Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-16-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS
t.� CITY OF SARATOGA. Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 22 Dept. Hd. DATE: January 16, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Communitv Services SUBJECT: Permit Procedure for Parades and Footraces Issue Summary C. C. Mgr. A need for establishing a procedure for processing special event permit application procedures for parades, footraces, etc. has developed,. The procedure would identify administrative responsibilities, together with fee, deposit, and insurance requirements. Recommendation Conceptual approval of the staff recommendations identified in the I attached report (under the heading "recommendations ") is requested. Staff will then return to Council with the administrative and legal instruments necessary to implement the policy. .,i Fiscal Impacts An estimated $500 in additional revenue per year would result from the $25 filing fee (based on 20 such events per year). Undetermined additional savings would result from the $500 cleanup deposit and insurance requirements. Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit A - "Survey of Other Cities" Council Action 1/16: Discussed and made.suggestions. J Iti� U A 'A O �t. CITY of = � ' ATOGA 2 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 1/09/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/16/85 SUBJECT: Foot Race and Parade Permit Procedures --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PURPOSE Conceptual approval of a procedure for processing applications for parades and foot races is requested. The procedure was developed in response to Council's request after seventeen (17 ) other similar California cities were surveyed with regard to their procedures. The findings of the study, together with the recommendations of staff, follow. ANALYSIS In September, 1984, Council directed staff to examine the parade and foot race permit procedures used in other similar California communities and develop some procedures for the City of Saratoga. The Council was especially interested in establishing administrative fee and cleanup deposit requirements for such activities as parades, 10K runs, and other similar events potentially requiring the temporary closure of a public road or traffic lane. Currently, no such formal administrative procedure exists in the City. Methodology A distinguishing characteristic of Saratoga is that it is a medium -sized City which contracts for police services. Such contract cities process their special event permit requests differently than do cities which operate their own police departments. A total of seventeen (17) cities with populations in excess of 30,000 which contract for police services (excluding Saratoga) were identified out of a total of 143 California communities with populations in excess of 30,000. Each of these cities was contacted and asked to provide a copy of their administrative guidelines regulating special events. Over half, nine (9), responded. Report to Mayor and City Council Findings Page 2 Based on an analysis of the responses to the survey, it was determined that the procedures used for processing special event requests differs significantly from community to community. Approximately half of the respondents have adopted ordinances which regulate special events, while the other half handle them administratively. Six (6) of the nine (9) approved special event permits at the staff level, while the remainder required City Council approval. Frequently, staff approval was done with "Council concurrence ", and permit applicants had the right -of- appeal to the City Council. In most classes, non - profit organizations can have their filing fees waived. This is usually done at the discretion of the City Manager. Special event permit fees range from $10 (Thousand Oaks) to $500 (Rancho Palos Verde) when charged. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended by staff that the Council approve in concept the following procedures: A. Filing of Application for Permit 1. Requests for special event permits will be required 90 days before the proposed scheduled date of the activity. 2. The Community Services Department will coordinate the processing of the permit requests within the City. 3. The City Manager will be authorized to modify or waive the 90 day processing requirement. B. Fees and Deposits 1. A non - refundable $25 filing fee will be required with each application. 2. A totally refundable $500 cleanup deposit will be required. 3. An insurance certificate for $300,000 naming the City of Saratoga as additionally insured will be required. 4. Permit applicants will be responsible for security at their events. Security and traffic control expenses incurred by the City will be billed to the event sponsors. Report to Mayor and City Council C. Approvals /Denials Page 3 1. The City Manager will have the authority to approve or deny permit applications, with Council concurrence. 2. The City Manager will be authorized to waive any fee and deposit requirements at his discretion. 3. Permit applicants will have the right to appeal the decision of the City Manager and request a hearing before the City Council. D. Intergovernmental Coordination 1. The Community Services Department will be responsible for coordinating permit requests with the following other public agencies: (a) Santa Clara County Sheriff (b) Saratoga Fire District (c) County Central Fire District (d) County Transit Agency (e) California Highway Patrol (f) California Department of Transportation 2. Each of the above public agencies will be given twenty (20) days upon which to comment on a permit application and will be notified of the final action taken on the permit request. E. Legality 1. Each of the above items may be automatically waived when a special event or parade constitutes an expression of free speech which is Constitutionally protected. CONCLUSION As Saratoga has grown, a need to establish a more formalized special event permit processing procedure for parades and foot races has developed. The procedure recommended by staff would provide a more efficient mechanism of processing such requests. Staff is seeking only conceptual approval of the parade and foot race permit processing procedure at this time. If conceptual approval is granted, staff will return to Council with the legal and administrative instruments necessary to imple- ment the proposed procedure. Todd W. Argo Community Services Director EXHIBIT "A" SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES* SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES Cities Camarillo Lakewood Lancaster LaPuente (Each request is considered on its individual merit.) Lynwood Norwalk Poway Rancho Palos Verdes Thousand Oaks Population Camarillo 38,000 Lakewood 75,000 Lancaster 48,000 LaPuente 31,000 Lynwood 49,000 Norwalk 85,000 Poway 33,000 Rancho Palos Verdes 35,000 Thousand Oaks 78,000 Lead Department Camarillo Lakewood Lancaster LaPuente Lynwood Norwalk Poway for Processing Requests Planning & Community Development Dept. Rancho Palos Verdes Thousand Oaks Approval Authority Camarillo Lakewood Lancaster LaPuente Lynwood Norwalk Poway Rancho Palos Verdes Thousand Oaks City Clerk's Office City Manager's Office City Manager Building Dept. Planning & Development Dept. Planning Dept. Leisure Services Dept. City Clerk's Office Lead Department Director City Council City Manager City Council Lead Department Director City Administrator City Council Lead Department Director City Manager 1 Routinely Presented to Council? Camarillo Yes & No, Lakewood Yes Lancaster Yes LaPuente Yes Lynwood No Norwalk No Poway Yes Rancho Palos Verdes No Thousand Oaks No (Parade requests are routinely presented to the Council, but 10K runs & similar events generally are not.) Ordinance Governing Approval Procedure? Camarillo No Lakewood Yes Lancaster Yes LaPuente No Lynwood No Norwalk Yes Poway Yes Rancho Palos Verdes No (However, the "administrative policy" regulating special events has been officially Thousand Oaks Yes ratified by Council Resolution.) Is there an Appeal Procedure? Camarillo No Lakewood No Lancaster Yes LaPuente No Lynwood No Norwalk Yes Poway None specified Rancho Palos Verdes No Thousand Oaks No 2 Are Fees Charged? Amount? Camarillo No (Fees are only charged when it Yes Lancaster is anticipated that extraordinary LaPuente No expenses" will be incurred. The No Norwalk same applies to cleaning deposits. Lakewood No Rancho Palos Verdes Lancaster No Yes LaPuente No Lynwood Yes, $65 non - refundable filing fee Norwalk Yes, $1 public permit, $100 business license, $25 application fee, $1,000 refundable surety bond Poway Yes $100. (A cleanup deposit may also be required. The amount varies depending on the nature of the event and the track record of the event sponsor. It is usually under $500.) Rancho Palos Verdes Yes, Between $100. to $500 for private uses only (Cleanup deposit may be required.) Thousand Oaks Yes, $10 filing fee Fees generally waived for non - profit? Camarillo Yes Lakewood Yes Lancaster Yes LaPuente No Lynwood No Norwalk Yes (Generally, the City Adminintrator waives fees for non - profit groups. Poway Yes Rancho Palos Verdes Yes (Fees automatically waived for designated non - profit groups.) Thousand Oaks No Sponsor pays separately for police services? Camarillo No Lakewood No Lancaster No LaPuente Varies Lynwood No Norwalk Yes Poway No Rancho Palos Verdes Yes (Police services are billed separately and deducted from deposit.) Thousand Oaks Yes Is there an application form? Camarillo Yes Lakewood Yes Lancaster No LaPuente No Lynwood No Norwalk Yes Poway Yes Rancho Palos Verdes Yes Thousand Oaks Yes 3 Name of Permit Camarillo Lakewood Lancaster LaPuente Lynwood Norwalk Thousand Oaks Special Event Permit Parade Registration Parade Permit no Road Closure Permit Business License & Parade Permit Parade Permit & Encroachment Permit *17 California Cities with populations in excess of 30,000 which contract for police services were identified and contacted; of those, the nine (9) above responded. (The actual response forms are available upon request.) 4 // // 6 CITY OF SARATOC'A AGENDA BILL N0. LSO DATE: January 8, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Award of Bid for City Trucks Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd.�.%, C. Atty. C. Mgr. ktk- The 1984 -85 Capital Improvement Budgetincluded an allocation of $21,463 for the purchase of two trucks for the Parks Division. The specifications called for one truck to be mid -sized with utility box and one standard -sized 1/2 ton with long bed. Staff submitted bid specifi- cations to agencies in the area who could provide these types of vehicles., Three bids were received from Lowell Honda -GNU, Frontier Ford, and South Bay Ford. South Bay Ford was the low bidder, submitting a bid'of,:$18',348.41 for.the two trucks, less trade -ins and including sales tax. A bid summary is attached for your review. Recommendation Award truck bid to South Bay Ford Truck Sales in the amount of $18,348.41. Fiscal Impacts A total of $21,.463 was budgeted in the 1984-85 Capital Improvement Budget,for these two vehicles. Awarding a bid of $18,348.41 will provide a savings.of $3,114.59, a portion of which will be used to purchase tool boxes for the 1/2 'ton pickup and defray the costs of removal and installing of the radios. Exhibits /Attachments Bid Summary Council Action 1/16: Awarded according to staff recommendation,. 5 -0. BID SUMMARY - TRUCKS - January 7, 1985 I. Cost of New Trucks 21,463 II. Amount for Trade -In III. Net Cost Sales Tax IV. TOTAL *Bid $19,111.69 (error in figures as submitted). rM Lowell Honda 20,224.00 1,000.00 19,224.00 1,314.56 $20,538.56 Frontier Ford 18,844.22 1,000.00 17,844.22 1,227.47 *$19,071.69 South Bav Ford 15-;- 637.00 1,500.00 17,137.00 1,211.41 $18,348.41 CITY OF SlUUM GA �� 7 Initial: AGa,D\ BILL ISO. Dept. Hd. DATE: January 7, 1985 C. Atty. DEPART,%UM: City Attorney C. Mgr. --------------------------------------------------------------------=--------- - - - - -- S=.CT: RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT ----------------------------------------------- --- -------- ------------------------------ Issue Sunrury The employment contract with the City Attorney expired as of January 1, 1985. The City Attorney has prepared a renewal contract which is identical in all respects to the prior agreement. There has been no increase in any fees or-charges or change in the description of services set forth.in the contract. Recommendation Adoption of resolution approving renewal agreement with City Attorney and authorizing the Mayor to-execute the same. Fiscal Impacts The retainer amount and hourly charges of the City Attorney have not been changed. With the settlement of most of the Measure A lawsuits, the litigation costs attributable to Measure A should be substantially below the amount expended during prior years: However, this decrease will be more than offset by the project of redrafting and republishing the City Code, which the City Attorney hopes to complete during 1985. The amount budgeted for legal services has been increased to reflect the cost of this project. Ddz ibits /A ttach-ren is Co:incil Action (a) Resolution for adoption by City Council; (b) Proposed renewal contract 1/16: Adopted Resolution 2205 approving agreement and authorized Mayor to execute, 5-0. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT THEREFOR RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. That the proposal for rendering legal services to the City of Saratoga submitted by the law firm of Atkinson - Farasyn, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby approved and accepted. 2. That the Mayor be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Saratoga. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular • meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1985, by the following vote: AYES: N OES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk .7 MAYO To: The Honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) We offer and agree to continue our representation of the City of Saratoga as City Attorney and to provide the services required by law to be provided by a City Attorney, and to assist the City of Saratoga in the conduct of its legal affairs. Our services shall include the following: 1. To attend monthly meetings and conferences as follows: (a) Two regular Council meetings; (b) Two regular Planning Commission meetings; (c) Four mornings to be present at City Hall for agenda meetings and conferences and consultations with staff members as may be necessary. If any one of the above meetings or conferences is not held, another meeting or conference may be substituted in its place, the intention of the parties being that at least four meetings and four morning conferences per month will be attended. 2. To provide the Council, its planning commissioners, officers, agents and employees with telephonic advice and opinions relating to City business upon request by the City Council, Planning Commission or City Manager. 3. To assist the City Council, its planning commissioners and staff in drafting ordinances, rules, regulations and resolutions relating to the conduct of the City business. 4. For services to be rendered pursuant to Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, including related services of a clerical nature, our compensation shall be the sum of $2,275 per month for the first thirty five (35) hours of- attorney time expended for each month of service, commencing with January 1, 1985, and every month thereafter during the pendency of our term of service to the City, except as further hereinafter provided. • The City shall make monthly contributions on Paul B. Smith's personal behalf and in the appropriate amount to the State of California Public Employees ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW • PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET ERIC L. FARASYN P.O. BOX 279 LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 GREGORY A. MANCHUK (415) 967 -6941 STEVEN G. BAIRD ALEXANDER J. TRAFICANTI January 7, 1985 PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT To: The Honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) We offer and agree to continue our representation of the City of Saratoga as City Attorney and to provide the services required by law to be provided by a City Attorney, and to assist the City of Saratoga in the conduct of its legal affairs. Our services shall include the following: 1. To attend monthly meetings and conferences as follows: (a) Two regular Council meetings; (b) Two regular Planning Commission meetings; (c) Four mornings to be present at City Hall for agenda meetings and conferences and consultations with staff members as may be necessary. If any one of the above meetings or conferences is not held, another meeting or conference may be substituted in its place, the intention of the parties being that at least four meetings and four morning conferences per month will be attended. 2. To provide the Council, its planning commissioners, officers, agents and employees with telephonic advice and opinions relating to City business upon request by the City Council, Planning Commission or City Manager. 3. To assist the City Council, its planning commissioners and staff in drafting ordinances, rules, regulations and resolutions relating to the conduct of the City business. 4. For services to be rendered pursuant to Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, including related services of a clerical nature, our compensation shall be the sum of $2,275 per month for the first thirty five (35) hours of- attorney time expended for each month of service, commencing with January 1, 1985, and every month thereafter during the pendency of our term of service to the City, except as further hereinafter provided. • The City shall make monthly contributions on Paul B. Smith's personal behalf and in the appropriate amount to the State of California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Paul B. Smith shall make corresponding monthly contribu- tions to PERS on his personal behalf and in the appropriate amount. This provision of the agreement shall inure solely to Paul B. Smith's personal benefit. This contribution shall be in addition to said basic monthly contribution. 5. Any services rendered under Sections 1, 2 and 3 above in excess of thirty five (35) hours per month will automatically be rendered by the City Attorney at the hourly rates set forth in Paragraph 7 hereafter. 6. Additional legal services - At the direction of the City Council, Planning Commission or City Manager, the City Attorney may render the following additional services: (a) Attending meetings or conferences in excess of those specified in Section 1 above, except as otherwise herein provided; (b) Proceedings for annexation or exclusion of territory to or from the City of Saratoga, including auxiliary. proceedings such as appearances before the Local Agency Formation Commission and /or proceedings related to matters within the jurisdiction of said Commission; (c) Any proceeding relating to special joint powers agreements, except that a review of such agreements shall be included within the services rendered for the monthly retainer set forth Oin Section 4; (d) Any proceeding for financing of public improvements, whether by general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or special assess- ment and assessment bond proceedings, or by way of sale or lease agreements, including but not limited to, property owners or voters meetings and committee and staff meetings; (e) Any proceedings requiring litigation, other than validating pro- ceedings, deemed necessary and recommended by us, including proceedings in eminent domain and including proceedings relating to the enforcement of the ordinances and regulations adopted by the City; (f) Any proceedings relating to claims against the City arising under its liability insurance policies; (g) Any services beyond those normally provided which are necessary to qualify for any loan or for the sale of any bonds to the State of California or the federal Government, or to any agency, division or department thereof. (h) Any services rendered in connection with the preparation, redrafting, or review of any major existing ordinance or any proposed new major ordinance, or any major chapter of any title of the Saratoga Municipal Code, and the clerical services Srelated therewith. • 7. For any services in excess of thirty five (35) hours per month or any additional services as described in Section 6 or not expressly covered by the terms of this agreement which we are directed to perform and agree to render for or on behalf of the City, we will be compensated at the rate of $70 per hour for attorney time on all matters and $20 per hour for secretarial services rendered in connection with Section 6(h) above. In any event, over and above the agreed -upon fee, the City shall reimburse actual costs related to the performance of our services. 8. This renewal agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing as of January 1, 1985. Thirty (30) days written notice of termination shall be given by either party. All work in progress on date notice is given shall be satisfactorily completed. • Approved and Accepted CITY OF SARATOGA By VIRGINIA LADEN FANELLI, Mayor S" I B" STEVEN G. BAIRD CITY OF SARATOGA Initia AGENDA BILL N0. -76,1 Dept. Hd . DATE: December 17, 1984 C.Att DEPARTMENT: City Manager C.Mgr. SUBJECT: Prohibition of Sale or Dispensation of Alcoholic Beverages from Gasoline Stations Issue Summary An increasing number of gasoline and automobile service stations are adding the sale of food and beverages including beer and wine or other alcoholic beverages to the services provided to the drive -up customers. This practice has traditionally been discouraged in Saratoga through the issuance of zoning regula- tions. However, there are a number of gas stations operating within the City which are not presently regulated by use permits nor would the practice of selling specific items other than automotive - related products'-be prohibited through zoning code. This proposed ordinance would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to sell, serve or otherwise dispense any alcoholic beverage from or on the same site at which a gasoline station is being operated. The ordinance would be added to Chapter 10 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, Miscellaneous Offenses. Recommendation If the City Council wishes to prohibit gasoline stations in Saratoga from selling alcoholic beverages, and the ordinance meets with the Council's objectives, the ordinance is ready for introduction and subsequent adoption. Fiscal Impacts There are no significant fiscal impacts resulting from the ordinance. Loss of potential sales tax revenue by prohibiting the sale of taxable merchandise is considered negligible. There are a minimal number of gas stations in the City, and we do not anticipate that enforcement of the ordinance will be a major cost. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Draft ordinance 2. Memo from City Manager Council Action • 1/2: Held public hearing; deferred introduction until next meetin g Po for report on gas stations having use permits. jwdl7 • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY" OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 10- 25 TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT GAS STATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 10 -25, entitled "Sale of alcoholic beverages at gas stations prohibited" is hereby added to Chapter 10 of the City Code, to read as follows: "Sec. 10 -25. Sale of alcoholic beverages at gas stations prohibited. It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any .person to sell, serve or otherwise dispense any alcoholic beverage from or upon the same site at which a gasoline station is being operated." SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * * * * The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this day of , 1985, by the following vote: AYES: N OES: ABSENT: MAYOR • ATTEST: CITY CLERK • • • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (108) 867 -3438 December 17, 1984 Memorandum to City Council From: City Manager COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles Subject: Prohibition of Sale of Alcoholic Beverages at Gas Stations At a recent City Council work session, the Council requested the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance that would regulate and prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages at automobile service or gasoline stations within the City. The City Attorney's office has drafted the attached ordinance which determines it to be a misdemeanor for any person to sell, serve or otherwise dispense any alcoholic beverage from or upon the same site as a gas station. This ordinance would be added to Chapter 10 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, Miscellaneous Offenses. It would be enforceable by any law enforcement personnel or Community Service Officers. There are only five service stations within the City limits of Saratoga and a few of these already are closely regulated through issuance of use permits. This ordinance would be effective in those situations where existing service stations do not have a use permit. Because of the small number of locations that would be affected, neither the loss of potential sales tax revenue nor the cost of enforcement is expected to be significatant. J. 46.yne V ernetz jwdl7A Attachment f . , AGENDA BILL N0. 76 9 DATE: 1/7/85 (1/16/85) CITY OF SARATOGA DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C42A C. Atty. C. mgr. may/ SUBJECT: SD- 1582& A -1024, A -M Company (Teresi), southeast corner of Saratoga- Avenue and Bucknall Road, 20 Units Issue Summary 1. After a public hearing and several study sessions, the applicant proposed the construction of 10 detached, zero lot line units and 10.duplex units on 2.5 acres zoned R -M -5000 PC 2. The Planning Commission denied this request at its meeting of December 12, 1984 based on: 1) project is too. dense; 2). insufficient guest parking; 3), too many two..story structures;. and, 4) units were'too large. Due to tese factors the Commission found that the site was not physically suitable for the type of density of development. 3. Appellant has outlined in his letter how he feels: the project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance... RecomTendation 1. Staff_ recommended approval of the project subject to: certain conditions. 2. The Council should open the publiQ- hearing, take testimony.on the appeal, and then close the public hearing. 3. The Council can then decide the merits of the appeal or continue it if further information is.required. 4. The Council can affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts Development of the site may slightly increase demand for City Services. This will be off set, at least in the short term., by increased property tax revenues. Exhibits /Attach rants Exhibit A - Appeal Application Exhibit B - Negative Declaration Exhibit C - Staff Reports.dated 11/8/84 and 12/6/84 Exhibit D .—Planning Commission_Resolutions No. SD- 1582 -1 and A- 1024 -1 Exhibit E - Planning Commission." °Minutes dated.11/14/84 and 12/12/84 Exhibit .._F. Traffic--Study-dated October, 1984 Exhibit.'G " -- Corr esponderic.eh+ received on nroje`ct Council Action 1/16: Held and closed public hearing; to study session 1/22. 1 • 11 DECEIVED DEC 211984 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Joseph Teresi (A -M Company) Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee . CITY USE ONLY Address: 16795 Lark Avenue, Suite 101, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Telephone: (408) 354 -8474 Name of Applicant: Joseph Ter.esi (A -M Company) Project File No.: SD -1582, A -1024 Project Address: Southeast corner of Saratoga Ave. & Bucknall Rd. Project Description: 20 -unit zero lot line residential development (attached & detached) in R -M 5000 PC Decision Being Appealed: Denial of Design Review application & tentati Subdivision Map application Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Ap'pellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DECISION. December 21, 1984 City Council " City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 „ RE: Appeal from Planning Commission Denial of Applications -SD -1582 and A -1024 Gentlemen: This letter is being written in conjunction with Appeal Application of Joseph Teresi (A -M Company) appealing the Planning Commission's denial of Applications SD -1582 and A-1024 'for 20 units on 2.5 acres at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. The application for Design Review Approval A -1024 was denied when the Planning, Commission.determined,that..the „applicant "had.riot met the burden'•of proof required'to. support ..the application ".. Tentative map SD- 1582.w.as denied .because,'!the .site is- not,physically suitable for the type .of deve1opment'!.and "the.site..is,.not physically suitable for the proposed'.density of development" The property is general planned'Residential *Multi - Family -and. zoned R- M- 5000PC. which allows:. 1. Residential uses. .2. A maximum. density of 22 units. - 3.. A maximum building coverage of 40% of .the area. 4. Building height limitations of 30 feet.,, The applications proposed: I. Residential uses. 2: A.total.'of 20 units. 3. A building coverage of 29 %. 4. Maximum height of buildings at 26.5 feet: The letter dated December 7, 1984 addressed'to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is attac -hed to this letter and Northern California Office: 16795 Lark Avenue • Suite 101 • Los Gatos, Califon" 95030 • (408) 354 -8474 Regional Offices: Arizona • California • Colorado `. ..City of Saratoga *... 12/21/84 'PAGE incorporated herein by this reference, outlines extensively the manner in which the project complies.with the directions of the planning staff and the Planning Commission relative to.set backs, structures, parking and traffic circulation. Virtually all.of the requirements and conditions for the development of the property have been complied with by A -M Company within its applications. The planning staff recommended their approval! The Planning Commission's actions in denying the applications were arbitraty, capricious and discriminatory. A -M Company requests that the City Council hear these applications, on appeal, on a de novo basis. Very truly yours, A M OMPAN Kenneth L. Riding President KLR /lry A•M Company December 7, 1984 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED DEC 211984 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: SD -1582 and A -1024 Teresi(A -M Company) Southeast Corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknell Road Daer Commissioners: Following the -7commission's hearing on this matter on bbvember 14, 1984 and the subsequent study session on Pbvember 20, 1984, new material was submitted to, the Planning Staff -on Wednesday and Thursday, December 5 and 6, 1984. Due to an illness on the staff and the unavailability of another staff member, Cathy Cordus informed us that a complete staff report for the December 12, 1984 meeting probably could-not be completed. She requested that we submit a letter to you explaining the differences between the original submittal and the new submittal. In this letter I have outlined these differences in a form similar to the staff's report of.November 8, 1984 for the November 14, 1984 meeting, specifically addressing the staff's con- ditions where changes have occurred. I. Specific Conditions - Community Development, Page 7 The original plan did not provide for a turnaround or cul de sac. Condition L required either a turnaround or cul de sac at the end of .the private street, terminating at Lots 15 and 16. The new submittal provides for such a turnaround at new Lots 13 and 14. II. Specific Conditions - Planning Division , Page 8 Condition B required no more than 21 units. The new submittal provides for 20 units with 10 of those units attached in a duet or paired con- figuration. A new front elevation and floor plan for the attached units have been submitted to illustrate the configuration. Northern California Office: 16795 Lark Avenue • Suite 101 • Los Gatos, Californlu 95030 . (408) 354 -8474 Regional Ofllccs:Arizona • Callfonila • Colorado III IV Page 2 Specific Conditions - Planning Division, Page 9 Condition G.1 required a minimum 20' wide green area be dedicated as an open space easement along Saratoga Avenue and Bucknell Road frontages. The original submittal proposed an area about 5' wide. The new sub- mittal provides for a 20' set back from property line to a six foot masonary wall with.all structures set back an additional 15' from the wall. The distance fromtthe property line to curb is approximately 1.0' making all structures at least 45' from curb. Condition H on Page 9 required six additional guest parking spaces from the original five spaces for a total of eleven. The new submittal provides for ten spaces, or .5 per unit and all spaces are designed to conform to Saratoga city ordinance standards. Design Review Recommendations and Conditions, Page 13 1. Structure Sizes 2. The original submittal provided for 22 units with a total square footage, including garages, of about 53,000 square feet, and ranged in sizes from 2,129 square feet to 2,561 square feet. Condition 1. required a reduction in structure sizes which would reduce the total structure size to about 44,000 square feet. The new submittal has (a) eliminated the largest unit altogether, .(b) reduced Plan 1 from 2,129 square feet to 2,030 square feet, and (c) reduced Plan 2 from 2,415 square feet to 2,205 square feet. Plan 4 remains the same. With the elimination of two units and the reduction in size of Plans 1 and 2, the total structure size is about 44,000. The reduction in the structure sizes reduces the living area of the plan as follows: Pla ii 1 1,600 square feet .Plan 2 1,775 square feet Plan 3 1,945 square feet Although the foregoing reduction in sizes is fully agreed to, we have not been able to re -draw the floor plans. However, our review of the plans with our architect indicates that we can accomplish such a reduction which will slightly shorten the depth of Plans 1 and 2, but will have no significant affect on the elevations. Single Story The orignal submittal provided for 4 single story units, two at Bucknall Avenue, (Lots 6 and 7),•6ne at Saratoga Avenue (Lot 1) and one at what was Lot 13. The staff recommended condition was for 8 single story.units. The new submittal provides for 5 single story units at new Lots 1,4,5,10 and 13. Three of the single story units back -up to or side on the school property. Page 3 3. Setbacks The original submittal provided for the following setbacks" (a) 15' from Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall.Road (b) 15' from the southwestern property lines adjacent to Saratoga Parkside Development (c) 5' and 10' from all other property lines (d) A minimum of 10' separation between structures. (e) A minimum of 8' from the edge of the private road. The staff's recommended conditions provided for the following setbacks: (a) 25' from Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road (b) 15' from the southwestern property lines adjacent to Saratoga Parkside Development (c) 10; from all other property lines (d) 10' separation between structures (e) 15' from the edge of the private road. The new submittal with its reduced density and paired units have.the following setbacks: (a) 35' from Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. (b) 20' from the southwestern property lines adjacent to Saratoga. Parkside development. (c) 10' from all other property lines. (d) A minimum of 10' separation between structures except where the structures are paired (e) A minimum 10' setback from the edge of the private street, except for Lots 13 a %,nd 14 at the turnaround, where the set - back is 81. Nine of the units will have setbacks of at least 15' With the reduction in the sizes of the units, we expect to reduce the depth of Plans 1 and 2 by a couple of feet each and this reduction can be reflected in the set- backs of these units. a Part /. 4. Masonary Walls The original submittal provided for a masonary wall on Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road, on property line. The•:3taff's proposed condition for the masonary.wall would set'it back at least 20' from the streets. The new submittal provides for the wall to be built 201, back.from property line, about 30' from curb, on Saratoga Avenue zand.at Lot 5 on Bucknall Avenue. The wall at Lot 6 on Bucknall articulates from 1_0' from property line at the school property to 20' about.25' from the school property. This articulation could be accomplished at all four locations or none, at the desire of the Planning Commission. At our study session with the Commission on Wvember 20, 1984, the following items, among.many others, most of which are covered above, were discussed and below are our suggested dispositions included in the new submittal: 1. Setback of blank walls next to gas station. Increased from 5' to 10'. 2. Articulation between attached units. We have provided for 5' in all cases. 3. Play area. Based on type of project, type of product and private open space.in rear and side yards, no play area has been provided. 4. Singlestory. Although we were no able to provide for 8 single story units, we did increase the number of single stories to 5 and moved one single story from old Lot 13 to new Lot 13, so as to side on the school property. 5. Recreational vehicle parking. No provision has been made for RV parking on site. The C.C.& R's will prohibit RV parking on the site, which will require owners to "store" any RV's at a storage site. By vir•tue.of the reduction in the number of units and the reduction of the unit sizes (with an architect's estimate as to the reduction of first floor deminsions), the coverage on the new submittal is as follows: Maximum Structure Coverage - 29% Street Paving and Driveways 29% Private and Public Open .Space- 42% I hope that this letter adequately illustrates the difference between the original submittal and the new submittal and further illustrates our desire and willingness to address and.meet the Commission's requirements for a superior project at this location. I will, of course, be at the new Planning Commission hearing on December 12,1984 to present the new submittal and to answer any questions you or the staff may have, but I want to invite you to contact me at any time at my office for any questions you may haveregarding the project Ver truly yours-, Kenneth L. Riding President EIA -4 File No: SD -1582 Saratoga A-1-02�V— DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,.and.Resolu- tion 6S3-of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environmen within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of 22 detached dwelling units in a zero lot line configura- tion on a gently sloping 2.5,+ acre site in the R -M -5000 PC zoning district near the southeastern corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road, Saratoga, CA. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT A -M Company 16795 Lark Avenue Los Gatos CA 95030 REASON FUR NEGATIVE DECLARATION This project will not have a significant effect on the environment since the project is basically an infill project on level land which will not require the significant extension of urban services. A traffic study prepared for the project indicates no significant effects on existing or future traffic including cumulative effects. Construction impacts associated with the project will be mitigated by the application of existing City codes and ordinances. In addition, certain mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through the subdivision approval process. Executed at Saratoga, California this 6th day of November 1984 ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENj,IRONDIENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF S TOGA„ n DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER ( I"r,-, REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 11/8/84 Commission Meeting: 11/14/84 SUBJECT: SD -1582 and A -1024, Teresi (A -M Company),. Southeast Corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION REQUIRED: Approval for: 1) Tentative Subdivision Map for a 22 unit (detached) zero lot line project. 2) Design Review, including location of two story structures. 3) Grading permit to move more than 1,000 cu. yds. of soil. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Subdivision Approval and Building Permits. PLANNING CLASSIFICATION ZONING: R -M -5,000 PC GENERAL PLAN: Residential - Multi - Family PARCEL SIZE: 2.523 Acres NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Site is level (very gentle slope) and contains orchard trees. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1 %+ SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 1 %+ GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 3,000 Cu. Yds. Fill: 3,000 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 1.5 Ft. Fill Depth: 1.5 Ft. The building pads created through on -site grading would be about one foot higher than existing grade. Report to Planning C< sion 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A -1024, Teresa (A -M Co.) Page 2 Saratoga & Bucknall HISTORY: In September, 1979, the Planning Commission granted Use Permit (UP -410) and Design Review (A -688) approval for a 32 unit condominium project on the subject property. In November of that same year, Tentative Building Site Approval for the project was granted by the Commission. An extension for the use permit was granted in April, 1980 and the project received final map approval in the meantime. That map was recorded with the County. The extension of the use permit expired in September, 1981 and the project applicant (B. Hagan) had to apply for a new use permit (UP -511) to continue with the project. The Planning Commission approved this use permit in Decem- ber, 1981. This decision was appealed to the City Council which denied the us permit in March, 1982. The primary areas of concern were density, circulation setbacks and building height. When the City Council revised the General Plan in May, 1983, the land use des- ignation of the site was changed from Residential - Planned Development to Resi- dential- Multi - Family. The Council also specified that the density allowed on the site would be no greater than 1 unit /5,000 sq. ft. of site area. The site was then rezoned from R -1- 10,000 to R -M -5,000 PC to be consistent with the General Plan Amendment. The PC designation was added to give the Commission greater flexibility and control over the location of any two -story structures. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE DENSITY: The R -M -5,000 zoning district requires a minimum site area of 5,000 sq. ft. per unit. Site area is 109,902 sq. ft. so the maximum density for the site would be 109,902 : 5,000 = 21.98 units. Per Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, if after the above calculation is made more than 900 of the site area necessary for a dwelling unit remains, an additional dwelling unit may be allowed. Thus, a maximum density of 22 units for this site would be allowec When this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its Study Session of August 28, 1984, some Commissioners indicated that fewer units would be morE suitable for the site. This would allow greater flexibility in the site de- velopment plan and allow more parking or open space on site. LOT SIZE: Individual lot sizes range from a low of 3,.185 sq. ft. to a maximum of about 6,000 sq. ft. Most lots are about 3,500 sq. ft. in size or greater. At its Study Session, the Commission expressed concern about the size of the proposed structures relative to lot size. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Minimum from Bucknall Rd. property line: 15' Minimum from Saratoga Ave. property line: 15' Minimum from El Quito School side of property: 5' Minimum from southwestern property line: 15' Minimum from adjacent service station property lines: 5' Minimum distance between structures: 10' The R -M -5,000 zoning district normally requires 25 ft. front and rear yards and side yards that are 100 of the site's width or 25' whichever is lesser but no smaller than 10'. Also, a minimum 20' separation is required between structures used for human habitation. The project does not conform to these standards. However, these standards were designed for traditional attached multi- family dwelling projects rather than the zero lot line detached concept proposed by the applicant. Report to Planning Cr, . ision 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A -1024, Te& (A -M Co.) Page 3 Saratoga & Bucknall Since the site is zoned R -M -5,000 PC, these traditional standards can be varie for this project through the Tentative Subdivision approval process. When the Commission reviewed this project at its Study Session of August 28, 1984, it expressed some concern about the appearance of overcrowding on the site. This concern is partly due to the minimal setbacks proposed by the applicant rela- tive to the size of the dwellings. Staff would recommend at a minimum that the project maintain 25 ft. setbacks from its Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Avenue property lines and, in general, 10 ft. setbacks from all other property lines forming the perimeter of the site. The 25 ft. setbacks from the street sides of the property were also suggested by the Planning Commission at its Study Session. The zero line concept allows greater use of individual lot side yards without impacting privacy (no windows on that side of the building). It is a differ- ent type of development than usually allowed in Saratoga and provides for an alternative type of housing. HEIGHT: Single -story dwelling (Plan #1),.: 18.5'+ Two -story dwelling (Plans #2, 3, & 4): 26.51+ Maximum height allowed is 30 ft. measured from mid -point of roof to average finished grade. Height measurements listed above are from peak of roof to the exterior grade around the unit. IMPERVIOUS COVRRACR! Building (includes patios and walkways): 310+ Street paving and driveways: 280+ TOTAL: 59 %+ The R -M -5,000 district allows a maximum structure coverage of 40 SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Living Area* Garage Total No. of Units (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Plan 1: 1,699 430 2,129 4 Plan 2: 1,985 430 2,415 6 Plan 3: 2,131 430 2,561 8 Plan 4: 1,945 430 2,375 4 *Does not include "open to below" areas in the second floor plans. The size of the above structures is one of the elements involved in the per- ception of mass or "crowding" of the project. The Commission indicated at its Study Session that unit sizes should be reduced to minimize the perception of bulk. To accomplish this, staff would propose the following guidelines (All references to structure size includes the garage): 1. No structure shall be more than 2,500 sq. ft. in size. 2. Only six (6) dwelling units shall be over 2,100 sq. ft. in size. 3. Six (6) dwelling units shall be.1,800 sq. ft. or less in size. Report to Planning Cr_ .sion 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A -1024, Teresi (A -M Co.) Page 4 Saratoga & Bucknall If these reductions are made, the total square footage of structures on the site would be reduced by about 120. This reduction in size would allow greater setbacks from the private street that will serve the project and create a little more open space. DESIGN MATERIALS: Stucco, wood siding and wood trim; wood shake roofs. Stucco will be painted off -white to very light brown; wood siding and wood trim will be painted in earthtones in the brown - gray /brown - light gray range. GENERAL: The elevations submitted by dwellings will utilize wood siding as dwellings will use a mix of stucco an, shingles as exterior materials. Roof and all structures will utilize a hip the applicant an exterior m, 3 wood siding, pitch will be roof. show that the single -story aterial. The two -story and, in one case, wood the same for all structures The massing of the two -story structures are very similar when viewed from the side and expecially when viewed from the front. The applicant utilizes dif- ferent roof designs and structure projections to vary the facades of these essentially similar structures. The site plan shows that no structure will be adjacent to,or across from, the same plan except for those units nearest the southern corner of the site where Plans 2 and 3 face each other. The Commission at its Study Session on this project suggested that an additional structure plan be utilized to create greater variety. Staff would recommend that greater setbacks be utilized for individual lot frontages with varying building setbacks or offsets to create greater openness and variety. Also, the Commission expressed a desire to see more single -story units on the site, particularly on the school side of the property. Staff would recommend that at least eight of the units be single- story. Lots adja- cent to Saratoga Avenue should have single story plans for greater noise pro- tection. Under the P -C Ordinance, the Commission must specifically approve the use of any two -story structures. TRAFFIC A traffic report was prepared for this project consistent with the require- ments of the General Plan. A copy of the text of this report is attached. In summary, the report indicates that the project will not significantly impact the amount of traffic on Saratoga Avenue or Bucknall Road. The operation of that intersection would also not significantly change. This would also be the case even with additional traffic from future development. This additional traffic would not require signalization of the intersection. PARKING The project would provide two covered parking spaces for each unit which com- plies with the requirements of the R -M -5,000 district. However, the Commission has usually required additional guest parking on site.for visitors at a ratio Of 1 space per unit. The applicant has shown 5 parking spaces at the interior Report to Planning Cc(- —) sion 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A -1024, Teresi'(A -M Co.) Page 5 Saratoga & Bucknall of the site with dimensions of 9' x 20'. These are parallel parking spaces which must be 8.5' x 23' to comply with ordinance requirements. If one unit were removed, then additional parking could be located on the site. Also, with increased front yard setbacks, as mentioned earlier, the driveways could be used for additional guest parking. FENCES AND WALLS The applicant proposes 6' high masonry walls with stone veneers along the property lines of the Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road frontages of the site A six ft. high wood fence would be placed around the remaining perimeter of the property and also on the individual lots. The design of the wall and fence appear to correspond with the desires of the Commission expressed at the Study Session. Staff would recommend that the masonry walls be setback at least 20 ft. from the site's property line to allow for adequate landscaping as part of the project's planned open space, or common green area, which is required under the City's P -C Ordinance. LANDSCAPING One of the purposes of the P -C ordinance is the creation of common green or open space areas. As mentioned above, staff is of. the opinion that a larger common open space area is needed along the street frontages of the site to create an adequate landscaping area in conjunction with landscaping required in the unimproved area of public rights -of -way adjacent to the site. All these ares, including the turnaround area, will be maintained by the home- owners association. Staff would also recommend that the landscaped areas immediately adjacent to the internal roadway serving the site be similarly maintained. The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant is, general in character and detailed plans will have to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits, The landscaping proposed near the street frontages of the site is primarily Coast Redwoods (evergreen; size 15 gallon) which will eventually provide screening for the project. Evergreen pear and carob trees (also evergreen) would be the other trees used on site. Shrubs include Oregon Grape, Rhododen- drons and Viburnum all of which are acceptable in this clumate and are ever- green. St. Johnswort and Flowering Annuals (yellow and orange) will be used as groundcovers and are alsof acceptable. r SOLAR ACCESS The applicant prepared a solar shade study for this project which is one of the, exhibits in the packet. This study indicates that the shadows created by the project in a worst case situation (December 21st,between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) will not adversely impact the solar access of adjacent properties or of individual structures on.the site. One property, the adjacent Teresi home, will lose some morning sun but generally would have good afternoon access. Staff would recommend that solar stub outs be provided on each structure to allow eventual panel hook up for domestic water heating. Report to Pl - -ning Commission 11/8/84 SD- 1582,A -1012 A -M Co.) Saratoga & Bucd_ Page 6 OTHER ISSUES The existing sewer line and easement, which also serves the adjacent Saratoga Parkside con- dominium development, would be relocated to within the new roadway. This must be done to allow the structures to be built as shown on the site plan. The circulation plan and lot arrangement proposed would not allow the adjacent Teresi home - site and Desert Petroleum site to be incorporated into the project. If these sites were to redevelop with multi - family uses (for which both are zoned: R -M -5000 PC) they would have to use separate means of access. It may also be difficult to incorporate the design of the structures on those sites with the proposed project. If the project utilized clustered units these problems could be more easily resolved but the detached unit concept proposed by the applicant would have to be abandoned or at least partially abandoned. It should be noted that the adjacent properties can be developed independently but there will be difficulties associated with their development. These could be mitigated if the develop- er worked with these adjacent property owners on tentative development plans. PR0TE7CI' STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all re- quirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the pub- lic service needs of its residents and - available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the emvironmental impact of this project, if approved under this appli- cation. Said determination date: 11/6/84. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1582 (Exhibit B filed 9/20/84) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including with- out limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drain- age fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and com- pliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regu- lations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordin- ance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby re- quired and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (pay required Checking and Re- cordation Fees). If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit (3) to -scale prin' C. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed 1 the Director of Community Development, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Stop Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. D. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. SD -1582, A -1024, Tere— 11/8/84 Page 7 1. E. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveways. F. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Storm Drain Construction G. .Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees aa-determined from Improvement Plans. H. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within (1) year of receiving Final Approval. I. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. J. No opening of Saratoga Avenue median is permitted. K. Improve Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road to City Standards, including the following: 1. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.) L. A turnaround or cul -de -sac shall be provided at the end of the private street terminating at lots 15 and 16. M. Provide 1�" overlay on Bucknall Road from Saratoga Avenue up to south- eastern property line of the site. :II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional: 1. Soils 2. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued (if required by soils engineer). C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (provide finish pavement /grade and finish floor elevations, existing and proposed including adjacent properties). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) Provide enginnering analysis of the local drainage area. 3. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.4., A. Relocate portion of the existing sanitary sewer within the development. The developer.shall bear all costs to quitclaim that portion of the exis- ting sanitary sewer easement. All such plans must be approved by the sanitation district. B. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to County Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated 10/12/84 prior to issuance of permits. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. The existing water system shall be extended to the site. The developer shall install three (3) fire hydrants to Central Fire Protection District's specifications. SD -1582, A -1024, Teresi 11/8/84 C ' C Page 8 Minimum fire flow from these fire hydrants shall be 1,000 gallons per min- ute for a duration of two (2) hours. The required fire hydrant installations shall be tested and accepted by the Central Fire Protection District prior to issuance of any building permits, The developer should make contact with San Jose Water Company as soon as possible to avoid engineering delays. B. The required width of the access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. "NO PARKING" signs and /or other appropriate notice prohibiting obstructions are required and shall be maintained. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Approval, submit plans showing the locatioi and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certifi- cation. VIII.SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. No more than 21 units shall be allowed on this site. Revised plans show- ing this and other changes shall be submitted for Planning Commission Review and Approval. C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planninc Commission. Approval structures shall be located as shown on the approved site plan unless conditioned otherwise. D. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain umimproved and all common green areas. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improve- ments. E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscaping Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and all common green areas. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped arez for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas. F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a home- owners association for the express purpose of maintaining all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and all common green areas. The C, C, & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, prior to final approval. Report to Plan .g Commission 11/8/84 SD -1582 and A -1024 (A -M Co.) Page 9 Saratoga & Bucknall G. Prior to Final Map Approval: 1. A common green area a minimum of 20' wide shall be dedicated as an oper space easement along the Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road frontages of the site. Only landscaping shall be allowed in this easement which will be maintained as conditioned above. 2. C,C, & R's shall be created prohibiting any swimming pools. Spas may be allowed on individual lots subject to staff review and approval. 3. The C,C, & R's shall also prohibit any exterior additions to the approved structures unless first approved by the homeowners association and the Community Development Department. H. All parking spaces shall be redesigned to conform to ordinance standards. Six additional guest parking spaces shall be provided on site. I. The C,C, & R's shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. The C-;C, & R's shall not be amended unless approved by the City and the Homeowners Association. J. Structures shall be located as conditioned in Design Review Approval A -102z. K. L. M. The C,C, & R's shall be recorded with the Final Map and shall be given to each property owner upon purchase of a lot. Solar stub outs shall be provided for each unit to allow eventual retrofit of solar panels for domestic water heating. Applicant shall comply with the attached mitigation measures for SD -1582. Report to Planning C emission 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A- 1024 ( A -M Co.) Page 10 Saratoga, and Bucknall MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE IMPOSED ON SD -1582 1. A specific and detailed geology and soils report shall be submitted. Said report should address all potential seismic and foundation hazard; and address specific mitigation measures. These specific mitigation measures shall be included: * Firm anchorage to the structures involved of all light fixtures and /or decorative work * Re- enforcement of masonry chimneys with steel tie rod; * Attachment to the frame of the building of all water heaters so that they cannot be thrown-off-their foundations or overturned; * Provision within the proposed structures of flexible joints at pipe and:conduit corners so that they can move with the building; * Provision of flexible joints or details that allow flexibility wherever utility lines enter structures; * Firm attachment of all planned structures to their foundations; * Installation of a manual shut -off valve in the main gas line where it enters the site; * Avoidance of the use of heavy tile roofing materials or design of such roofs so that they will remain in place during a major seismic event. 2. Utilize native species in landscaping and street tree planting (i.e., Coast Redwood and California Liveoak). Street trees to be planted as required by City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Control dust by good construction practice, which.includes moistening of exposed soil with water sprays. 4. Construction noise impacts, which are temporary, will be mitigated by the requirements of the City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours shall be limited to between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Noise Ordinance limits noise levels from construction equipment and off -site effects. 5. Residential use of the site would be facilitated by construction of an acoustic barrier to shield the lots adjacent to Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. A barrier consisting of a wall, or a berm and a wall, could reduce noise levels in these lots substantially. Barrier design and other structural measures should be developed by an acoustic engineer. Report to Planf...g Commission 11/8/84 SD -1582 &A-1024 (A -M Co.) Page 11 Saratoga & Bucknall 6. Inclusion of crime prevention features such as dead bolt locks on door: adequate window locks, and well lighted entryways in the design of eacl structure. 7. Make water conservation part of the design features of the new structui These measures will also save energy used to transport and treat water and will reduce the amount of sewage shich will have to be treated. 8. To minimize energy consumption the following mitigation measures shoulc be utilized: * Insulation of the structures as required by the building code; * Provision of natural gas -fired space and water heating as opposed ,to the use of electric resistance for these uses' * Utilize solar collectors for space heating and /or water heating (with natural gas backup units); * Provide natural gas -fired stoves and ovens for cooking instead of electric stoves and ovens. This measure could save 3 percent of the energy used for cooking; * Maximize the use of natural lighting in the houses by careful placement of windows and use of properly insulated skylights; * Select energy efficient brands of disposals, dishwashers and other installed electric appliances. This measure could save up to 25 percent of electric energy use for these appliances. * Select gas appliances with electric ignitors to conserve fuel. * Utilize fluorescent lights for installed room lights. This measure could save 50 percent of electric energy use for these lights. * Provide gas outlets for natural gas -fired dryers in the laundry area to encourage home- owner.use of gas -fired dryers. The use of ga dryers can save 28 percent of the energy used for this purpose; * Install accurate clock - operated thermostats with day and night settings to facilitate conservation of energy by home- owners; * Provide water heaters with thermostats which show tempera- ture readings in degrees and which have clear directions for total.shutdown and start -up to encourage homeowners to turn them off during prolonged absences from home. 9. If any archaeological remains are uncovered during grading and construc tion activities work should be halted and qualified archaeologist consulted to evaluate the find to recommend further mitigation measures. Report to. Plan(-,j Commission 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A -1024 (A--M Co.) Page 12 Saratoga & Bucknall 10. Due to the site's very gentle slope, drainage could be a problem when a significant amount of impermeable surface is added to the site. A specific and detailed grading and drainage plan /report shall be submitted indicating how runoff shall be directed away from the site. Report to Plan( g Commission 11/8/84 SD -1582 & A -1024 (A -M Co.) Page 13 Saratoga & Bucknall Design Review Recommendation and Conditions (A- 1024): Approve per Staff Report dated November 8, 1984 and Exhibits "C,D,E,F,G,H,and I" subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure sizes (including garages) shall comply with the following criteria: a. No structure shall be greater than 2,500 sq. ft.. in size. b. Only six dwelling units shall be over 2,100 sq. ft. in size. C. Six dwelling units shall be 1800 sq. ft. or less in size. 2. At least eight units shall be single story structures and these shall be located adjacent to the street frontages of the site and along that side of the property adjacent to the Quito School. The location of the single story structures next to the school side of the site shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 3. The following setbacks are approved by the Planning Commission for this project per Section 4A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. 25' from Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road b. 15' from the southwestern property line adjacent to the Saratoga Parkside Development. C. 10' from all other property lines forming the perimeter of the site. d. A minimum 10' separation between structures. e. A minimum of 15' from the edge of the private road serving the property but with a variety or staggering of different setbacks to create visual interest. f. 0' setbacks are permitted for interior lot division lines. No modification to these setbacks -.are permitted without previous Planning Commission Approval. 4. The masonry walls shall be setback at least 20' from the Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road property lines of the site. 5. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These plans shall show mature, box sized evergreen trees to be planted along the Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road frontages of the site. 6. Any changes to exterior structure elevations shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Report to Planning Commissi (._. SD -1582, A -1024 Teresi Saratoga & Bucknall i APPROVED: Michael Flores Associate Planner 11/8/84 Page 14 9 O D C 9U, o ° REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/6/84 Commission Meeting: 12/12/84 SUBJECT' SD -1582 and A -1024, Teresi (A -M Company), Southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- At its study session of November 20, 1984 the Planning Commission revised plans of the proposed project. These revisions included the following: 1. Reduction of the number of units from 22 to 20. 2. Ten duplex units; ten detached units. 3. Increased setbacks from Bucknall Road, Saratoga Avenue, and other property lines. 4. Elimination of Plan 3 (the largest unit) and reductions in size for Plans 1 and 2. Plan 4 remains the same. 5. Increase guest parking from 5 to 10 spaces. 6. Provision of a turnaround. These changes were proposed in response to concerns expressed by the Commission at the November 14, 1984 public hearing and in response to the conditions in the Staff Report dated November 8, 1984. These changes were generally considered acceptable by the majority of the Commissioners present. However, the applicant proposed only 5 single story units and Staff had suggested a minimum of eight. The Commission indicated they might be flex- ible about this number. The applicant has brought in additional plans on Wednesday and Thurs- day of this week which Staff has been unable to thoroughly review for your packet. We have requested a letter from A -M Company explaining the differ- ences between this submittal and the previous one attached. We anticipate that we will be better able to discuss the plans at your meeting. A copy of the original staff report and the new plans are attached. O Report to Planning Commission 12/6/84 SD -1582 and A- 1024,.Teresi (A -M Company) Page 2 Approved: Michael Flores Planner MF /if P.C. Agenda 12/12/84 RESOLUTION NO. SD- 1582 -1 RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF JOSEPH TERESI_(A -M COMPANY) WHEREAS, application has been made to the'Advisory Agency under..the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map..approval of a lot, sit or subdivisions of 1 (20 units)lots, all as „more particularly.set forth in File No. SD -1582 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby. finds• that,'.the •proposed sub - .division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is .not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is not compatib with the objectives,.policies and general land use and.programs ',specified i such General Plan, reference to the approved Staff Report dated - - - -- ,and /or the findings on the reverse page,` being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has 'heretofore received.and,considered the (g' (Negative Declaration) prepared for`•this'project_,in accord with the current applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) and (b) of Government,Code Section 66474 exist'with,respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval-should not be granted. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe.tentative map for'the hereinafter described subdivision,which'map is�datgd the” 20th' day of September 19 84, and is marked.Exhibit "B ": in the,hereinabove referred to file be and.the same is hereby denied. The•rat,ionale of said denial is as more particularly set forth on Exhibit - -- attached hereto and incorporated herein be reference, and the approved minutes. The.above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the (Planning Commission) (��X�?(�?9��X?�?�?F) at a meeting there- of held on,the 12th day of December 19 84, at which a'quorum _.was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Burger and Harris ABSENT:, Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer ATTEST - Robert S. Shook, Secretary 4y ADVISORY AGENCY Chairman t 7ection 66474 Subdivision Map Act 66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a final,or tentative, map if, it`makes` any of the following findings: DThat the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. ❑That, the design .or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not '.consistent with applicable,general'and "specific plans.. NThat`the'site is'not physically suitable for the"type:'of deve "lop- .ment ®That the? site is not physically suitable for. the.proposed 'density of-development. 'i []That the design of the'-subdivision or. the proposed,:improvements are likely to cause substantial environment al .damage or substan- -'. tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife;.or! >their °habitat. [:] That. the design of the' subdivision. or the type of improvements is ,likely to cause serious public health pro*blems That 'the design' of the �subd,ivis1on,or the: type 'of improvements > .wll, conflict with,easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through .or use of property within the proposed sub- division. 1 DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. A- 1024 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE NO: A -1024 WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of a 20 -unit (detached) zero lot line development near the southeastern corner of Saratoga Ave. and an WHEREAS, the applicant (b=) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of JOSEPH TERESI (A -M COMPANY) for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (gxacajz(xd) (denied)..subject to the following conditions: Per Exhibits "C, D, E, F, H and I ". PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of December 19 84 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: _Commissioners McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried Commissioners Burger and Harris Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer Secretary, P anning Commission rman, Planninq�'ommission Conuni sS:i on g Mi.nut0S 1.1/I,I/91, ,1111.1 C IfFARiNGS (cont. ) Page 4 1.2. V -664 - Anthony Tho as, RC(lucst for Variance Approval. to allow a 5 It. iron and chin link fence that encloses more than 4,000 sq. ft. and as on a property that is higher than the street elevation at 21401. To 1 11 Road, in the NFIR zon.i.ng (list rict; continued from October 4. 1934 It was (I i.recto(I that this iNcm he con tilined to Nov cmhcr 23, 1934. 13. V -666 - Aunanna /Schiro, Iequest for Variance Approval to a LI.ow a 12 ft. corrective rctai. ing wall along the property lines at 1.5395 Upper Hill Drive and 1.902 Upper H:i1.1 Court, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continu d from Novcmhcr 6, 1034 It was directed that this item \be continued to November 28, 1934. 14. A -1029 - BlackwcII Homes, iequest for Design Rovicw ApprovaL to construct a two story structtre on a hi.Ll.si.de lot in the NIiR zoning d.i.S- trict at 12206 1'.is a A r r 0 y 0 Court, Tract k6528, Lot :' ?15 1t was (l.ircctcd that this .i.tcin be �onti11 ucd to Novcmhcr 28, 1954. 1.5a. Negative Declaration - SD- .15321 - ,Joseph Teresa (A -M Company) �1 / ISI SD -ISS2 Joseph Teresa (A -M Company) , Request for Tentatii"vc Subdivision A -1024 - and Design Review Approvals for a 22- limit (detached) zero lot line development in the R -1`4-5,000 PC District 110;11• the South- eastern corner of Sarato£a AVCIlUe and Bucknal.l Road Stafl explained the project, noting mo(l.ifi.cations which they arc proposing;. Commissioner McGoldrick requested that before the Commission votes on this, there be a site visit and that strings be put around the Units So the Connn:issiion can get the feel for what this project will be like. Chairman Siegfried agreed, stating that lie would like to also sec a more detailed plan reflccti.ng the k.i.n(I of modif.i.catioils that the Staff is Proposing. The public hcarii.ng was opened at 8:25 p.m. hen Riding, of the A -M Company, gave a presentation on the proicct. Chairman Siegfried stated that lie did not undC1 -stand why the same proposal that was Sub- mitted at the previous study session is back. Ile commented that at that t:i.mc there had been comments from the Commission and nci.,,,hbors, which are echoed to a large extent in tile. Staff, Report, and none of them scan to have bccn addresSOd. Mr. Ri.d.ing stated that he had not received concrete direct ion from the Study scss.i.on. lie :indicated that lie felt one of the conditions that would he vcry di.fflicult for them to acha.eye is the reduction of the size of the houses. Ile explained that they had done a market study that :i.nd.icatcs what kind of buyer they wi.11 have, and they have tri.e(1 to design iZOUSCS that will meet the nccdS of that particular buyer. Chairman Siegfried stated that he felt they had giiven direction three months ago and the applicant has not responded at all to those concerns, i.e., size of units, density and setbacks. Ile commented that lie does not think there is anyone that is objecting to the concept, but the applicant will have to react to these concerns. Commissioner Peterson indicated that he cannot support the concept and will not, and Ile had told Mr. Riding that three months ago. Ile expinincd that lie cannot support putting a 2500 sq. :ft. home on 5,000 sq. ft. of land. Ile added that this land was rezoned multi- family, and in his mind this is not what the zoning asked for. lie commented that the zoning was looking for some kind of multi- family condominium apartment type use, which would be smaller units. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that at the study session the Commission had addresscd the traffie issue an (I the oxit.ang onto Buck naII. She pointed out that without more guest parking it will. be incvatable that guests will have to park on Bucknala, and that ne:i.gliborhood (lots not need any more problems for traffic Flow. Mr. Riding commented that he Feels they can nc in till StnFl* Report hilt ivi 1.1 need to know what Siegfried suggested another study Session. Ile family homes may be appropriate, substant.ia.1.1y s.i. jig lc story, ta.th the setbacks that Staff has i/ r" 'i, - 4 - h:icve some of the requirements .is acceptable. Clulirman indicated that he feels si.n,lc reduced in Size, most of them indacated. Flc stated that he jig\ I' Conm ii ss ion agc S .ng Minutes 11/1.4/5:1 �D =1SS2 and A -1024 (cont.) feels that there has to be some considerable appearance of reduction in density, whether that be by number of units or size of units. After further discussion there was a consensus that the Commission would not consider anything more dense than what the Staff has suggested, and .it may be something less. There was also a consensus that the Commission would like a minimum of eight single -story units and would favor paired or cluplexed units. It was determined that the Commission needs to see what the sizes arc going to he in relation to the 171014 of traffic and relationship to setbacks. The applicant was requested to bring some conceptual ideas as to how the concerns can he addressed. There was a consensus that this matter he continued to a study session at 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 1931. Mr. Riding indicated that he Felt he could put all of the information desired by the Commission together for that meeting, and would then like a vote on the application on December 1.2, 1.954. Mrs. Sabel.la expressed concern regarding the traffic flow. Bob Black, 127SO Pasco Presada, expressed concern ahout two -story buildings, stating that. he feels the Commission should be consistent and make this project onc- story, as with the Owen project. He also expressed concern about setbacks, density and traffic. Jim Russell, of the Saratoga Park 1Coods Ilonlcolvncrs Association, d.iscuSSed den- sity, setbacks and size, expressing concern rcl:Itive to thcsc .issues, Joseph Stillman, Saratoga Park_9.ide, noted that their project has a setback of 25 ft., and he does not bel.ieVe•that a .15 ft, setback is ample for a two -story hui.ld.ing ill this situation. Ile also expressed concern about tile loCatio of the solar panc.l.s. II It was directed that this matter he coiltinuotl to n study scssiull,on NOVCmhcr 20, 1`.84 and the regular ulect.ing o'I, 1) eccunbor 12, 198 :1. 16. C -211 City of Snratot.,a, Consider Mince. (()rdinanic NS -.i) to 1 i.n the I%,-I, IIC -RD, and p ll!: and allowing ccrta.i.n noncon a variance, per Ordinance N mending the text of the 2onin!` Ordi- . vise :Ind sinlpl'i,fy setback requirements on.ing d.ist,ricts (Articles 3, SA and 31)) Ornl.ing structures to 1•011I,I111 Wlthellt 3, Article 18 ' The text amendment Was cxpl.,l.ine(.l by Staff and the C.it.v Attornev. The public hearing was opened at 9:08 p.m. No one ap)carcd to address the Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissi.oner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried Una imouslN Comm.i'ssioner Schaefer Iquestioned the '10 ft. setback for clustered units in the NIIR district. She asked if any clustered a its were scheduled and commented that she felt the setback should he 20 [t. 'he explained that she feels 10 ft. is snu111 amount of setback for the size of homes that arc coming :in. It was' cl:u'i.fied by Staff that the current ordinanc has ..1,0 setback from the lot line but a 30 ft. setback in between structures. 'hey explained that the suggestion by the ronlmiSSiolt at the study session had be n that the sethack from the lot line be 10 ft. but that there still be the 30 ft. setback between Structures. Thcv added that there is no proposal for clust red units before the Commission at the moment. It was noted.that any proposal would be subject to design review. Discussion followed on the setbacks. The City ttorney clarified that. if a project has gone through the Tentative Map Appr val which required,a.larger setback, this would not serve to reduce that set ack, Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution - 21.1 -1, recommending this text amendment to the City Council. Commissioner McGo Brick seconded the motion, 14111Ch was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner chaefer stated that she would like it in the record that she does disagree with_the 10 ft. and feels it should be ,l 20 ft. setback. 17. C - 21'2 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending th Mince (Ordinance NS -3) to: .1) 'require n (space /gross floor area) for office used In!: Design Review for Commercial, Indust. Resi(lential projects; and 3) Revising th height of a structure per Ordin,lnce Nti -; text of the Zoning Ordi- parking ratio of 1:250 2) require a Public Hear - W.ial, P -r1 and Multi - family 1\ method for nleasLlring the , \Article 18 Staff explained the text '1111Vnd11Ient• It was noted that the Comp;Ict.l'ar• king i'lAll Moor 5. It w 6. 101 7a. :Negative Declaration - SD-"82 - .loscph 'I'cresi (r \ - ^I (:ompany) Q'!) D-1SS2 Joseph Tcresi (A -M Company), Request ror Tentative Sbdivision Aiu 1024 - Design Review Approvals for a 22 -unit (detache(t) Zero lot line development in the R -d -5,000 PC District near the southeastern corner of Saratoga Avenue and B[leknal.l. Road; continued from Noven- her 14 1984 St;tff explained the applications And noted that there have. been sevol-al study sessions on this matter. They described the present proposal and the changes which have been made. They noted that conditions have been added requiring automatic garage door opcncrs and Staff review of the CCt;Rs. The public hearing was opened at 7:S2 p.m. Ken Riding, of the A -D1 Company, referenced their letter reflecting modifica- tions to the proposal.. He discussed the changes that have been made regarding setbacks, number of single - story units, and the si =c of units. lie comutcntcd that they are not able to achieve the play area and there will he no 1,,1' parking, Space, stating that he feels they can cover these items in the CC;Rs. Discussion followed on the building and open space coverage. At Commissioner McGoldrick's inquiry, the open space figures were claricied. Commissioner llarris asked about increas:i.ng the numbeI, of different design;, and 15% Riding stated that they could include a variation in the elevation and desired to do that. Bob Black, Pasco Presada, stated that he. lives across from the school. Ile spoke against the two- stories and the density. lie indicated that he felt there should be a play area and noted concern about the parkins;. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, whi.ch tans carried unani!nously. Commissioner McGoldrick noted a phone call from NIrs. Ann Snedler, who indicated that, although there are areas with which they are not happy on this proposal, they feel that it is certainly better than tie original proposal. Chairman Siegfried noted correspondence rece:ivcd on the project regarding the setbacks. Discussion followed on the setback on the Saratoga I'arkside project. Commissioner Peterson commented that he feels this is a creative elan, but lie fools it is too dense and tile. parking is not adequate. 1-1e added that there is not enough open space and lie cannot support the project. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed, stating that she feels strongly that there is a domino effect and that the Hl Quito Park area is inundated with P -A offices and ttao -story condominiums across the park, and the area is just being sur- rom dod now with two-stori.cs. She commented that it ii; ruining the residential neighborhood look. Sho added that she could better support the project if all the units adjacent to the School hui_Lding property wore single - raunily. Ilotc - evcr, she agreed with Cand ssiortcr Peterson that the project Appears too dense and the p;n•k:ing, does riot seem suff. cicnt. Commissioner htIrgeI. couuuented that :;he. thinks the ;rppl irant has made an rl'I'orI to respond to all of tile. Co!uni.isSion's concerns and silo is able to support the project as it not,, stands. Shc noted that it is residcnti.al . and silo feels it probably answers a flood that is not currently ;ul';wored to Any great extent in Saratoga, and that is units that ;u•e, ill her opinion, tiny, compared with most of' the homes in Saratoga. She Added that she is not concerned ;shout the lack- of' a platy area or any further _[lost. parking. She sut,l-,ested that the condition regarding the automatic garage door opcncrs should he amcndel to rcatl that tile garage door he sectioned so that they fold [lp into the garat' rather than one piece that would Swing out into the shorter than normal drivoway. III alul Commission `lecting Piinutcs - 1?/ 12 /S•i SU l53 and A -102 -1 (coat.) Pago 5 Coinin.i.ssioncr Harris reiterated What slit has said in past study - sessions; that She thinks rite units arc too large. She added that she would he willing to consider a motion that Would include additional one story units, in the hopes that the developer alight change his mind, and a condition that the setback on the Saratoga 11arkside side he increased to 2S feet. Cown.issioncr Siegfried stated that he generally would favor the project, although helms a concern about the parking ;incl ivliother realistically ten parking spaces provides sufficient parkin,,. He added that be thinks that overall it i.s a reasonably good usage of the site, given the location on Saratoga Avenue and the previous proposals. Commissioner Woldrick moved to deny SDR-1582 and A -1024. Commissioner Peter- son seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris asked if there was anybody who would support a motion to ask for eight single- store Units and in increased setback to 25 ft. on the Saratoga Parkside side. It was clarified that there would be no space gained for addLtlonal parking and open space because the footprint is actually larger for unit Ill as it is planned. 'rho vote l}',is taken on the motion to deny. The motion was carried 5 -2, with Commissioners Harris and Burger dissenting. 'file appeal period was noted. Commissioner Peterson commented that he disagrees with most of the Commissioners in the single -story vs. two -story issue. lie stated that be can sec a project with mostly two- story but more clustered and smaller units acrd giving a lot more open space as being something more acceptable than all single -story units ViLth not too much opurl space. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed with that premise but stated that she would Like the single-story units on the school property. Sa. Negative Doc Iarntioil - SDR -1 S7. - ItIILim Li.sac 8b. SDO 150 - ii'illirim Lisac, Reque t for Design Review and Tentative Building Sc. A -1.003 - Site Approval for a iao-story, single- family dwelling, over 26' in height on a hill s: ice lot in the NHR district at '_44S Comer Drivc; continued from ovembcr 2S. 1984 . Staff described the current proposal an noted changes made to the plan. They indicated that they were recommending ap royal of the Building Site but denial of the Design Review because they are un.blc to make rile necessary findings. They noted that the .impervious coverage, bile it is within the 2S',; standard, is in excess of the 15,000 sq. ft. li.m:i.tati.on. Chairman Siegfried asked how much of tile impervious coverage is in the c rivewny. lie stated that lie feels the Commission has to give some recognition to the facet that there is a very long driveway necessary to reach the only 1 gical building site. Discussion followed on the driveway' and Staff commente that it may have a beneficial effect relative to the ric:i.ghbors because it i• below the developed portion of the lot, so that any drainage that is coming 'rom the home and its impervious coverage will be coming across the road, where it can be collected :nd taken to Comer Drive. Therefore, the lower elevations iill receive less runoff than they did in the undeveloped strtge. The public 110arin,, was opened at S:.i3 p.m.. Michacl Layne, representing the applicant., gave a prescntation on the. project and discussed the cli:unges made. The proposed taut scaping was discussed. M1'. Layne submitted a letter on the impervious coverag cuicl a product used on golf courses to allow vehicular traffic to cross grass areas and still allow the area to appear as Lawn or grass. •Ile indicated that tlicy plan to take part of the impervious coverage and treat it as lawn using its substructure. He also indicated that they were proposing that the pool. :ri-c, be dropped from the appli- cation. Mr. Layne discussed the proposed deck :uicl th color of the house. Mr. '.Pony, 21527 Comer Drive, stated that he supported the 5t:1f f findings, lie inquired about tile. timing of the landscaping; plan. )lr. Layne described the landscaping plan and timefr:une of the screening to �1r. Bong. Commissioner Iltirris moved to close tile. puhlic hearing. Ommissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. \ Commissioner Harris stated that she would he will ing", to vot\c for thr project if the si.c of the house C; In he redurrd Wit Ili n This plain. She addrd that i1. the huilder feels that that is sumetliing that is entirely impossihlr, then shr would he voting against it. _ M LOUIS fl. LARSON.INC. CIVIL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 885 No. San Antonio Road • Los Altos, California 94022 i (415) 949 -1124 i i 7 i J TRAFFIC REPORT ri-f RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1984 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Saratoga Cottages - Southeast Corner of Saratoga Avenue and..Bucknall Road Saratoga, California for the A- M Company October, 1984 LOUIS H. LARSON R.T.E. No. 59 i .l i s e a a CONTENTS Project Description Scope of Traffic Study Existing Conditions Trip Generation and Distribution Project Traffic Impacts Warrants for Signals Figure 1, Site Plan PM Peak Hour Project Trarfic Distribution Appendix - Traffic Counts, Level of Service Calculations and Definitions. Page 1 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 Project Description The A -M Company proposed construction of 22 single family dwelling units on a 2.5 acre parcel of land, located at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. The layout of the plan is shown on Figure 1, a reduced scale copy of a site plan, prepared by The Environmental Center. As shown on this plan, the devel- opment would have access to both Saratoga Avenue, where right turns in and out would be permitted, and to Bucknall Road. Scope of Traffic Study The City of Saratoga has asked for a traffic report showing the impacts of traffic from this project on j Bucknall Road and on the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. -The city has requested that traffic that would be generated by the proposed Saratoga Center office development, by the Owen Companies, at Saratoga and Cox Avenues, be considered when making the traffic study. The traffic studies made by PRC Engineering for the Saratoga Center EIR have been utilized for obtaining the traffic predictions on Saratoga Avenue. Recorded daily traffic counts were made for this report on Bucknall Road over a two -day period. AM and PM peak hour traffic turning movement counts were also made for this report at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. These counts are in the report Appendix. Existinq Conditions Saratoga Avenue is a four -lane divided arterial street that runs in a northeasterly direction from downtown -, Saratoga toward downtown Santa Clara. Near the north Saratoga city limits, Saratoga Avenue connects to Lawrence Expressway and Quito Road, which are other important commuter routes. Existing average daily traffic on Sara- toga Avenue is estimated to be 27,000 vehicles per day, as given in the.Saratoga Center EIR. Bucknall Road is a two -lane residential street that a runs between Saratoga Avenue and Quito Road. Average daily traffic on Bucknall Road was counted to be 1856 vehicles per day on October 17 and 18, 1984. -, J a 1 I (3a as There is stop -sign control on Bucknall Road and on Wood Dell Court at Saratoga Avenue. (Wood Dell Court is a short cul -de -sac street opposite Bucknall Road at Saratoga Avenue.) The area surrounding the proposed development is a single - family residential area. There is a gasoline filling station at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road, which the proposed project will adjoin. Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation has been estimated to be ten vehicle trips per dwelling unit per average- weekday with a ten percent peak hour factor and a 65 percent- 35 percent inbound - outbound directional split during the peak traffic hours. These are standard rates as given in Institute of Transportation Engineers pub - lications and as confirmed by trip generation studies conducted by Caltrans, District 4, of existing developments in the Bay Area. Trip distribution to the road system has been based on existing traffic patterns as determined from peak hour traffic counts made qt Saratoga Avenue and 7 Bucknall Road. Trips have been distributed 60 percent to and from the north on Saratoga Avenue, 30 percent J to and from the south on Saratoga Avenue, and 10 per- cent to and from the east on Bucknall Road. Distrib- ution of PM peak hour project traffic is shown on J Figure 2. Project Traffic Impacts The project would add 220 daily vehicle trips to the adjoining street system. On Saratoga Avenue north of Bucknall Road, the project would add 132 vehicle trips to existing traffic of over 27,000 vehicle trips per day. This is an increase on about one -half of one percent. On Bucknall Road, the project would add 22 vehicle trips to existing traffic of about 1850 vehicle trips per day. This is an increase of about 1.2 percent. J J i 2 0 In terms of peak hour traffic, the project increases would be as follows: 1 Existing Future 1/ Project Total Percent Location Traffic Traffic— Traffic Traffic Increase Saratoga Avenue s. of Bucknall(AM) 2041 2258 6 2264 0.3% J (PM) 2247 2407 6 2413 0.2% n. of Bucknall(AM) 2175 2392 13 2405 0.5% (PM) 2360 2520 13 2533 0.5% Bucknall Road e. of Saratoga(AM) 234 234 3 237 1.3% (PM) 236 236 3 239 1.3% Additional analysis was made of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road, since this is the inter- ) section through which most of the project traffic would pass. The intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road I has been analyzed according to methods outlined in Trans- portation Research Circular No. 212 for unsignalized con- , ditions.2/ Analyses of the intersection have been made for existing conditions, for future traffic and for future traffic with project traffic added. Observation of this intersection during the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours shows that there are occasional long delays for -left turning traffic to Saratoga J Avenue from Bucknall Road (and from Wood Dell Court.) There are occasional short delays for U- turning traffic on Saratoga Avenue. Otherwise there is little or no delay to any traffic at this intersection. We did not observe any time when there were more than two cars waiting to make a left turn. Gaps in the Saratoga Ave. traffic are 1 created by the signals at Cox Avenue and at Lawrence Expwy. J 1/ Future traffic includes existing traffic plus trips from Saratoga Center and Other Potential Developments listed in the Saratoga Center EIR. 2 Transportation Research Circular No. 212 is a publication of the Transpnrtation ReSP-arch Board, National Academy of Sciences titled Interim Material on IIigh,.aav Capacity. It is intended for use as an interim guide pending revisions of the official report, the Highway Capacity :•lanual, which re- visions are now underway. 3 _J J The intersection analyses show that there would be no significant change in intersection operation as an unsignalized intersection for existing conditions, for future conditions, or for future conditions with project traffic added, for either the AM or PM peak hours. The conditions are that there would be short delays y for traffic turning right from Bucknall Avenue to � Saratoga Avenue, little or no delay for traffic turning left from Saratoga Avenue to Bucknall Road or to Wood Dell Court, and long delays for traffic crossing Saratoga Avenue or turning left from Bucknall Road or from Wood Dell Court onto Saratoga Avenue. The intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall J Road /Wood Dell Court would operate at level of Service A, if signalized. Warrants for Signals, Saratoga Avenue - Bucknall Road J The future need for traffic signals at the Saratoga Avenue - Bucknall Road intersection was discussed with Mr. Dorsey, Traffic Engineer for the City of Saratoga. He stated that the intersection does not have a bad acci- dent history, and that the city has no present plans for signalization. _J a 1 A Warrant 2, as given in the State Traffic Manual, states that signals may be warranted for Interruption of Continuous Traffic if the minor street approach volume is 75 or more vehicles per hour for each of 8 hours of an average day. The recorded counts made on Bucknall Road showed only 3 hours per day when the 75 vehicle per hour minimum is ex- ceeded. Most of the westbound traffic turns right rather than left at Saratoga Avenue. The amount of project traffic turning left at the intersection would be 4 cars in the a.m. peak hour and 2 cars in the p.m. peak hour. This amount of traffic would not change the signal warrants. 4 I 1 H G) C r L �! ► t : l L-:J L--.J t__ :..0 1 ��1 11 �i 1.-- ..,..,� Li l I •_ . I •,. • g L' , • `1 SARATOGA AVENUE lJ.t D Z Ill Q J J Q Z Y U m Site Summary GROSS AREA 2.3 NET AREA 2.6 BUILDING COVERAGE 314 VEHICULAR COVERAGE 3Q4 OPEN SPACE 414 NUM ©ER OF W'S 71 GROSS DENSITY NET DENSITY ria PARKING RATIO 2D COVERED PARK*4G u OPEN PARKV4G S CY Pbttnq of Hornee: kl6vi'*A1 Pbftiq of hornae uroiect to &A.0. dapand Q on ns+xetkv do—k.s. P,trate 'yard WdscapkV to Ee kstaW and makYaksd by Fnd.id<d homaO+++o,t Th. txljv vA Feld IcMk Da rrstartel and m ea1 1TV&bm "ern h the &6m to end corm on ww& lids %atse " be n wtaksd by ear horn vmm m aaaod bax Shkp teyotA dertred trtrn ti.i wign"ea twtabva "m wd wr ect s pbtti SfTE AND CONCEPTUAL - < r•• LANDSCAPE PLAN 0' A -M COMPANY ' -'� '�"'Y" ]�jAT ^`�(,� r.e K�caeoen0 ..I '� -�`. •7����'f�� .';� ����t, 84011 �.'"^\.• 1- �M `p"7t7�^". -`'�� '`'."fir: (c��y?y 1tr T/s/aa THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER lr .s7G _. _. Q._. .�-- - -• -.. „ O 0 R 7/16164 ,OM TK —� SA+. A'S< U 99,26.4�1 21il,]2 DECOR.ATrVE wOOD FENCE AND wALL DETALS .. RIFF-.1-1, (22 peak hour trips) ROAD - 6 - CKNALL AD FIGURE 2 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Distribution November 2 0 1984 Mr. Robert S. Shook - Director of Community Development City of Saratoga _ 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Shook; We are owners of property in Saratoga Parkside immediately adjacent to the planned development SD -1582, A -1024 - Joseph Teresi (A -M Company) near the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. We request that the 25 ft. normal backyard set back be maintained for any building on the southwestern property line of this development which would butt up against our back yards. Any less than normal set back would be too much intrusion on.our privacy and the privacy of any one living in the new development. Yours truly, 9s G 7J LP-1- November 28, 1984 l~Lc. Riclzccnd S.i.egpu*.eu, JiAecta% 137or Saratoga i &;rzinu (,cN,vzi,o of c�vi 7 F4cz1-4-va& 4ve ule .Sa,aLtoya, (,czZq-o,,u" 95070 Jean / h. S.e eg�ci.(._. y: (a 6, RECEIVED Nov 30 1984 COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT ile: f1. I'1. L""`f"� - %ene.ei. - Scuratvc�a Avenue at 13ucJmctu — J noa have had the opponturzi4 to atzzdzy .the Jubd w-4i on llap � on the 22 Chit Pico jec t pnopuoed bu the 4. A. Com; wV �-dc .4-he Southeae�, Ccru A 04 SUAU -to c ,4venue cold Juchrz2 , �tz uA4 and J dice the ou ne u o� the Swwtop l alch6i.de l nof" vpp0ai&, the moot Southeast Unit o4 the !ico o6ed ?n0 jest. The .6u6 Subclivi�.i_on Azp cndi�a P that the oet Each ?Morn ouK 3'ence . wi-U be 20 Meet ( a min of- 20 .1. lvle- 6e.f i_eve that .o.ince cue u�ce /Wcaui -ced to have a 25 set Each the vcvze ehou&l be necpu.ned 01r thi 4 A. i 9. Cm paV l noVeet. Wi_th the !b# deoi.unating the oet bade ae a 'mir &mjm o�- 20 ft.', the devetopen um-L 1Ceb2uz AtA .oet bath at the mitw,uuR; naw fat, 20 �t; he cu4V never ao beyond Viat 20 met. %hue, we obpect to the 20 j_eet .oet back at the 'Sout,6u %nopwcto� Lane'. Lo z Vian (._ d u d 18915 .Ya ut i)w a Lictc'- Sa aztocJa, LaLi -onnia 950/0 llZr. /pert 0. (D . iner 18919 &ra 9-a cimk A-1-toga. _C',17 95070 January 4 1985 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Atten: Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk Dear Ms. Cory, We are owners and residents of property in Saratoga Parkside immediately adjacent to the Planned Development SD1582, A1024 by J. Teresi - A -M Company. We urge you•to deny any back yard set back less than the normal 25 feet. Anything less would cause too much of an invasion of our privacy. Yours truly, 18917 Sara Park Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 January 9, 1985 City Council City of Saratoga Re; Appeal of denial of design review 13777 Fruitvale Avenue and tentative subdivision map Saratoga, CA 95070 applications ( Appellant /Applicant, J. Teresi - A -M Company (SD -1582, A -1024) Dear City Council Members, I would like to go an record as opposing a setback of less than twenty five (25) feet on the south side of the proposed development. I also concur with the planing commission in their decision that the density of this prodject is more than desirable for this site. I attended the first planing commission hearing on this isue and made my objection known at that time but do not know if it was noted at that time. I am a retired, former employee of Paul Masson and have of Saratoga for 27 years. The proper development of the for development concerns me very much. Thank you for your consideration of my views. Sincerely, J J eph S. Stillman been a resident space that remains A•M Company v February 1, 1985 Ms. Betsy Cory Deputy City Clerk. CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial on Teresi Property Dear Ms. Cory: J ' The appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of the development plan and tentative map for the Ter.esi property was tentatively set for hearing by the City Council on February 6, 1985. Would you please remove the matter from the council's agenda until a date which we will later request. KLR /lry Very truly yours, A -M OM Kenneth L. Riding President Northern California Office: 16795 Lark Avenue • Suite 101 • Los Gatos, California 95030 • (408) 354 -8474 Regional Offices: Arizona • California • Colorado CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. -76 DATE: January 16 , 1985 DEPARTMZNT: Community Services SUB=: HCDA Public Hearing(s) Issue Stmanary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. Federal regulations require cities receiving Housing and Community Development Act funds to hold public hearings in order to afford the opportunity for citizen comment relative to the allocation of such funds. Saratoga will conduct two public hearings for this purpose: January 16 and February 6, 1985. Reconmendation Conduct HCDA Public Hearing: a. Public orientation to the HCDA; description of eligible and ineligible activities, national objectives, past City projects and estimate of available funding. b. Solicitation of project proposals. C. Questions /answers. d. Receive public comments. e. Continue Public Hearing to February 6, 1985. Fiscal Impacts Compliance with federal regulations will make the City eligible to receive an estimated $200,000 during Fiscal Year 1985 -86. Exhibits /Attachments Background and purpose of HCDA Program. Council Action 1/16: Held public hearing. J . City of.i.Saratoga Community Development Plan ISSUE Development of a three year City plan for the expenditure of Housing and Community Development Act - Block Grant Funds. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga, six other "nonentitlement" cities (population under 50,000) within Santa Clara County and the County itself receive federal Housing and Community Develop- ment Act (HCDA) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for eligible projects and activities. By regulation, nonentitlement cities receive funds by virtue of a 3 year Cooperation Agreement with the Urban County of Santa Clara (the locally responsible grant recipient). The total annual HCDA Allocation to the County is approximately four million dollars. By the current Cooperation Agreement (1985 .- 1987) the annual allocation will be disbursed as follows.- $4,000,000.00 Annual Allocation - 800,000.00 Program Administration (20% maximum) $3,200,000.00 Remaining for programs /activities A. Direct Allocation to Cities and County $1,600,000 8 = $200,000 each funds may be used for any HCDA eligible activity B. Competitive Pool $1,600,000 funds are prioritized for projects /activities that contribute to in- creasing the supply of affordable housing. A maximum of 15% of the total grant ($600,000.00) may be used for Public Service activities. The Act The primary objective of the HCDA is the... "development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunity principally for persons of low and moderate income." The overall objective of the Act can be achieved through a program where the projected use of funds has been developed to give maximum feasible priority to activities which will carry out one of the three broad national objectives of: 1. benefit low and moderate income families (i.e., a gross income for a family of 4 of $27,000) ; 2.aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and 3. create activities designed to meet other needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or Welfare of the community and other financial resources are not avail- able. Most previously funded City of Saratoga HCDA activity has been directed to benefit those of low or moderate income. Eligible Activities Following is an illustrative listing of eligible HCDA activities. The listing is not intended to be complete, each activity proposed for funding must be individually scrutinized-Jor eligibility. Basic Eligible Activities a) Acquisition of Real Property for a variety of purposes b) Public facilities and improvements c) Public Services d) Clearance activities e) Interim assistance to alleviate harmful conditions f) Removal of architectural barriers Rehabilitation and Preservation a) Rehabilitation of public residential structures b) Rehabilitation of private property c) Temporary relocation assistance d) Code enforcement e) Historic preservation f) Public housing modernization Economic Development a) Acquisition b) Public facilities and- improvements c) Commercial and industrial facilities d) Community economic development or neighborhood revitali- zation activities 61 Planning and Urban Environmental Design a) Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan b) Development of a policy - planning- management capacity c) Comprehensive planning activities Administrative Costs a) General management, oversight and coordination b) Provision of information and other resources to residents and citizen organizations involved in the local Block Grant process c) Provision of Fair Housing services d) Application preparation for other federal and Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) programs e) Activities to facilitate implementation of a Housing Assistance Plan f) Environmental studies Past and Present HCDA Funded City Activity The City has received Block Grant funding since 1975. The following is a list of City HCDA activity. 1. Housing Rehabilitation 2. E1 Quito Park Development 3. Clearance and Demolition 4. Village Beautification and Historical Preservation 5. Senior Citizen Needs Assessment 6. Social Needs Assessment 7. Senior Citizen Housing - Landbanking 8. Senior Citizen Housing - Acquisition 9. Removal or Architectural Barriers 10. Housing Element to General Plan 11. Paul Avenue Reconstruction 12. Quito Area Storm Drainage Systems 13. Street Reconstruction 14. Saratoga Senior Center - Needs Assessment and Construction 15. Senior Center Programs - Public Service 16. Government Buildings Access 17. Saratoga High School Access 18. Program /Activity Administration From 1975 through the 1984 -85 FY, the City will have received $2,560,000.00. 3 A Three Year Community Development Plan In an effort to provide for greater project activity coordination and compatibility, and to establish a more comprehensive Community Development Plan while maintaining open lines of citizen participation, a three -year planning approach for the allocation of CDBG funds is proposed. In order to chart the course for the expenditure of Block Grant funds through 1987, it is suggested that the following process be implemented: The City will, per federal regulations, continue to annually solicit citizen participation relative to community develop- ment needs which may be addressed by CDBG funding. This will be accomplished by conducting at least one (1) public meeting during November 1984 and each year thereafter. City department heads will be requested to identify potentially eligible HCDA projects which relate to their departmental function(s), (November /December 1984). Subsequent to completion of the above (mid- December) City Commissions will be invited to review project proposals generated to date, make project proposals of their own and comment on the allocation of funds and the content of the draft three -year plan. During January 1985, a draft three -year Community Develop- ment Plan will be submitted to the City Council. The Council will be requested to adopt those specific projects/ activities it wishes to .fund during the 1985 -86 FY and conceptually, identify and make tentative funding allocations through FY 1987 -88. These allocations must remain tentative however, due to the annual requirement for Citizen Participation. Examples of projects /activities which may be included in the Three Year Plan are: o Housing Rehabilitation - single and multi- family o Street Reconstruction (not maintenance) o Street lighting • Utility undergrounding • Identification of Historic Sites i.e., plaque to identify sites • Installation of fire hydrants, water mains, etc. • Park Development • Senior Citizens Center • Need Assessments • Storm Sewer System design and construction E .�. 1� 1, �✓� • Downtown Rehabilitation • Recycle Center • Bike Routes • Pedestrian Walkways • Affordable Housing Development • Senior Citizen Day Care • Public Service activities • Economic Development activities It should be kept in mind that any activity which is HCDA funded must meet one of the three broad national program objectives (pg. 2). Development of a three -year Community Development Plan will reduce competition for limited annual Block Grant funds, establish funding priorities and lend consistency to the expenditure of HCDA monies. Citizens and community groups will be able to provide annual input and request project /activity funding within the parameters of the three - year.plan. 5 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. �J 0 DATE: Jan. 9, 1985 (Jan. 16, 1985) . DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: C -216, City of Saratoga, Tree Regulations Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue SunTary 1. City Staff initiated an amendment to the zoning ordinance modifying and simplfying existing tree regulations in the Municipal. Code. 2. Some of these modifications were required to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. 3. The Planning Commission recommended approval of these modifications at its meeting of December 12, 1984. Recommendation 1. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amendment by the City Council. 2. The Council should open the public hearing, take testimony and close the public hearing. 3. The Negative Declaration should be approved prior to the first reading of the zoning ordinance amendment. 4. The second reading of the ordinance will be conducted at the next City Council meeting. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit A - Negative Declaration Exhibit B - Tree Regulation Ordinance Exhibit C - Planning Commission Resolution No. C -216 -1 Exhibit D Staff Report dated 12/5/84 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Minutes dated 12/12/84 Council Action 1/16: Approved Negative Declaration 5 -0. Introduced ordinance with amendment 5 -0. 2/6: Adopted Ordinance NS3.63 5 -0. ,EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: C -216 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,.and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the - environmen, within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the text of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance by adding existing municipal code tree regulations, that have been simplified and modified, as Article 14A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 The project will not have a significant effect on the environment since its purpose is to preserve exisiting trees and enhance the physi.cal..environment'-.of. the: city. Tree planting can be required under this ordinance to mitigate the impacts of development projects. Executed at Saratoga, California this 3rd day of December ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVI ONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SAR74 OGIA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 1984 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REPEALING SECTIONS 8 -70 THROUGH 8 -77 OF THE CITY CODE AND ADDING ARTICLE 14A TO ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO TREE REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Article IV in Chapter 8 of the City Code, consisting of sections 8 -70 through 8 -77, inclusive, is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: Article 14A is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance, to read as follows: ' "Article 14A - Tree Regulations Sec. 14A -1 Purpose and intent The City Council finds that the city is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered throughout the city; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. It is the intent of this Article to establish regulations for the installation, maintenance, preservation and removal of trees within the city, consistent with the reasonable use of private property. See. 14A-2 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Tree means a woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk, or a multistemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and is usually over ten feet high at maturity. This definition shall not include trees planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery business. (b) Oak tree means Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), and any other trees of the oak family. This definition shall not include oak trees planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery business. 12/12/84 -1- 0 0 (c) Street tree means any tree within the public street or right of way, or within five feet of the right of way. (d) Shrub means a bushy, woody plant, usually with several permanent stems, and usually not over fifteen feet high at maturity. The Director of Community Development shall have the right to determine whether any specific woody plant shall be considered a tree or a shrub. Sec. 14A -3 Application of Article This Article shall apply to every owner of real property within the city, and to every person responsible for removing a tree regardless of whether such person is engaged in a tree removal business. Sec. 14A-4 Street trees (a) Policies and standards. The Director of Community Development shall implement policies and standards for street tree planting and maintenance as established from time to time by resolution of the Planning Commission or City Council. (b) Planting required as condition of approval. The planting of street trees may be required as a condition of any approval granted under this Zoning Ordinance. (c) Responsibility for maintenance. The city shall provide maintenance for street trees located within a commercial zoning district and on arterial roads, unless such maintenance responsibility has been assumed by a property owner or other person under a landscape maintenance agreement with the city. In all other areas of the city, the city shall not conduct but shall control the planting, maintenance and removal of street trees and shrubs which might affect the public right of way; the owner or occupant of such property shall be responsible for the maintenance of street trees on the property and in the public right of way abutting the property. Sec. 14A -5 Removal of certain trees prohibited without permit Except as otherwise provided in Section 14 -6, it is unlawful for any person to destroy or remove, or cause to be destroyed or removed, any protected tree upon any private or public property in the city without first having obtained a permit to do so issued pursuant to this Article. A protected tree shall consist of any of the following: (a) Any tree having a main stem or trunk which measures 40 inches or greater in circumference at a height of 24 inches above natural grade. (b) Any oak tree having a main stem or trunk which measures 32 inches or greater in circumference at a height of 24 inches above natural grade. (c) Any street tree, as defined in Subsection 14A -2(c), regardless of size. (d) Any tree that existed at the time of an approval granted under this Zoning Ordinance or the city's Subdivision Ordinance and required to be preserved as part of such approval. 12/12/84 -2- (e) Any tree required to be planted as a condition of any approval granted under this Zoning Ordinance or the city's Subdivision Ordinance. Sec. 14A-6 Exceptions The permit requirement set forth in Section 14 -5 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Emergencies. If the condition of a tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, it may be removed without a permit on order of the City Manager, the Director of Community Development, the Director of Maintenance or a member of the County Sheriff or fire department. (b) City employees. Employees of the city may without a permit take such action with regard to trees on city -owned property as may be necessary to maintain safety. (c) Public utilities. Public utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the State Public Utilities Commission may without a permit take such action as may be necessary to comply with the safety regulations of the Commission and as may be necessary to maintain a safe operation of their facilities. (d) Project approval. Where removal of a tree has been authorized as part of any approval granted under this Zoning Ordinance or the city's Subdivision Ordinance, no permit shall be required for removal of such tree. Sec. 14A -7 Application for permit Application for a tree removal permit shall be made to the Director of Community Development on such form as he may prescribe. The application shall contain the number and location of each tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, and such additional information as the Director may require. Sec. 14A -8 Determination on permit (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, 12/12/84 -3- 0 • scenic beauty, property values and any established standards of the area. (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (b) Additional recommendations. The Director of Community Development may refer the application to another department, commission or person for a report and recommendation. The Director may also require the applicant to furnish a written report from an independent tree expert acceptable to the Director. (c) Decision by Director. The Director of Community Development may grant or deny the application or grant the same with conditions, including, but not limited to, the condition that one or more replacement trees be planted of a species and size and at locations as designated by the Director. Any such replacement trees shall be obtained and planted at the expense of the applicant. Sec. 14A-9 Appeals Any person objecting to a decision by the Director of Community Development made pursuant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Zoning Ordinance. Sec. 14A -10 No liability upon city Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city or upon any of its officers or employees, nor to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any trees and shrubs upon his property or upon sidewalks in front of his property. Sec. 14A -11 Violations; penalties The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 2.5 of the City Code. In addition thereto, any person unlawfully removing or destroying any tree without a permit shall be penalized as follows: (a) Replacing the unlawfully removed tree with a new tree as similar thereto as reasonably feasible, or if such replacement is not feasible because of the size or age of the removed tree, with such number of similar trees as will provide reasonably equivalent aesthetic quality, as determined by the Director of Community Development. All such replacement trees shall be maintained by the property owner under a five year maintenance agreement with the city. (b) Where similar replacement trees will not provide reasonably equivalent aesthetic quality, the Director of Community Development shall calculate the value of the unlawfully removed tree in accordance with the latest edition of the Guide For Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants, as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, and such value shall be the civil penalty for violation of this Article in addition to the penalty prescribed in Chapter 2.5 of the City Code. 12/12/84 -4- (c) The violation of any provision contained in this Article during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, landscaping, construction or other business in the city shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business licensed issued to such person." SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. This above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 1984, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 161"M6399 49 12/12/84 -5- MAYOR J RESOLUTION NO. C -216 -1 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING ARTICLE 14A - TREE REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning was initiated by the Planning Division Staff to simplify existing tree regulations in the Municipal Code (Chapter these regulations in the Zoning Ordinance consistent with and policies of the Saratoga General Plan, and Ordinance and modify 8) and place the goals WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 12th day of December , 1984, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and WHEREAS, after careful consideration of as it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the City of Saratoga, and after consideratio the Commission has made certain.findings and that the proposed amendment attached thereto recommended to the City Council. the proposed amendment the General Plan of a of the staff report, is of the opinion shall be formally NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of the City. 2. That the report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same as herby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached proposed amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of December 1984, by the following vote: — AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES None ABSENT:Commissioner Crowther ATTEST: qc6u � J Secretary Chairman, Planning I � EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS: 1. The proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordi- nance is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in that: a. The purpose of the proposed tree regulations is to maintain and enhance the physical environment of the City consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. b. The proposed regulations will enhance public safety by minimizing potential erosion and flooding. 2. The proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordi- nance will not be.detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the City. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/5/84 Commission Meeting: 12/12/84 SUBJECT' Q -216, City of Saratoga, Tree Regulations The City Attorney has drafted a new ordinance regulating tree removal by repealing the Municipal Code Sections dealing with trees, modifying, updating, and simplifying these sections, and then creating Article 14A to contain these regulations. The ordinance has also been modified to implement the following General Plan Conservation Element goals and policies: CO.2.0 Conserve natural vegetative and significant topographic features which exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. CO.2.4 Through implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the Citv shall control the removal or destruction of trees. CO.2.5 In the process of all new development, particular care shall be taken to preserve native oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at twenty -four inches above the ground, and other significant trees by careful siting of all improvements. CO.2.5 (Imp) Modify the Tree Preservation Ordinance to re- quire tree removal permits for native oaks measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater. New definitions have been added to the ordinance for oak trees, street trees, and shrubs. There is a section that deals with the planting and maintenance of street trees and calling for street tree standards to be established by Planning Commission Resolution. Staff has not yet begun work on this resolution and would recommend that the City horticulturalist be involved in that process. The section dealing with prohibitions on tree removals without a permit is more detailed than the current ordinance. Tree removal permit criteria have been consolidated with other sections increasing the number of criteria from 2 to 5. Broader authority has been granted to public employees to grant exceptions from the permit re- quirement in the case of emergencies. Report to the Plann' Commission C -216, Tree Regulates 12/5/84 ® Page 2 Perhaps the most important new section to be added to the ordinance is the Violations; Penalties Section. This section states that violating this Article is an infraction and a public nuisance subject to the penalties in Chapter 2.5 of the City Code. A person convicted of an infraction can be fined from $100.00 to $500.00 depending on the number of convictions within a 1 year period. In addition to these costs, the violator would have to replace any tree removed without a permit by one of the following: 1) A new tree as similar as possible to the removed tree or a number of trees of reasonable equivalent aesthetic quality maintained by the property owner. 2) Paying a civil penalty equivalent to the value of the removed tree where similar placement is not possible. A business license for a tree removal firm can also be revoked if that firm violates Article 14A. The current ordinance has a 21 day time limit for action by the City on a tree removal permit. The proposed ordinance eliminates this time limit since these permits are a low priority item which should be delayed when staff is pressed for time on other items. Currently tree removal permits are processed within 1 week. Staff is of the opinion that this proposed ordinance is an improvement over the - existing ordinance in terms of clarity of procedure and the penalities called for in cases of violations. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the adoption of the proposed tree APPROVED MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 12/12/84 attached resolution recommending the regulations by the City Council. A 4.- Michael Flores Associate Planner Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 12/1'/31 V -672 and A -1033 (coat.) Page S stated that she will have to oppose the application on the basis that thev can expand on one leve . Commissioner 1-larri stated that she looks at the proposal differently. She explained that she is not opposed to there being a two- story, especially since it is not that largb an addition. She indicated that she is concerned that it is only 1S feet kack from the street; however, she does not feel it is impacting the neighlors directly behind them. She added that when the time comes for the park to be developed the Commission surely ]would not put all two - stories in there' she does not think that is the goal of any of the sub- divisions that have lecn approved. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see the two -story set back to give it some architectural relief. Commissioner Bur,cr m ved to approve V -672 to maintain a 15 ft. setback for the existing house, per the Staff Report elated December 4, 1934 and Exhibits B -1, C -1 and D -1. Co111lllissioncr Ilarris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Bur,cr movled to approve the variance f=or the second -story addition, ill, g the foliowin, fin dings: Practical dilticulty - 'There is a problem where the house is situated ON the lot; Gxccptional Circumstances - also the way the house is situated on thet1 lot; Common Privilege - There are other two-story homes within the neighborhood, and Special Privilege - For the applicant to have. a second -story ]some would not be a privilege that has not been extended to other homes within the neighborhood. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Commissioner Sch cfer suggested a condition to the Design Review that the second -story be set brick a minimum of 15" from the front for some archi- tectural relief. 1 • Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she cannot make Findings ffl and 1f2 and agrees swath Staff that t}lcr� is room for expansion, despite the fact that the house is set on the lot dif-L'11erently. Therefore, there is no practical cliffi- culty or unnecessary physicatl hardship. Regarding Finding 112, she stated that she agrees with staff's \reason:ing, and 113 - There are no two- stories • within 500-t. of this home. The vote was takcrl on the motion to approve. The motion was carried 5 -1, With Couunissioncr McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner Burger moved to approve ,\ .1113,, making the findings: fl,-) and .f =1 The extent of the addition to th, 1101110 i.s such that the perception of excessive bulk will not be :increased that much. The height and bulk of: the home is compatible with other two -story homes within the neighborhood. She added Condition ifs, to state that the ad`clitloll be moved back a minimum of 13" to Provide some architectural relief on the second floor, the eaves shall be retained, and some composition be j,ut. on (anything except tar and gravel). Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -1, with Com- missioner McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that another basis for voting for tllis proposal is the height of 20'5 ". She added that she thinks that is signif'cantl,y different than .if it had come :in at 2S' or 301. 16. C -215 - City of Saratoga, Consider nancc (Ordinance NS -3) to as conditional uses in cer :Articles 3 and 13 amending the text of the zonin, ord:i- llow bed and breakfast establishments "if' R -1 districts per ordinance NS -3, 1 Staff reported that this item had been discussed at the last study session, and at that time it was felt that :it shoil.ld be continued Until after the Village Task Force comes up with a definition of- the V lla,e. The public hcar:ing Was opened at 10:-'13 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Peterson moved t,0 close Tile public hearing. Com- missioner Burger seconded the motion, whicl, was carried unanimously. It was directed that this matter be continued. 17 D21 Cite of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the zoning Ordi nance (Ordinance NS -3) by adding, Article 1 =1A - 'free Regulations and reneal:ing the existing 'I'rec Ordin;lncc in the dlunicipal Code. her 01'dinance NS3, Article 13 The City Attorney described the proposed anlcndmelit• Ile commented that speci- fically the scope, coverage and penalties of the ordinance have been expanded. - 8 - • P1 :nuli no Couuni s;.i oil Meeting �l:inutes - 13112184 V -673 and A- 1011. (coat.) • The vote was taken on the motion to approve the variance. Pile motion was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A- 1011, per the conditions in the Staff Report dated October 11, 1984, but reducing the size to 12,600 sq. ft. Dis- cussion followed on the solid wall and the fence on the other property. it was determined that Condition 7 should read "A 6 ft. fence similar to the existing fence shall be located along the northern property line, and a solid wall shall be located along the western property line." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. - 7 - Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was going to oppose the proposal, Which is a change from when it was first proposed. She explained that unfor- tunately Floor Area Ratios were not really an issue until. the Olden property. She indicated that if the applicant were willing to go to the same Floor Area Ratio as Buildin; "A ", she certainly would take a look at that. Commissioner Harris indicated that she also would be voting against this, for mainly the same reasons. The vote was taken on the motion to approve A- 1011, which resulted in a split vote 3 -3, with Commissioners Harris, McGoldrick and Schaefer dissenting. The City Attorney commented that the split vote is deemed a denial and the applicant has the option of appealing to the City Council or waiting until the next meeting to have a full Commission present and to have the matter voted upon again. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would vote for the proposal if the structure were reduced 1,000 sq. ft. The applicant stated that Ile would like the matter considered at the next meeting. it was directed that this matter will be reagendized For the January 9, 1.985 meetin;. lda. V -670 Bill and Barbara Sudlow, Request for Design Revieu Approval to lab. A -1035 - construct a 1101-1 tldo -story residence and Variance Approval for a ' 2S ft. front yard setback where 75 ft. is required at 21503 Saratoga lieights Drive ('Tract 6665, lot 11), in the NHR zoning district • It was directed that this item be continued to January 9, 1935. 15a. V -672 - Bobbi Canha, Request for Design Review Approval for a second - 1Sh. A -LOSS - story addition and Variance Approval to maintain a 15 ft. exterior side yard setback where 25 ft. is rcqu.ircd for an existing one -story residence at .127811 Pasco Presada, In the I: -1.- 1.0,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal, stating that they can make the findings for the variance for the existing house. However, they :ire unable to make the findings for the second -story addition or Design Review. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that the drawings are reversed and the garanc is on the side next to the neighbors. She added that there is a great deal of room ill the back for expansion on one level.. The public hearin, was opened at 1.0:32 p.m. Glen Cox, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. lie described the existing home and the other homes in the area. Commissioner Schaefer commented that it appears in the front that the addition goes straight up over the garage and there is no tic -in with the rest of tile. house. She added that she thinks it will look like a massive add -on on top of a 11 arage. 1I1•. Cox indicated that he could leave Tile caves on to nl :lke the addition look IcsS ohtrusivr. Rohert Black, 1175n Pasco Presada, noted hold file houses sit on file lots and indicated th :lt he Ilas 110 pl- ohlChl with the Ildditi011 if it .IS di)Ile IlC;ltll'. Chairman Siegfried noted correspondence received in support of the pro -iCCt. Conunissi.oner PIcGoldr.i.ck moved to close the public hearing. Connn:i;sioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carr:icd LuMil.i.mou;ly. •Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that She lives two doors down and has colll- plete ;,•Illpathy with the cIppl Icallt. lloh'evel•, she e.Cpi -essed conies -n :Ihoiir Ii :ICIIIL; two stories near the park school property. She explained that the nei <.;hborhood is afraid that lrhen the h1 Quito Park school property gets developed it will become tiro -story because there is a precedence of fro- stories near it. She.. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes - 12/12/84 0-216 (cont.) Tile additional definitions of trees were disC:USSed. The City Attorney noted that appeals now go to the Commission instead of the City Council, and a violator can be requiircd to plant replacement trees of comparable size and quality and it- that is not feasible, to be fined for the value of the tree removed. Commiss:i.oner Mc Goldr:ick referenced a letter from the ;McIntyres, which dis- cussed the fact that there are not many oaks in the Golden Triangle where they .1.ivC. IIoIJCVCI -, there arc mealy liquid ambers which have reached their utcltur.i.ty but (10 not 1::111 under t ll he measurements i the ordinance. 'File City Attorney stated that the Commission can certainly define what constitutes a protected tree in any manner that they Feel is appropriate. DisCLISSioli followed on sidewalk trees. The City Attorney commented that with respect to streettrees, if they are in a commercial zone, the City would have the maintenance respon- sibility unless some landowner has been specifically given that duty. However, in residential districts, while the City has overall control, esscnti.ally it is the landowners' responsibility to maintain street trees, being defined as in the public right -of -way, lie commented that to the extent that a street tree may have been required as part of an original subdivision approval., he would make that interpretation that they are already covered under Item d in Section 14 -5 as a tree required to be planted. however, lie commented that he would have no problem if the Commission wanted to add another specific clesig- nation of any street tree as being a protected tree irrespective of size. It was clotermined that the standards for I-CI)Ioval of trees could be further dis- cussed :It a study sess:i.on. It w<Is also clot ermined that the phrase "any street tree" be added to Section 14A -5. The public hcari.ng was opened at 11:00 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hesri.nP. Tl10 motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend Resolution C -216 -1 to the City Council, with the .i.nsertion of the Condition ahout street trees. Conunisslonol' . Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. DESIGN RLV11:1V I.S. A -1042 - ,Joseph ,alas k, Request for Design Review Approval of a restaurant/ apartment .t 14467 Bip Basin Ilay Staff described the proposal, noting that other applications are needed for the project. !'hey discus_ "I the parking and landscaping. Conm.issi oil or McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report. She commented that Mr. Masek would prcfcr to put ill str et trees instead of the S ft. of landscaping, and he would like to Work out s me other me:uls for the sidin; other than the wood requested, by Staff. The City Attorney expla:i.ned t at the City is work.in, on Parking Assessment. District le.,;, ;Ind i.i- all Tile pr }icrTy olanc:rs agree there will be opportunities for transfer of development. ri�llts from those people. who have access area from tlie:ir site. Thorofore, this pr jest should comply With the present staIlLlards and the use. of tilt deck should 10 restricted. Ile commented that i P Air. 1lasek acquires development rights from other people wi.th:in the district there could be outdoor d:in:im, on that dock by his acquisition of parking spaces th:It could be assigned to other property. Her h* Cuevas, the architect, ,ave 11 VCSCntat.iOIl on the project. 1.10 indiCatCd that the applicant is willlllg to pro ide a letter to the City, stating that when the deck .is in use he iaould red cc the seating in the dining room by tile. :unount of seating that is in the deck\ In the future when the Parking Assess - mont District hoiumeS a reality he would acquire whateVer rights he would need so he would not have to do that. Hr. (?ucvas commented that they disagree with the condition in the Staff Report that r\\equ:ires the project to start construc- tion in six months. He indicated that he Felt a nine - month or one -year per.iod would be more reasonable. The timefram0of the process was discussed. Ile di5CUS5ed the present and proposed landsc)p:ing, the exterior of' the bui.ld.ing and the lmrk:ing. Commissioner Peterson indicated that lie can tiupport this project. on that par - ticulclr parcel and he thinks that a restaurcuyt is an excellent use. Ile added - 9 - Planning Commission Tape Ill "lcctinn Minutes - 12/12/34 A -1042 (coat.) that he feels that restaurants arc the drai., for the 1%i llage and lie feels that they should be encouraged. Ile indicated that he l..ikcs the redwood clock and would be more than happy to add a condition that says the applicant needs to dose off the eating area in the dininn room to bal:mce what he would have in the deck. The City Attorney expressed concern about the practical ability to enforce that. He explained that the Commission wants to permit the applicant to alternate the use in that fashio Ile would definitely want that incorporated into the terms of the use permit so that the applicant is aware that if there is a violation the Commission retains continuin,y jurisdiction on the use permit. Discussion followed on the seating capacity of the dining room. The City Attorney com- mented that the best solution would be for Mr. PAasek to acquire the development rights from other people in the district, and he would like the applicant to be under some incentive to do that. Ile added that, in the meantime, until that district is formed, the Commission can impose a condition of maximum seatinn capacity, tie that into the use permit, and periodic inspections will have to be made to make sure it is not violated. Additionally, the applicant should clearly understand that the whole operation could be shut down if there is such a violation. Discussion followed on the long stucco wall on the eastern side, the compact parking and the landscaping. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A -1042, per the Staff Report dated December 12, 1934, changing Condition "b to read "4 compact spaces,,, #11 to read "9 months from the date of this approvaT', and add 815, to condition this approval for a total of 3S seats. The City Attorney stated that by ordinance the applicant would need a use permit for the outdoor dining, and that could be incorporated into the other use permit portion. Ile added that he would like to see some (late for the submission of the applica- tion for the use permit; basically all of the documents are here so the appli- cant can resubmit almost immediately. It was determined that Condition BSi, regarding the siding, is to be eliminated, and Condition #7 changed to read that street trees can be used, with review and approval by Barry Coates. Com- missioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. COAIMUNI CATIONS hritten 1. Lotter from Mina - 'free Signs renardialg A-1002. Staff explained the request. Ater c iscusslon .ontm1SSlon- er olci'i.c� moved to approve the request to mount the "Right to Pass" and "No Solicitation" signs for the Dank of America in the sign frame, below the "Customer Parking" sign. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 2. Staff reported that they are reviewing thc.Petit.ion for Traffic Con- trol devices on Saratoga Avenue and will pursue it. 3. Letter from Lathuras dated December 1., 1931. The City Attorney reported that this letter had also been received by the City Council. He stated that a nuisance abatement proceeding has been started regarding the accessory building, and that will be continued runless the City Council directs differently or if the applicant chooses to apply for a variance. Oral 1. 'There will be a joint session with the City Council on February 12, 1935 to discuss the recent developments of the Paul Masson property. 2. Commissioner Schaefer requested that the Community Services Officer, Fire Chief, City Goolog:ist and the City Ilorticul.tur:i.st give input to the Com- mission regarding possible changes in the ordinances. 3. Commissioner Schaefer sugnestod that the lighting for the Saratoga National Bank s.i.gn be reconsi.dcred. It ivas determined that this matter wvill. be a,yendiced. 4. Ch;lirnuni Sic gfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending acid the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNt SNIT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Burner seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. '['be meeting W.IS adjourned at Il:i7 p.m. P1, (C l I cdRSS:cd t S. Secretary �^ CITY OF SAPATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: January 16, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Community Services SUBJECT: Village Library Lease Renewal Issue SurgnaLy Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Mgr Last year the City Council entered into a one year lease agreement with the Friends of the Library and the Valley.Institute of Theatre Arts (VITA) for lease of the Sheldon P. Patterson Memorial Library (Village Library). The lease expries on January 31, 1985 Recommendation Provide direction to staff concerning the renewal of the lease and any changes in terms and conditions. If renewal of the lease is desired, staff is recommending the lease be for two years rather than one. Fiscal Impacts The existing lease provides $3,601 in revenue to the City annually. Exhibits /Attachxents 1. Report to Council 2. Existing Lease Agreement 3. Correspondence from the Friends of the Library dated 1/7/85. 4. Correspondence from the Valley Institute of Theatre Arts dated 1/8/85. Council Action 1/16: Renewed lease for one year, 5-0. a�4 04 of = A.R. A.T OG A. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 1/10/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/16/85 SUBJECT: VILLAGE LIBRARY LEASE RENEWAL ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Last year the City Council entered into a one year lease agree- ment with the Friends of the Library (Friends) and the Valley Institute of Theatre Arts (VITA) for lease of the Sheldon P. Patterson Memorial Library (Village Library). The lease expires on January 31, 1985. The current lease provides for VITA to pay $300 per month rent. The Friends pay $1.00 per year as sent. The Friends are not proposing any changes in their lease, and are interested in renewal. VITA is also interested in the renewal of their lease, but has proposed that both VITA and the Friends each pay $150 per month rent, rather than VITA alone paying $300 per month. Council direction is needed if any terms of the current lease agreement are to be changed for the new lease year. If Council desires to renew the lease without change, staff would recommend that the lease be made for two years rather than one. Todd W. Argo Community Services Director IL GENERAL DIRECTOR Judith Lyn Sutton BOARD OF DIRECTORS Marjory Bunyord Gustavo Cordemil Justine Forbes Rai sa Kocher Helen Metcalf David Neale Bill Peck Shirley Peddle Don Peterson . Vicky Robertson Robert K. Rockwood David E. Scott 1_ h ar les Swan John B. Swart: Gary Sutton Judith Lyn Sutton Nancy Thompson B. J. Tucker Lynne Woodward Philip Young DIRECTORS CIRCLE $1000+ Contributors) Jean & Floyd Kvamma Mr. 6 Mrs. Donald B. Miller Willys & Betty Peck David E. Scott Lynne R. Snyder Judith Lyn Sutton AI Wesson rum 7hwrel ts P.O. Box 999 Y Saratoga, California a 95071 Tel. (408) 867 -2395 January 8, 1985 J' I Mr. Todd Argow Community Services Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Argow: It was my pleasure to hear from one of our Board members that you were very helpful and courteous with her in regards to information concerning the theatre rent. She also mentioned that you are the newly appointed staff person in charge of city properties. Congratulations! I am responding to your letter of December 28th regarding our rental of the Sheldon P. Patterson Memorial Library. We would indeed like to be put on the January 15th Council meeting agenda to discuss our experiences and itemized recommendations for renewal of the library lease. The library has provided VITA with a firm base of operations for the past two years and has in many ways enhanced our ability to build California's largest outdoor Shakespeare Festival. I would, however, like to meet with you at your earliest conven- ience to discuss some problems we are having with the facility at the present time. Briefly, they are as follows: a) Leaky roof b) Heating efficiency c) Electrical power supply and possible fire hazzards with rain soaked fictures d) Replacement of front door glass (presently it is plate glass -I think not to code for public buildings) e) Arrangements for renovation of bathroom facilities and installation of hot water heater f) Front door repair (Hinge connections are loose) Upon writing this, I was unable to reach Martha Beverett of the Friends of the Library; but after talking with her in the recent past I feel that she and her Volunteers would concur with these problems. I also feel that our co- existence with the Friends of the Library has been one of mutual respect and admiration for the services each group has to offer the community. There is also the matter of the rent. As in the past two years, VITA's Board would like the Council to consider a rent reduction A NON -PROFIT TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION { i1 January 8, 1985 Page Two in which both groups would share the building equally at $150.00 per month. This would retain the present monthly income of the structure to the city; $7200.00 of which VITA has contributed to date, versus the $2.00 from the Friends of the Library. We feel that this situation would be most equitable for all groups involved. I am presuming that this letter will serve as the request to be put on the January 16th Council Meeting Agenda. Please call me at 867 -2395 if this is a misunderstanding on my part, and thanks again for being so helpful. Sincerely, John S. Swartz Business Manager JBS /ml cc: Judith Lyn Sutton Lynne Woodward Wayne Dernetz Council Members f Friends of the Saratoga Libraries January 7, 1985 To: Saratoga City Council and City Manager From: Friends of Saratoga Libraries Re: Renewal of Village Library Building Lease This is a request for the renewal of the lease for use of a portion of the Village Library building (Sheldon P. Patterson Memorial Library) dated February 1, 1984. The Book Go Round, a used book store, operated in the Village Library building by a volunteer staff of Friends is a year round book sale that greatly increases the Friends contributions to the Saratoga Community Library. An increase of volunteers enabled us to open the Book Go Round four days a week since May 1984. Generous donations of books enabled us to have two extraordinary book sales - one in March 1984 and one in August 1984. All monies re- ceived at the Book Go Round, except those needed for operating expenses, are returned to the citizens. of Saratoga through the Saratoga Community Library. Our public relations and operating procedures have been very successful and we are attracting customers and do- nations of books from all around the area. We gratefully acknowledge the City•s continued support and interest in the Community Library and the work of the Friends of the Libraries and we therefore ask for a re- newal of our Lease with the same terms for a period of two years. SijIcerely yours, Pat Mahler President ADDENDUM For the Fiscal Year July 1, 1983 to January 30, 1984, the Friends gave $10,480.00. Money donated so far for the Fiscal Year 1984 -1985 is: Already donated: $3,652.59 Committed: Children's Program $ 740.00 Book Budget $50000.00 Used books are selected from the shelves to augment the collections of the: Saratoga Community Library Prospect High School Library Saratoga High School Library These selections are made by the Librarians and at no charge to the Libraries. VILLAGE LIBRARY LEASE This lease is entered into in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, by and between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation (Landlord /Lessor to this lease), and the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries, and Valley Institute of Theatre Arts, as co- tenants (tenants /lessees to this lease). 1. Premises. Landlord hereby leases and tenants hereby rent the following described property, hereinafter called "premises:" The Saratoga Village Library Building, located at 14410 Oak Street, Saratoga, California, comprising an area of approximately 1622 square feet. 2. Term. The term of this lease shall be for a period of one (1) year. The term of this lease, and tenants' obligation to pay rent, shall commence on February 1, 1984, and continue through January 31, 1985, in accordance with the terms herein, unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. 3. Tenant Valley Institute of Theatre Arts shall pay to Landlord as rent in advance on P the 1st day of each calendar month of the term of this lease, without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand, the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month, in lawful money of the United States. Tenant Friends of the Saratoga Libraries shall pay Landlord as rent in advance on the first day of the term of this lease, without deduction, offset, prior notice or demand, the sum of $1.00 as rent for the entire term of this lease. Said aq TTPus quPuaq goPa ,�q pagTsodop �gTanoas oqq 'asPaT szuq go swaoq 1 auq TTP u4TM �Tduioo '�TTng TTPus 4uPUaq u0PO 4uana auq uI •ums J rent payments are to be made payable to the City of Saratoga and are to be delivered to the offices of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. If the 1st day of the month falls on a holiday, Saturday, or.Sunday, payment must be made on the following business day. Any payment received more than ten (10) days after its due date, or which is not honored and is returned to the Landlord, shall be subject to a Ten Dollar ($10.00) per day penalty to be assessed from the due date of the payment in question. 4. Security Deposit. Each tenant has placed on deposit with the Landlord the sum of $300;'--as a cash security deposit. Each tenant has placed on deposit with the Landlord a note in the sum of $700 as additional security deposit. The total sum of the security deposit is $1,000 for each tenant. If at any time during the term hereof tenants should fail to perform any of their obligations under this lease, Landlord, without -- notice, may appropriate and apply any portion of the security deposit as may be reasonably necessary to fulfill tenant's obligations. Upon notification by Landlord to tenants of such appropriation, tenants shall remit to Landlord an amount in cash equal to the amount expended in order to restore said security deposit to the original -2- pup p5ogpapS go ,�qTG au4 04 aTgpApd appw aq oq aap s4ualunpa 4ual SUM. In the event each tenant shall fully comply with all the Cterms of this lease, the security deposited by each tenant shall be returned to each tenant within fifteen (15) days after the termina- tion of their tenancy and after delivery of the premises to Landlord with the required notice. The amount refunded shall not include interest. 5.1. Use. Tenant the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries shall use and occupy the premises during the term for the operation of a used bookstore; benefit receptions; for promotional events such as, but not confined to, reduced price sales, poetry.readings, children's story hours, book review sessions, autograph sessions, Great Book Seminars; meetings, and other similar and related uses and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the Landlord. Tenant Valley Institute of Theatre Arts shall use and occupy the Cpremises during the term for general administrative office purposes; board, staff and production meetings; ticket sales; display of theater artifacts; benefit receptions; class registration; occasional seminars, classes and dramatic readings; and other similar and re- lated uses (excluding set construction and repair); and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the Landlord. Tenants shall not use or permit the premises or any part thereof to be used for any purpose or purposes other than the purpose or purposes for which the premises are leased. -3- uro�� �ubTZ au uaz pup saTnz a v o rzdo�ddp aq 04 L. tgpu sp _ q TTp4s pZorpup7 a� agrzos The co- tenants of the premises will schedule special events to their mutual convenience so that each tenant may conduct its regular business without undue inconvenience from the activities of the other and without needing to consult the Landlord. 5.2. No use shall be made or permitted to be made of the premises or acts done which will increase the existing rate of insurance on the premises, building, or any of its contents, or cause the can- cellation of any insurance policy covering the premises, building, or any part thereof. If any'act on the part of the Tenants or use of the premises by Tenants shall cause, directly'or indirectly, any increase of Landlord's insurance, such additional expense shall be paid by Tenants to Landlord upon demand. Tenants shall not sell or permit to be kept, used or sold in or about the premises any article which may be prohibited by the standard form of fire insurance Policies. Tenants shall not permit any person to smoke in or about the premises. 5.3. Tenants shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste upon the premises or any public or private nuisance or any other act or thing which may.disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other tenant in the building in which the premises are located. Tenants shall not use the premises or permit the premises to be used in whole or in part for any purpose or use that is deemed to be in violation of any of the laws, ordinances, regulations or rules of any public authority or organization at any time. Any such violation shall be determined by the Landlord at the Landlord's some discretion. -4- zzau4 04 squana TPzoads aTnpauos TTTM sasTmazd auk 90 s4ucuaq-00 aus 5.4. Landlord shall have the right from time to time to pre- scribe reasonable rules and regulations which in its judgement may be appropriate for the use of the premises and the building. Upon notification to Tenants of such rules, Tenants agree to comply there- with and any failure to so comply shall constitute a default under this lease. 6. Utilities. Landlord, at its expense, has provided adequate sewer, water, electricity, and gas lines, pipes, and conduits, to and from the leased premises. Tenants shall, during the term hereof, pay all charges for telephones, gas, electricity,.water? heat, air conditioning, replacement of bulbs and flourescent tubes, window washing, janitorial and cleaning services, and removal of rubbish, trash, and garbage. 7.1. Assignment. Tenants shall not assign this lease volun- tarily or by operation of law, or any right hereunder, nor sublet the premises or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of Landlord. 7.2. No consent to any assignment of this lease, voluntarily or by operation of law, or any subletting of the premises, shall be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment of this lease voluntarily or by operation of law, or to any subletting of the premises, except as to the specific instance covered thereby. Any such assignment of this lease, voluntarily or by operation of law, or any subletting of the premises, without obtaining the prior written consent of Landlord, shall be void and at the option of Landlord shall terminate this lease. -5- • � � eaa.z �ouabzawa ax��zapn .,e g u SzTPda•z � °uabza�a '"��{Yne ions .uauM °� s�u�uay �Twzad �pw ?-zo 7rr , 8. Condition of Premises and Repairs. By accepting occuY� „`f of the premises, Tenants :. shall be deemed to have agreed that the premises are in good order, condition and repair and Landlord makes no warranties or guarantees hereunder. Tenants, at their own expense, shall maintain in good order and repair all portions of the interior of the leased premises (including windows), but not including the roof and exterior walls, paving and landscaping, floor structure, pipes and conduits, and utility installations, all of which shall be maintained by the Landlord. The Landlord shall also be responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and repair of heating and air condition- ing systems serving the leased premises. Tenants shall make all repairs of every kind to-the interior of the leased premises except repairs of a structural nature, or which are caused by structural failure. 9.1. Alterations. Tenants shall not make or permit to be made any alterations, repairs to, changes in, and additions to the premises (interior, exterior and adjacent landscaped areas) without the prior written consent of the Landlord. All alterations, repairs, changes and additions that may be required shall be done either by or under the direction of the Landlord at the cost of Tenants, and shall be- come immediately the property of Landlord and shall remain upon and be surrendered with the premises at the termination of the term of this lease. 9.2. All repairs to be made hereunder by Landlord shall be made with dispatch, and in such a manner and at such time as to cause the least inconvenience to Tenants in the conduct of their businesses. -6- � auk �eu� Paazbe d�.� ti Louednoo0 buz�daooe �g •sz?ed@ -d Pup saszuia.7d 3o uoz� ?PuO� • 8 Landlord may permit Tenants to undertake emergency repairs if and when such emergency repairs have been approved in advance by a duly authorized representative of the Landlord. All such repairs to be made by Landlord are subject to City of Saratoga budget constraints and may be the subject of review by the Saratoga City Council. The Saratoga City Council reserves the right to deny funding for repairs and seek termination of this lease agreement, as provided by the terms of this lease agreement. 9.3. Tenants, upon the termination of this lease or the expira- tion of the term hereof or for any other reason, shall quit and surrender the premises in good order, condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear and damage by fire, an Act of God, or the elements excepted. Upon the termination of this lease or the expiration of the term or otherwise, Landlord shall have the option to require CTenants to remove from the premises, at Tenants' expense, all improve- ments placed on the premises by Tenants, including, but not limited to, incandescent light fixtures, tract lights, counters and cabinets, and the premises thereafter to be restored to its previous condi- tion, at the expense of Tenants. 9.4. Tenants shall keep the premises and building of which the premises are .a part free and clear of any liens, and shall in- demnify, hold harmless and defend Landlord from any liens and encum- brances arising out of any work performed or materials furnished by or at the direction of Tenants. In the event any liens are filed, Tenants shall do all acts necessary to discharge any lien within ten (10) days of filing, or if Tenants desire to contest any lien, then -7- " `eI •uoT���T�TU pug saT�TTTgpT �rcrjpl J _ �apu2 pug r rT� 30 __ �TTTgpT7 z t Tenants shall deposit with Landlord such security as Landlord shall demand to insure the payment of the lien claim. In the event Tenants shall fail to pay any lien claim when due or shall fail to de C posit the security with Landlord, then Landlord shall have the right to expend all sums necessary to discharge the lien claim, and Tenants shall pay an additional rental, when the next rental payment is due, all sums expended by Landlord in discharging any lien, including attorney's fees and costs. 10. Signs. Tenants shall not place or permit to be placed in, upon, about or outside the said premises or any part of the building in which the premises are located, any signs without the prior written consent of Landlord. All exterior signs must be approved in advance by the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, and must meet applicable City zoning regulations. 11 . Right of Entry. Landlord and its agents shall have the right at any reasonable time to enter upon the premises so long as it does not interfere with the business activities of the Tenants on the premises, for the purpose of inspection, serving or posting notices, maintaining the premises, making any necessary repairs, alterations or additions to any portion of the premises (including the erection and maintenance of scaffolding, partitions and repair euqipment as shall be required), complying with the laws, ordinances and regula- tions, protecting the premises, or for any other lawful purpose. Tenants waive any claim for damages, including loss of business, resulting therefrom. -8- y 1T�us PJOTPUPq s2 �C�zznoas eons pzolpuu'I uq�c� �� ��� 12. Liability and Indemnification. Landlord shall be free of all liabilities and claims for damage by reason of any injury or Cdeath to any person or persons, including Tenants, or ro ert of P P Y any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging, including Tenants, from any cause or causes whatsoever, including acts or omissions or other tenants in the building, during the term of this lease or any extension or renewal thereof, or any occupancy hereunder, and Tenants hereby agree to idemnify, save harmless and defend Landlord from all liability, damages, loss, costs and obligation, including court costs and attorney's fees, on account of or arising out,of or alleged to have arisen out of, directly or indirectly, any such injuries, death, or losses, however occurring. Landlord shall not be responsible for any damage caused Tenants' property resulting from any malfunction from any mechanical, plumbing or electrical unit, connection or wiring hereunder nor from any leaks C resulting from the structural members including the roofing on building. Landlord makes no warranty or representations regarding the condition of any of the above, and Tenants, by taking occupancy hereof-, are deemed to assume the premises on an "as is" basis. 13. Insurance. Each Tenant agrees to and shall within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this lease, secure from a good and responsible company or companies doing insurance business in the State of California, and maintain during the entire term of this lease, the following insurance coverage in a form satisfactory to Landlord: SOT Pup? L -40 SaT °TTod `u moue znsur Sa�poT�r��ao �o SaT zo' Mons 30 ra�au �unO�m do__- .z °Tpu�� o Pazr�ba ���strT r�. Liability Coverage: Public liability insurva« nce "in amount of $500,000.00 per tenant for loss from an accident result- ing in damage to or destruction of property, or for loss from an accident resulting in bodily injury to or death of one person. Fire Insurance: Fire and extended coverage insurance upon Tenants' fixtures, goods, wares and merchandise, in or upon the leased premises, with coverage in an amount of not less than $5,000. Additional Insureds: Landlord and Tenants agree that the other shall be named as an additional insured on the aforementioned policies of insurance. Subrogation Waiver: Landlord and 'tenants agree that in the event of loss due to any.pf the perils for which they have agreed to provide insurance, that each party shall look solely to its insur- ance for recovery. Landlord and Tenants hereby grant to each other on behalf of any insurer providing insurance to either of them with respect to the demised premises, a waiver of any right of sub- rogation which any such insurer of one party may acquire against the other by virtue of payment of any loss under such insurance. Tenants shall obtain a written obligation on the part of any such insurance company to notify Landlord within ten (10) days in writing of any delinquency in premium payments and of any cancella- tion of any such policy. Tenants agree if Tenants do not take out such insurance or keep the same in full force and effect, Landlord may take out the necessary insurance and pay the premium therefore and Tenants shall repay to Landlord the amount so paid by having such amount deemed to be additional rental and payable as such in the next rental payment due. -10- * L - n :a ��anoD n�TTTgcT'I uin=uTui au-4 UT aoucznsuT �gTTTgPTT oTTq d cici:ivar ",to Landlord copies of policies of liability insurance required herein or certificates evidencing the existence and amount of such insurance with loss payable clauses satisfactory to CLandlord. Tenants shall give Landlord sixty 60 Y ) days' written notice of any intent to cancel or modify any policy hereunder. 14. Compliance with Laws and Rules. Tenants and Tenants's agents, servants, and employees, visitors and licensees shall observe and comply strictly with all reasonable rules adopted or which are adopted hereafter for the care, protection, cleanliness, and proper operation of the building and all the Tenants in the building. Land- lord shall have no obligation to Tenants as a result of the violation of any such rules by any Tenants or any other person. Landlord shall maintain a copy of such rules in the office of Landlord for inspection by Tenants at any reasonable time. All of such rules shall be deemed a material term to this lease. 15. Destruction. If the premises, or any portion thereof, are C made untenantable b fire, the elements, or other casualty, the Land- lord will have a period of fourteen (14) days to repair damages. If - repairs are not made within the fourteen (14) day period, following lapse -of the fourteen (14) days, rent for the entire premises, or rent for the affected portion of the premises, shall abate from the date of such casualty to the date of restoration of tenantability. Under this condition, this lease may be terminated by Landlord or Tenant with thirty (30) days' written notice. 16. Termination or Cancellation. Landlord may terminate this lease and take possession of the premises, all without waiving any rights which it may have at law hereunder, following any of these events: -11- c� abpnCpe 4eu1 .S4Soo pue Saab znoo auk se �unoum (a) If a Tenant should fail to pay rent due hereunder within thirty (30) days following written notice of default therein; or. (b) If Tenants shall fail to correct any violation of this lease agreement within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof. Landlord may terminate this lease following a decision of the Saratoga City Council to terminate. Landlord shall provide Tenants with ninety (90) days' written notice of such termination. The Saratoga City Council reserves the right to terminate the lease with one (1) Tenant and renegotiate a lease agreement with the remaining Tenant. In the event of any lease cancellation or termination of one (1) Tenant, the Landlord shall give a ninety (90) day notice of ter- mination to the remaining Tenant. The Landlord agrees to give the remaining Tenant first option to lease the entire premises for the remaining duration of the term of this lease upon such terms and conditions as may be negotiated and agreed upon at that time. This provision does not in any way obligate the Landlord to forfeit rental payments. Either Tenant may terminate this lease agreement by giving ninety (90) days' written notice to Landlord. Forfeiture of the security deposit posted by the Tenant will be required. 17. Attornev's Fees. Should either party hereto institute any legal action to enforce any provision hereof; the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to receive from the losing -12- [@punaaaq anp quay fed oq TTP3 PTnogs quauas P JI (�) party such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorney's fees and costs. C18. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this lease by Tenants shall be deemed to be a tenancy from month -to -month and except for the term thereof shall be on the same terms and conditions specified herein, so far as are applicable. 19. Waiver. The specified remedies to which Landlord or Tenants may resort under the terms of this lease are cumulative and not intended to be exclusive of any other remedies afforded by law. No covenant, term or condition or the breach thereof shall be deemed waived, except by written consent of Landlord, and any waiver or the breach of any covenant, term or condition shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant, term or condition. Acceptance of all or any portion of rent at any time shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any cov- enant, term or condition except as to the rent payment accepted. 20. Notice. All notices or demands of any kind required or desired to be given by Landlord or Tenants hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered seventy -two (72) hours after depositing the notice or demand in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Tenants at the address of the premises, whether or not Tenants have departed therefrom, abandoned or vacated the premises, and as to Landlord, at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, or such other address as shall be designated by either party in compliance with the provisions of this paragraph. L -13= 21. Attachments. The attachments listed below shall be attached to this lease agreement and shall be considered part of this lease agreement: (a) Diagram of space allocation. (b) Utility cost - sharing agreement. 22_. Entire Agreement. This lease, and the attachments hereto, represent the sole and entire agreement of the parties hereto, and all other agreements, discussions, representations, or negotiations, oral or written, express or implied, and merged herein and succeeded by this lease. Dated: U f Dated: Dated: -14- CITY OF SARATOGA, a munic.'pal corpo on By , Nil, IF��._ u�5 J! Wayne / ernetz City . ManZger FRIENDS OF THE SARATOGA L B RIES - B l VALLEY INSTITUTE OF THEATRE ARTS 1 j ..i 21. Attachments. The attachments listed below shall be attached to this lease agreement and shall be considered part of this lease agreement: (a) Diagram of space allocation. (b) Utility cost - sharing agreement. 22_. Entire Agreement. This lease, and the attachments hereto, represent the sole and entire agreement of the parties hereto, and all other agreements, discussions, representations, or negotiations, oral or written, express or implied, and merged herein and succeeded by this lease. Dated: U f Dated: Dated: -14- CITY OF SARATOGA, a munic.'pal corpo on By , Nil, IF��._ u�5 J! Wayne / ernetz City . ManZger FRIENDS OF THE SARATOGA L B RIES - B l VALLEY INSTITUTE OF THEATRE ARTS Id f�. I 127--f4 �^ CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. % 7� / Dept. Hd. DATE: January 9 , 19 85 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Services C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Transmittal of Applications for City HCD Citizens Advisory Committee Re-presentative Issue Summary Two applications have been received by the City for City Council consideration for appointment to the County HCD Citizens Advisory Committee as the Saratoga representative. Recommendation Consider applications for HCD Citizens Advisory Committee for possible appointment. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments Applications from Richard Brooding and Patrick Mallahan for appointment to HCD Citizens Advisory Committee. Council Action 1/16: Appointed Clevenger to interview applicants with Carnekie and Argow. f t Ix C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A C APPLICATION FORM For Commissions, Boards or Committees Name/ (f Residence Telephone No. 4 G),5- Personal History Education?. C �! Date crn.�- tit/• -� � ���`i� Address LGl Gl C �� SC -0 T I- Nearest Cross Street (7 L,4,S Office Telephone No. 6 - -li Fff ployer Y1 l � ��1,C,2 Address xf Type of Busines5T&, A4&6, - Specific Work You Perform V '' Ted', )-)I A4&W ft Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident 4q4 Voter of the City of Saratoga? V" Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? 1 Evening Meetings?� List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities_ ' r2,�, �7R , (r ' 4,.- A .. Additional information and qualifications (uSe other side if necessary) t Reference 1 � 12.0 �,{,�;i hi i ,�Gi �h�9 -� •3� l�iV' To which Commission or Board would you pre .1.C. -7-1 Please c;mplete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 A Ilk Y U k' .6 " A R'A, T 0 GA - APPLICATION FORM For Camiissions, Boards or Committees Name Date Z �"r;r IV,, AIA19AI Address J.?_,91 7? ;�39,e,4M 4/,/1 -) �n AeY-4,111, Nearest Cross Street_!24p ,A-,',- Residence Office Telephone No.. Telephone No. Al 7- 9'93 Personal History ze'/4 1Z-1 11-1AI A- L Education -_ si-r4 � 12, Z-i &'11- /7 f '_ A bi- mqg12,i i' <Y , (7 �7 U IV% b i'j" 0 1 t 4�( ul' Employer /;. Address J Type of Business 4_"r)_Specific Work You Perform tc i J Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident y 3 Voter of the City of Sarato ga? Yes No Would YOU be able to attend daytime meetings? -50M44M, _.,Evening Meetings?- List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood-1 . evel activities .Additional information and qualifications: (use other -side if necessary) kReferences To which Cannission or Board would you prefer appointment? x4i 4, " Signature 64 Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 AJ In µis ,Gig " )✓ //J ✓ . aln. f �, •rYr( / //Al__-iif/�vAAivlwl /lli c,v i �C, .. -.� , . A�� :... �.L�c n, /ZL� �L� �` ' l n',��ftivrFU. � i ell ck5 0" t I . � ��'D-rY► rn r �'Lt ,b L Gvc�.sz ,`� �).s ;`n 7��1- '£, col... � �-� . iv,� lk h