO88689227 P.1 .- -- - - - - -- To. Saratoga City Council. I am a homeowner located adjacent to the Sisters of Mercy Subdivision, Douglass Estates. I have reviewed the plans for 19825 Douglass Lane, that were submitted to the City of Saratoga for Design Review. I support the appeal requesting the granting of the exception to the floor area reduction. The size of the proposed home is consistent with our neighborhood. Homeowner Signature 1041t' (41F -W vgip_ � (Printed) 10757_Tk� WWe C4 55070 Address Nvtk\ 11,14QI Date SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 7i AGENDA ITEM 5 MEETING DATE: March 19, 1997 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: Finance SUBJECT: 1996/97 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1996/97 Budget for environmental impact report work associated with the Wong/Civitaf Subdivision. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1996/97 Revenue and Appropriations Budget for the above referenced work. Also included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule. Authorization of this resolution would increase revenues and appropriations in the amount of $34,903, respectively, to cover professional service costs associated with preparing an environmental impact report for the Wong/Civitaf Subdivision. A deposit of $34,903 has been received from the developer and will be taken into revenue upon approval of this action. A supporting memorandum on the matter has been prepared by the Interim Planning Director. There is no budgetary impact to General Fund balance as a result of this action as additional revenues are balanced with additional expenditures. Fiscal Impact: Overall revenues increase by $34,903. Overall expenditures increase by $34,903. No impact to General Fund balance as revenue offsets expenditures. The unaudited fund balance as of 2128197 was: I - General Fund $3,470,140 Follow Up Actions: Post entries to system. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Unable to obtain professional services needed to prepare environmental impact report. Attachments c: \exec summ \exsm0314.97 1 O /C SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: MARCH 19, 1997 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD Cr SUBJECT: Final acceptance of subdivision public improvements within Tract 8559 (Kerwin Ranch - Phase 1) Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to grant final acceptance of the subdivision public improvements within Tract 8559. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution rescinding the previously rejected Offers of Dedication, accepting the extension of Ronnie Way into the City's publicly maintained street system, and releasing the subdivider's maintenance /warranty bond. Report Summary: The public improvements within Tract 8559 (Kerwin Ranch - Phase 1) have been satisfactorily maintained by the subdivider for the required one year maintenance /warranty period, and have passed a final inspection by City staff. Consequently, I am recommending that the City Council grant final acceptance of these improvements and assume the maintenance responsibility for them as contemplated by the Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated May 18, 1994. This can be accomplished by adopting the attached Resolution which rescinds the previously rejected Offers of Dedication made on the Final Map and which also authorizes the release of the subdivider's maintenance /warranty bond. Fiscal Impacts• There will be an incremental increase in the City's street and storm drain maintenance expenses over time as a result of adding to the inventory of City maintained streets and storm drains. Roughly 375 feet of cul -de -sac street and 370 feet of storm drain will be added to the City's infrastructure inventory. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Final acceptance of the improvements would not be granted. The improvements would continue to remain the responsibility of the subdivider to operate and maintain until whatever additional requirements the City Council may impose are satisfied. The City would continue to hold the maintenance /warranty bond. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution will be recorded and the subdivider's maintenance /warranty bond will be released. Attachments: 1. Resolution accepting improvements. 2. Site Map. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. cfU AGENDA ITEM ^�✓ MEETING DATE: March 19, 1997 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER: SUBJECT: Approval of a purchase order for $7,405 to Davco Waterproofing Services, Inc. for Civic Center roof repairs. Recommended Motion (s): 1. Move to authorize staff to issue a purchase order in the amount of $7,405 to Davco Waterproofing, Inc. of Campbell for roof repairs at the Civic Center. Report Summary: Recently, staff requested recommendations from Davco Waterproofing, Inc. to repair roof leaks at the various Civic Center buildings. For a number of years, staff has attempted through outside contracts to repair these leaks. These repairs were for the most part very short lived and each year it has been necessary to have these same leaks repaired which are located in the Community Center, the Senior Center and the Civic Theater. When Davco Waterproofing recently performed their investigation, it was discovered that these roofs had developed defects common to asphalt built -up roofing systems of their age. By following Davco's recommended repair program, the lives of the existing roofs could be extended for an additional 3 to 5 years. Staff also requested that Davco investigate the on -going problems with the City Hall roofing systems. Ever since construction was completed on the new City Hall wing, the building has been plagued by a leaking roof. Since the fall of 1992, Swenson and Associates, the General Contractor for the City Hall project, has made multiple attempts to correct a number of the roof defects in the building, which appear to be a design related problem associated with the mansard and integral gutter elements of the roof. In 1995, Swenson & Associates performed extensive water testing of the roof, and subsequently removed and replaced the entire back -side of the mansard roofing (as described in attached letters). Over the last winter, the leaks continued and new leaks developed. Staff met with Swenson & Associates to mitigate these problems and they requested that the City hire an independent roof consultant to identify the causes of the remaining leaks. Staff contacted Davco Waterproofing, Inc. who agreed at no cost to evaluate all of the leaks and to develop a scope of work to correct the defects in the roofing systems. In January of this year, Davco Waterproofing submitted proposals and a scope of work that addresses roof repairs to the Community Center, Senior Center, Theater, and City Hall facilities. Staff reviewed these reports and proposals and felt that they are both fair and should address the source of the problems in each of the different roofing systems. Staff also met with Swenson & Associates and they agreed to fund the complete amount of the repair to the City Hall Wing for $2,640 if the City agrees to a release of claim for the roofing portion of the Civic Center Project. Swenson also reviewed all of the reports and recommendations, and agrees that Davco has performed a thorough investigation of the problem and agrees with the proposed scope of work presented by Davco. Staff checked references supplied by Davco and received very favorable comments on their workmanship and excellent service. Davco has repaired and serviced roof systems for Hewlett- Packard, Raychem Co., LSI Logic Co., and IBM. Staff therefore recommends that Council authorize staff to issue a purchase order in the amount of $7,405 to Davco Waterproofing, Inc. to make the recommended roof repairs. Fiscal Impacts• Funding for this project is programmed in the adopted budget in Activity 84 (Building Maintenance), Account #4510, (Contract Services). Sufficient funds exist in this account to cover the recommended expenditure. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The recommended purchase order would not be approved, and the repair work would be postponed. This is not recommended by staff due to the nature of the leaks which will only become more extensive and costly to repair at a later date. Follow -up Actions: The purchase order will be issued. Attachments: Davco Report Swenson Letter CITY OF SARATOGA 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5151 Attn: Mr. Robert Rizzo REF: Proposed Leak Repairs Community Center Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Rizzo, January 15, 1997 DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to inspect and give our recommendations concerning repairs to your roofs. The following quote will outline the needed repairs to your roof system. It is intended that this quote provide information useful in forecasting and making decisions regarding your roofing needs. We propose to furnish all labor, materials, insurance and supervision to perform this work in a professional and timely manner. SCOPE: The repair of obvious roof system defects as noted on our inspection walk of December 19, 1996, as outlined below. 1. Six (6) reported roof leaks will be investigated and defects repaired. PRESENT CONDITIONS: This roof is composed of several separate roofing sections. All of the sections are composed of asphalt built -up systems; some with capsheet surfacing, some with gravel surfacing. At this time, the roofing sections appear to be in fair condition for their age. However, built -up roofing can deteriorate rapidly and these systems should be inspected on an annual basis. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ROOF MAINTENANCE 260 Cristich Lane a Campbell, CA 95008 a License #573663 (408) 371 -4600 a Fax (408) 371 -4606 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Center January 15, 1997 Page 2 LEAKS: We were shown six roof leaks in this building; including one in the lounge, three in the senior citizen multi - purpose roof, one in the daycare kitchen, and one in the daycare. We briefly inspected each leak area and found some obvious defects around each area. However, we require more investigation on several of these leaks to narrow down the defects that are causing the leaks. RECOMMENDATIONS• LEAK AREAS: The six roofs we were shown in this building will be thoroughly investigated and the defects will be repaired using sound roofing practices as set forth by the National Roofing Contractors' Association. LABOR: All personnel on the job site will be skilled uniformed roof mechanics. Work will be performed during arranged business hours to create the minimal amount of disturbance to you, your employees and your customers. Our only business is the repair, maintenance and servicing of commercial flat roofs. We will always take the utmost pride in our work and treat your property and personnel with care and respect at all times. MATERIALS• All materials as specified in this quote will be used consistently throughout the performance of this work. We will not substitute any materials listed without prior written authorization from you. INSURANCE• DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. is licensed, bonded, and carries full liability coverage to insure you against property damage or personal injury. CITY OF SARATOGA Community Center January 15, 1997 Page 3 SAFETY: We have implemented a 12 -point safety program as an integral part of our work method. We take every precaution to eliminate hazards from our work environment for the protection of your company and our employees. CLEAN-UP: All debris created by our work will be cleaned up and removed from your premises on a daily basis. This will include the walkways and grounds around your building. COST: All work to be performed in the best workmanlike manner for the net sum of : THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($3,520.00) Prices are based on compliance with the State of California labor laws requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage set for each county. We will warranty the labor and materials of the outlined repairs for a period of two (2) years. If these repairs fail, we will repair them at no charge to you. It is important that we clearly outline that this warranty does not extend to any or all leaks unless the leaks are in direct result of the failure of our repairs. Splits and breaks can occur, after we have completed our repair, which could cause leaks. Contractor's scope of work shall not include the identification, detection, abatement, encapsulation or removal of asbestos, or products or materials containing asbestos or similar hazardous substances. In the event that Contractor encounters any such products or materials in the course of performing its work, Contractor shall have the right to discontinue its work and remove its employees from the project until such products or materials, and any hazards connected therewith, are abated, encapsulated or removed or it is determined that no hazard exists. CITY OF SARATOGA Community Center �^ January 15, 1997 Page 4 "Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826." If I can answer any questions or be of any further service, please contact me at (408) 371 -4600. Respectfully Submitted, CHRISTO HER E. COMP ON DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES, INC. January 29, 1997 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Mr. Robert Rizzo REF: Proposed Roof Leak Repairs Community Center 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Rizzo, DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to inspect and give our recommendations concerning repairs to your roofs. The following quote will outline the needed repairs to your roof system. It is intended that this quote provide information useful in forecasting and making decisions regarding your roofing needs. We propose to furnish all labor, materials, insurance and supervision to perform this work in a professional and timely manner. SCOPE: The repair of obvious roof system defects as noted on our inspection walk of January 21, 1997, as outlined below. 1. Two (2) new roof leaks will be investigated and repaired. PRESENT CONDITIONS: This roof is composed of several separate roofing sections. All of the sections are composed of asphalt built -up systems; some with capsheet surfacing, some with gravel surfacing. At this time, the roofing sections appear to be in fair condition for their age. However, built -up roofing can deteriorate rapidly and these systems should be inspected on an annual basis. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ROOF MAINTENANCE 260 Cristich Lane a Campbell, CA 95008 a License #573663 (408) 371 -4600 a Fox (408) 371 -4606 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Center January 29, 1997 Page 2 LEAKS: We were shown two new roof leaks in this building. The first leak we were shown was in the Director of the Community Center's office above the windows. The second leak was located in the Northwest Multi - purpose Room near the sliding glass doors. Upon investigation, both of the leaks appear to be caused by a common defect on the eaves of this building. We propose to repair these two leaks. RECOMMENDATIONS• LEAKS: First we will clean each area using wire brushes, brooms and high volume air blowers. We will then brush apply asphalt primer at a rate of 1 gallon per 100 square feet over the areas being repaired. Next we will trowel and brush apply cold process adhesive over the area. Polyester cored. roofing felts will be embedded into the adhesive. A second layer of adhesive will be applied over the felt to ensure there are no voids. When the repair has cured we will brush apply an aluminized asphalt emulsion over the entire repair to provide a reflective surface. LABOR: All personnel on the job site will be skilled uniformed roof mechanics. Work will be performed during arranged business hours to create the minimal amount of disturbance to you, your employees and your customers. Our only business is the repair, maintenance and servicing of commercial flat roofs. We will always take the utmost pride in our work and treat your property and personnel with care and respect at all times. MATERIALS• All materials as specified in this quote will be used consistently throughout the performance of this work. We will not substitute any materials listed without prior written authorization from you. CITY OF SARATOGA Community Center January 29, 1997 Page 3 INSURANCE• DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. is licensed, bonded, and carries full liability coverage to insure you against property damage or personal injury. SAFETY: We have implemented a 12 -point safety program as an integral part of our work method. We take every precaution to eliminate hazards from our work environment for the protection of your company and our employees. CLEAN-UP: All debris created by our work will be cleaned up and removed from your premises on a daily basis. This will include the walkways and grounds around your building. COST: All work to be performed in the best workmanlike manner for the net sum of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($1,180.00) Prices are based on compliance with the State of California labor laws requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage set for each county. We will warranty the labor and materials of the outlined repairs for a period of two (2 ) years. If these repairs fail, we will repair them at no charge to you. It is important that we clearly outline that this warranty does not extend to any or all leaks unless the leaks are in direct result of the failure of our repairs. Splits and breaks can occur, after we have completed our repair, which could cause leaks. Contractor's scope of work shall not include the identification, detection, abatement, encapsulation or removal of asbestos, or products or materials containing asbestos or similar hazardous substances. In the event that Contractor encounters any such CITY OF SARATOGA Community Center �. January 29, 1997 Page 4 products or materials in the course of performing its work, Contractor shall have the right to discontinue its work and remove its employees from the project until such products or materials, and any hazards connected therewith, are abated, encapsulated or removed or it is determined that no hazard exists. "Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826." If I can answer any questions or be of any further service, please contact me at (408) 371 -4600. Respectfully Submitted, CHRISTOPHER E. COMPTON DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES, INC. �•M LVITZ ! 1.1 N •.• CITY OF SARATOGA 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5151 Attn: Mr. Robert Rizzo REF: Proposed Leak Repairs Theater Building Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Rizzo, 0 January 15, 1997 DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to inspect and give our recommendations concerning repairs to your roofs. The following quote will outline the needed repairs to your roof system. It is intended that this quote provide information useful in forecasting and making decisions regarding your roofing needs. We propose to furnish all labor, materials, insurance and supervision to perform this work in a professional and timely manner. SCOPE: The repair of obvious roof system defects as noted on our inspection walk of December 19, 1996, as outlined below. 1. Two (2) reported roof leaks will be investigated and defects repaired. PRESENT CONDITIONS: This roof is composed of an asphalt built -up roof with a capsheet surfacing. This roof is in fair to poor condition for its age. r -Wart. We were shown two leak areas on the inside; one leak at each end of the auditorium stage by explosion hatches. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ROOF MAINTENANCE 260 Cristich Lane a Campbell, CA 95008 e License #573663 (408) 371 -4600 a Fax (408) 371 -4606 CITY OF SARATOGA Theater Building January 15, 1997 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS• LEAK AREAS: Each leak area consists of one drain and one explosion hatch. Each drain will be thoroughly cleaned of all dust and dirt. Any openings found will be repaired. A neoprene flashing compound will be applied to the drain. A fiberglass membrane will be embedded into the neoprene, extending into the drain bowl and 3" onto the roof surface. Each explosion hatch will have counterflashing installed around it to prevent rain from blowing into the building. The top edge of the counterflashing will be sealed with urethane caulk. LABOR: All personnel on the job site will be skilled uniformed roof mechanics. Work will be performed during arranged business hours to create the minimal amount of disturbance to you, your employees and your customers. Our only business is the repair, maintenance and servicing of commercial flat roofs. We will always take the utmost pride in our work and treat your property and personnel with care and respect at all times. MATERIALS• All materials as specified in this quote will be used consistently throughout the performance of this work. We will not substitute any materials listed without prior written authorization from you. INSURANCE: DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. is licensed, bonded, and carries full liability coverage to insure you against property damage or personal injury. SAFETY: We have implemented a 12 -point safety program as an integral part of our work method. We take every precaution to eliminate hazards from our work environment for the protection of your company and our employees. CITY OF SARATOGA Theater Building January 15, 1997 Page 3 CLEAN-UP: All debris created by our work will be cleaned up and removed from your premises on a daily basis. This will include the walkways and grounds around your building. COST: All work to be performed in the best workmanlike manner for the net sum of EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY -FIVE DOLLARS ($885.00) Prices are based on compliance with the State of California labor laws requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage set for each county. We will warranty the labor and materials of the outlined repairs for a period of two (2) years. If these repairs fail, we will repair them at no charge to you. It is important that we clearly outline that this warranty does not extend to any or all leaks unless the leaks are in direct result of the failure of our repairs. Splits and breaks can occur, after we have completed our repair, which could cause leaks. Contractor's scope of work shall not include the identification, detection, abatement, encapsulation or removal of asbestos, or products or materials containing asbestos or similar hazardous substances. In the event that Contractor encounters any such products or materials in the course of performing its work, Contractor shall have the right to discontinue its work and remove its employees from the project until such products or materials, and any hazards connected therewith, are abated, encapsulated or removed or it is determined that no hazard exists. "Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826." CITY OF SARATOGA Theater Building January 15, 1997 Page 4 If I can answer any questions or be of any further service, please contact me at (408) 371 -4600. Respectfully Submitted, C. a " �- CHRIS OPHER E. COMPTON DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES, INC. WATE January 15, 1997 CITY OF SARATOGA 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5151 Attn: Mr. Bob Rizzo REF: Proposed Leak Repairs Planning Wing Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Rizzo, DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to inspect and give our recommendations concerning repairs to your roofs. The following quote will outline the needed repairs to your roof system. It is intended that this quote provide information useful in forecasting and making decisions regarding your roofing needs. We propose to furnish all labor, materials, insurance and supervision to perform this work in a professional and timely manner. SCOPE: The repair of obvious roof system defects as noted on our inspection walk of December 19, 1996, as outlined below. 1. Three (3) reported roof leaks will be investigated and defects repaired. PRESENT CONDITIONS: This roof consists of an asphalt composition shingle system on the steeped portions as well as the perimeter mansards. The perimeter drainage valley consists of an asphalt built -up system with capsheet surfacing. Both of these systems are installed over a wood deck and are in good condition for their age. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ROOF MAINTENANCE 260 Cristich Lane � Campbell, CA 95008 a License #573663 (408) 371 -4600 a Fax (408) 371 -4606 CITY OF SARATOGA Planning Wing January 15, 1997 Page 2 r.Fnx.Q We were shown three known roof leaks along the north wall of the building. Upon a brief investigation of these leaks, we were unable to determine their exact cause. It appears that these leaks may be caused by defects at or near the roof drains. We have reviewed a copy of the letter written November 19, 1996 by Mr. Van Warren of Swenson & Associates. In this letter, they recommend that the drains along the wall be dismantled, cleaned, and then reassembled. We agree with this recommendation, however more repairs may be necessary to stop these leaks. The size of the drains may not be sufficient to handle all of the run -off that collects off of this roof. This could also be a condensation problem in the soffet area. RECOMMENDATIONS: LEAK AREAS: The three leak areas along the north wall of this building will be repaired in the following manner: First, we will disassemble each of the drains and soften the hot asphalt around each drain with a propane torch. While the asphalt is soft, we will scrape away the excess. We will then trowel - apply a modified SBS flashing compound in the area. We will then reassemble the drain clamping system. We will also thoroughly investigate the composition shingle installation at each leak area. Any defects found will be repaired using sound roofing practices as set forth by the National Roofing Contractors' Association. We cannot guarantee that these procedures will stop these leaks, and more repairs may be necessary should problems persist. LABOR: All personnel on the job site will be skilled uniformed roof mechanics. Work will be performed during arranged business hours to create the minimal amount of disturbance to you, your employees and your customers. Our only business is the repair, maintenance and servicing of commercial flat roofs. We will always take the utmost pride in our work and treat your property and personnel with care and respect at all times. CITY OF SARATOGA Planning Wing C January 15, 1997 Page 3 MATERIALS• All materials as specified in this quote throughout the performance of this work. materials listed without prior written INSURANCE• will be used consistently We will not substitute any authorization from you. DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. is licensed, bonded, and carries full liability coverage to insure you against property damage or personal injury. SAFETY: We have implemented a 12 -point safety program as an integral part of our work method. We take every precaution to eliminate hazards from our work environment for the protection of your company and our employees. CLEAN-UP: All debris created by our work will be cleaned up and removed from your premises on a daily basis. This will include the walkways and grounds around your building. COST: All work to be performed in the best workmanlike manner for the net sum of TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($2,640.00) Prices are based on compliance with the State of California labor laws requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage set for each county. We will warranty the labor and materials of the outlined repairs for a period of two (2) years. If these repairs fail, we will repair them at no charge to you. It is important that we clearly outline that this warranty does not extend to any or all leaks CITY OF SARATOGA Planning Wing January 15, 1997 Page 4 unless the leaks are in direct result of the failure of our repairs. Splits and breaks can occur, after we have completed our repair, which could cause leaks. Contractor's scope of work shall not include the identification, detection, abatement, encapsulation or removal of asbestos, or products or materials containing asbestos or similar hazardous substances. In the event that Contractor encounters any such products or materials in the course of performing its work, Contractor shall have the right to discontinue its work and remove its employees from the project until such products or materials, and any hazards connected therewith, are abated, encapsulated or removed or it is determined that no hazard exists. "Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826." If I can answer any questions or be of any further service, please contact me at (408) 371 -4600. Respectfully Submitted, CHRIS OPHER E. COMPTON DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES, INC. CITY OF SARATOGA I LATIM 12 N •.• : \ , CITY OF SARATOGA 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5151 Attn: Mr. Bob Rizzo REF: Proposed Roof Repairs Administration Building Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Rizzo, January 15, 1997 DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to inspect and give our recommendations concerning repairs to your. roofs. The following quote will outline the needed repairs to your roof system. It is intended that this quote provide information useful in forecasting and making decisions regarding your roofing needs. We propose to furnish all labor, materials, insurance and supervision to perform this work in a professional and timely manner. SCOPE: The repair of obvious roof system defects as noted on our inspection walk of January 15, 1997, as outlined below. 1. Three (3) reported roof leaks will be investigated and defects repaired. PRESENT CONDITIONS: This roof is composed of an asphalt built -up system with capsheet surfacing installed over a plywood deck. The perimeter mansard is covered with asphalt composition shingles. At this time, both of these systems appear to be in good condition. LEAKS: We were shown three roof leaks on this building. Two of these leaks appear to be caused by openings along the top edge of the COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ROOF MAINTENANCE 260 Cristich Lane 11 Campbell, CA 95008 " License #573663 (408) 371 -4600 3 Fax (408) 371 -4606 CITY OF SARATOGA Administration Wing January 15, 1997 Page 2 sheetmetal counterflashing that is supposed to seal the top edge of the A/C flashing. The other leak is located along the east wall of the building. We were informed of the past attempts to stop this leak, including replacement of the surface mounted reglet and counterflashing system. Upon investigation, we feel that this leak is caused by poor sealing of the sheetmetal drainage valley around the perimeter, as well as the perimeter scuppers. We propose to properly repair these defects. RECOMMENDATIONS• LEAK AREAS: The counterflashing on the A/C units cannot be properly sealed in the existing conditions. The units must be removed to properly seal the top edge of the curb. We will be gladly seal the counterflashing after the units have been removed. The joints in the perimeter drainage will be sealed in the following manner: First, we will thoroughly clean each area using wire brushes and • high volume air blower. Next, we will prime each joint extending • minimum of 2" past the edges of the existing repair at a rate of one gallon per 100 sf. Next, we will brush apply acrylic gel approximately 1/8" thick over the joint. We will then embed 6" polyester membrane into the gel. A second coat of gel will be applied at the same rate as the first to ensure that there are no voids. The scuppers along the perimeter will be repaired in the same manner as the perimeter joints. In addition, we will also caulk the outside of the scupper where it meets the downspout.. MATERIALS: All materials as specified in this quote will be used consistently throughout the performance of this work. We will not substitute any materials listed without prior written authorization from you. INSURANCE• DAVCO WaterpROOFING Services, Inc. is licensed, bonded, and carries full liability coverage to insure you against property damage or personal injury. CITY OF SARATOGA �- Administration Wing January 15, 1997 Page 3 SAFETY: We have implemented a 12 -point safety program as an integral part of our work method. We take every precaution to eliminate hazards from our work environment for the protection of your company and our employees. CLEAN -UP: All debris created by our work will be cleaned up and removed from your premises on a daily basis. This will include the walkways and grounds around your building. COST: All work to be performed in the best workmanlike manner for the net sum of ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($1,320.00) Prices are based on compliance with the State of California labor laws requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage set for each county. We will warranty the labor and materials of the outlined repairs for a period of two (2) years. If these repairs fail, we will repair them at no charge to you.. It is important that we clearly outline that this warranty does not extend to any or all leaks unless the leaks are in direct result of the failure of our repairs. Splits and breaks can occur, after we have completed our repair, which could cause leaks. Contractor's scope of work shall not include the identification, detection, abatement, encapsulation or removal of asbestos, or products or materials containing asbestos or similar hazardous substances. In the event that Contractor encounters any such products or materials in the course of performing its work, Contractor shall have the right to discontinue its work and remove its employees from the project until such products or materials, and any hazards connected therewith, are abated, encapsulated or removed or it is determined that no hazard exists. CITY OF SARATOGA Administration Wing January 15, 1997 Page 4 "Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826." If I can answer any questions or be of any further service, please contact me at (408) 371 -4600. Respectfully Submitted, CHRIST PHER E. COMP ON DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES, INC. SWENSON & ASSOCIATES 470 VANDELL WAY, SUITE A November 1, 1995 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 City of Saratoga Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 TEL 408.866.7600 FAx 408.866.7692 Attn: Larry Perlin STATE LICENSE N0.493666 Re: Saratoga Civic Center Roof Leak Repair Dear Larry: In May of this year we performed extensive water testing at the east end of the Planning Wing (original building) and the new Administration Wing. We now are confident that we have found the sources of the leaks which have inconvenienced you and your staff since the fall of 1992. We have attached a copy of field notes kept while water testing. All the leaks which were reviewed with you and your staff, as new and continuing leaks, were numbered and plotted on a sketched roof plan for cross - referencing. These notes explain the apparent cause of each leak and then briefly describes our intended resolutions. As you already know, the majority of leaks have been in the new Administration Wing. And, with the exception of two electrical pipe penetrations, the greatest number of leaks, we believe, originate from and through the back -sides of the mansard. Per the original Detail 14.09 (attached), the vertical back -side wall of the mansard was to be one layer of 5/8° exterior A/C plywood, over Tyvek vapor barrier, over framing. A sheet metal mansard cap flashing was installed at the top of the mansard. But, instead of installing the detailed "Z - bar" sheet metal reglet to counter flash the built - up roofing base course, the detail was modified, through the submittal process, to facilitate the use of a "pin -on" reglet counter flashing. In short, the battened plywood joints are leaking, the water is making its way through same and draining down the Tyvek vapor barrier. Without the "Z - bar" reglet to intercept same, the water finds its way into the building. It is our opinion that this is the primary source of leaks in the Admin. Wing. To alleviate the aforementioned leak, we offer to perform the following work (for leak #'s3 -9and 12 -16): 1. Demo & remove the existing mansard flashing, plywood butt -joint battens, G E N E R A L mansard vents and reglet counter flashing. E N G I N E E R I N G 2. Use the existing plywood as a substrate; and repair as needed A N D B U I L D I N G C 0 N T R A C T 0 R November 1, 1995 Mr. Larry Perlin Page Two 3. Install a new Z -bar reglet on the plywood similar to the original detail to counter flash the built -up roof base course 4. Install new "eyebrow" vents 5. Install a layer of building paper, insuring that the first course will lap the new reglet 6. Install a 24 year composition shingle roof on the mansard backsides 7. And finally, install new mansard sheet metal cap flashing; and paint same The above outlined method has been verbally reviewed and approved for use by Wayne Holland, formally of HED, Architects. It is our intent to proceed at the City's earliest convenience with this remedial work. We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to coordinate this work. Time is of the essence now that we are entering the rainy season. Please contact us upon receipt of this letter. Please be advised that nothing contained herein shall be deemed an admission of liability by Swenson and Associates. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Van Warren Project Manager 11 -19 -1996 11:57AH FROH SWENSON /ASSOCIATES 4088667692 P.2 SWENSON & ASSOCIATES 470 VANDEII WAY, SUITE A April 15, 1996 CaN+rOCII; CA 85008 City of Saratoga Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TEL406.aes.760o Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX 408.866.7692 Attn: Larry Perlin Re: Saratoga Civic Center STATE LICENSE No. 493666 S & A Job No. 312 Roof Leak Repair Dear Larry: Per our letter dated 11.01.95, we have completed extensive roof repairs on The Administration Building at the Saratoga Civic Center. Unfortunately, since that work has been completed, we have been advised by your Maintenance Dept. (i.e_ Bob Rizzo) that the new building continues to leak. We have spent over $10,000 trying to, resolve roof leaks since the completion of the initial construction of same. This has included the utilization of our own roof consultant to aid us in trying to find the reported leaks. We can now no longer justify any further expense without a logical understanding of the cause of the leaks which can be assigned as our responsibility. Therefore, Swenson & Associates respectfully requests that The City of Saratoga hire another unbiased roof consultant to identify the exact cause of any remaining leaks. Upon receipt of a copy of your constultant's report, we will review same and respond accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Van Warren Project Manager G E N E R A +, E N G I N E E R I N G A N p V u I l D 1 N G C 0 N 7 N A C T 0 R SWENSON & ASSOCIATES 470 VANDELL WAY, SUITE A November 19, 1996 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 Mr. Larry Perlin City of Saratoga Department of Public Works TEL 408.866.7600 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax 408.866.7692 Re: Saratoga Civic Center STATE LICENSE N0.493666 S & A Job No. 312 Roof Leak Repair Dear Larry: Per our previous letter dated 4.15.96, our position on roof leaks at the new Administration Building remains unchanged. However, we have continued in good faith to pursue the leak which has persisted over the open office area in the Planning Wing, across the hall from the Planning Conference Room. At this time, please be reminded that the built -up roofing system and all its components at the Planning Wing were removed and replaced 'in kind' as directed by the City of Saratoga. The only change made was the addition of plywood crickets to enhance positive drainage. It is our belief that the leak is occurring at the seal between the roofing materials and the roof drain device located above the aforementioned area in the Planning Wing. Apparently, the number of fiberglass plys and hot mop installation required by the City's roof inspector could not be sealed to the roof device adequately. Basically, the inspector's roofing directives created too much material for the drain clamp ring to compress; and the use of hot mop materials, which are not pliable over time, made a proper seal between roof materials and the drain device impossible to achieve. In essence, the hardened, over - thickened 'sandwich' of roof plys at the drain was more than the drain -ring could accommodate. Now, a similar leak has been reported at the roof drain over the Director of Planning Administrative Assistant's open office area. We have been advised by a reputable roofing contractor that cutting the roof at the drain locations and trying to splice in a 'butt- jointed' patch job is very risky. We therefore propose to perform a one -time grate removal, drain clean -up and 'seal' patching procedure (to be determined after clean -up) at these drains as soon as possible. Upon completion, we will outline the exact procedure for your future reference. Before proceeding, we want to make it clear that our efforts may not resolve the G E N E R A L leak(s) on a permanent basis. These drains, along with others, need annual cleaning E N G I N E E R land periodic roof maintenance. At which time these leaks re -occur or others start A N C 0 U I L 0 1 N G C O N T R A C T O R November 19, 1996 Mr. Larry Perlin Page Two leaking for the first time, the City will have to perform similar repairs to resolve same. If the City has another method that they wish for us to proceed with, please advise us of same so that we can give it our consideration. We look forward to your response. Please call if you have any questions. VPW:me cc: Robert Rizzo, City of Saratoga Sincerely, LLat-k�� Van Warren Project Manager