The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-18-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2-5- 3 7 AGENDA ITEM: ('08 MEETING DATE: January 18, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development) CITY MGR.: APPLICANT /APPELLANT: Constantin, 20855 Kittridge Road SUBJECT: V -94 -012, LL -94 -008 & DR -94 -031; Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the related subject applications. Recommended Motion Uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the application requests, thereby denying the appeal. Report Summary Background: This application for Design Review approval to constr_:.ct a 4_..473 sq. ft. two -story home on a vacant hillside parcel was presented tC) the Planning Commission at the October 26, 1994 public hearing meeting. The proposal included several Variance requests, the most significant being the request to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85 percent; the Zoning Ordinance prohibits development on slopes in excess of 30 percent. After accepting the staff report and taking public hearing testimony regarding the proposal, the Planning Commission deliberated on the application requests. Unable to make the necessary Variance and Design Review findings, the Commission moved to deny the proposal. As the attached minutes from that meeting reflect, staff requested additional time to investigate the proper means to proceed with denying the Variance and Design Review requests, and how these were tied to the Lot Line Adjustment request; the applicants' representative had requested that the Lot Line application be separated from the other two and approved. The City Attorney's office.has prepared the attached memo to the Planning Commission discussing the inter - relationship of the three application requests and how they should be handled procedurally. The denial Resolutions ultimately adopted by the Planning Commission at .the December 14, 1994 meeting reflect the Commission's direction to staff and the City Attorney's research and recommendation. Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Road Page Two Planning Commission Action: At the December 14th meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the memo from the City Attorney's office and reopened the public hearing to take additional testimony (minutes attached) . Following further deliberation on the item, the Commission moved to: a) Deny the Variance request based on the public health, safety and welfare concerns cited in the attached Resolution. b) Deny the Lot Line Adjustment request; without approval of.the Variance, it cannot be found that the Lot Line Adjustment conforms with applicable Zoning Ordinances. c) Deny the Design Review request by default, since the necessary Variance and Lot Line Adjustment findings cannot be made. All three of the individual motions passed 5 -1, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining and Commissioner Caldwell absent. Appeal: The applicants' appeal request is limited to the denial of the Lot Line Adjustment application. They feel that although the Planning Commission denied the Variance and Design Review requests, that the Lot Line Adjustment request should be allowed to be reviewed and approved independent of the development proposal itself. The City Attorney disagrees with this assessment. In fact, this is the main issue the City Attorney's office was responding to in their attached December 14, 1994 memo to the Planning Commission. In summary, the memo concludes that the Lot Line Adjustment cannot be approved unless deemed consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the adjustment cannot be considered consistent with the Zoning Ordinance unless the Variance is approved. The applicants' representative, Mr. Allan R. Saxe, stressed that the City Code allows Lot Line Adjustment requests to be approved so long as " ... no new violation of such regulations are created by the Lot Line Adjustment, or if the nonconformity created is specifically approved by the advisory agency..." [Article 14- 50.040 (2)]. However, while the precipitous slope currently exists, and is not literally created by the adjustment, the parcel itself does. not vet legally exist. Approving the Lot Line Adjustment would fulfill the requirements of the conditional Certificate of Compliance (see attached staff memo dated October 26, 1994 for Certificate of Compliance discussion) and thereby establish the lot as a legally created parcel. Environmental Determination Categorically Exempt Fiscal Impacts None Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Road Page Three Public Notices and Advertising Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500. ft. of the subject property and an advertisement was placed in the Saratoga News. Conseauences of Not Actina on the Recommended Motion Staff* would prepare approval Resolutions for Council adoption at the next regular City Council meeting. Follow -up Actions A Resolution to either deny, or approve, the appeal will be prepared and placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting. Attachments 1. Appeal application and public notice 2. Resolutions V -94 -012, LL -94 -008 and DR -94 -031 3. City Attorney memo dated 11/29/94 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/26/94 -and 12/14/94 5. Correspondence 6. Staff memo dated 10/26/94 7. Plans, Exhibit "A" Date Received: ow 16 1994 Hearing Date: Fee : /�81ys Ci'Y' CITY' MA! iA EE'S OFF -��' Receipt No.: 3 0 APPEAL APPLICATION Name of •Appellant: JDHN f}l�l� a(,1;� %NS7xl,it�77 N Address: b( AAK LZA N 5 9 OS�� 66 y1 Zz Telephone: Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): *Appellan 's Signatur *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777-FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. �/�,�� lip Allen Saxe, Matteoni Saxe & Nanda, 1740,:Techriology Dr., Ste. 250, SAn Jose 95110, 441 -7800 Virginia ;Fanelli, FCI,.10052 Pasadena Ave.,, Ste. B, Cupertino 95014'.996-8188 NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that the Deputy City.Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 18th. day of January, 1995, at 8:00 p.m. (or earlier if public hearings are reached before that time on the agenda) in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California,. as the time and place for public hearings on: A. Review ormannce .-of the C�ityr' =ePavemen -t Management Proog -ram for 93- 94�proposals for the 1.9SIC -95 work program and equacy�of funding�y carryout th Progrm�includinng extensri of the Ut`ility Users Tax B. Appeal of Denial of Design Review approval to construct a new 4,473 -sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant hillside parcel with an average slope of 73 %. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85% and to allow the residence to encroach into required front and side yard setbacks. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth requirements. The subject property is 1.18 acres in size and is located at 20855 Kittridge Rd. within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (Applicant /appellant, Constantin) (DR -94 -031; V94 -012; LL94- 008) All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Thursday before the .meeting. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings) is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. General questions may be directed to the City Clerk, 867 -3438. Grace Cory . Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. V -94 -012 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION CONSTANTIN; 20855 RITTRIDGE RD. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 4,473 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 1.18 acre hillside parcel with an average slope of 73 %. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85% and to encroach into required front and side yard setbacks. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: - The Planning Commission is unable to find that the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, based on the following: a) Testimony concerning both the short -term hazard to downslope property owners of allowing construction equipment and activity on this precipitous slope at this particular building location, and the long -term potential hazard to downslope property owners of future slope failure. b) The large size and building footprint of the proposed structure will require a greater amount of vegetation and soil removal than a smaller structure would. This proposal, therefore, unnecessarily intensifies potential public safety and welfare concerns (e.g. a much smaller building footprint could be proposed, and /or an alternative building location chosen, which may decrease public safety and welfare concerns). .. c) The large size of the proposed structure, stepping down the steep hillside, gives the appearance of a very long, expansive, three -story building. This visual obtrusiveness, particularly when combined with the significant amount of tree, vegetation and soil removal necessary to build the house, could be materially injurious to adjoining property owners in that their existing views will be negatively impaired. - Based on the above finding, granting the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the File No. V -94 -012; 20855 Kittridge Rd. limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Constantin for Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell ABSTAIN: Commissioner Siegfried "'i -, Chairman, Planing Olommission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning C mmission . RESOLUTION NO. LL -94 -008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA APN 517 -14 -071 (Parcel One) and.APN 517 -14 -081 (Parcel Two) DENIAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION CONSTANTIN; 20855 KITTRIDGE RD. AND 15261 NORTON RD. . WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment between APN 517 -14 -071 (Parcel One) and APN 517 -14 -081 (Parcel Two) has been filed with the Planning Director of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Lot Line Adjustment is proposed as a means of satisfying one of the requirements of a conditional Certificate of Compliance recorded for the property; and WHEREAS, because all of Parcel One exceeds the 30% permitted slope standard, and also exceeds the actual 40% slope standard, there appears to be no possibility of development anywhere on Parcel One without review and approval of one or more slope Variances; and WHEREAS, the associated slope Variance request (V -94 -012) has been denied and the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is therefore not consistent with the General Plan and the regulations of the Building, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga denies the Lot Line Adjustment as shown on Exhibit "A ". Unless.appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell ABSTAIN: Commissioner Siegfried Chairman, Pl nning.Commission ATTEST Secretary to the Planning Commission IF RESOLUTION NO. DR -94 -031 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CONSTANTIN; 20855 KITTRIDGE RD. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 4,473 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 1.18 acre hillside parcel; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has. not met the burden of proof required to support said application and the following finding has been determined: - The Design Review request is contingent on first the Variance application and then the Lot Line Adjustment application being approved. Because the slope Variance (V -94 -012) and Lot Line Adjustment (LL 794 -008) requests were denied, the Design Review request is also denied. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Constantin for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby denied.. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of.adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of December, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell ABSTAIN: Commissioner Siegfried Cha ATTEST: SecretaZy, Planning ommission rman, PlanniNpg Commission NUV -i a -�4 TULr 16; 30b t . 02/08 FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney by: Kathleen Faubion �r RE: Legal Standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land Use Permits At staff and City Attorney request, the Planning. Commission continued any action on the Constantin project to allow time to research and more clearly outline the action options available to the Commission_ The current applications include a lot line adjustment to provide additional land to meet the required 1500lot depth; variances for a building pad exceeding 30% average slope and 40% actual slope, and for encroachment into required front and side yards; and design review for a 4390 sq. foot main residence. Attention has focused on, the variance and lot line adjustment applications since approval of both applications would be necessary for any structure to be built on the site, irrespective of design considerations. Each of these applications shall be addressed in turn. VARIANCE A variance may be approved to allow relief from otherwise applicable zoning regulations. Because a variance suspends the normal, zoning rules, the authorizing statute requires strict findings before.a variance may be approved. MEYERS, NAVE„ IUBAC& SILVER & WJI.SON A Professional Law Corporation Michael R Nave Steven R Meyers Gateway ?I= Elizabeth H. Silver 7n Davis Street, Suite 30D Santa Ross OtYice Michael S. Ribaek ben Leandro, CA 94577 KeatutA A. Wilson Telephone: (510) 351-M 555 fifth Stroct, Suitt 230 Facsimile: (510) 351 -4481 Santa Rosa, CA 954o1 Clifford F. Campbell (M7) . (70 545-6617 (Fax) Michael F. Rodriquez Kathleen Faubion Wendy A Roberts Reply to: 1)" W. Skinner Steven T. Mattes San Irandro Ria W. Jarvis Veronica A. Nebb Of counsel: Andrea I Saltzman XEMORANDuM TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 29, 1994 City of Saratoga FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney by: Kathleen Faubion �r RE: Legal Standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land Use Permits At staff and City Attorney request, the Planning. Commission continued any action on the Constantin project to allow time to research and more clearly outline the action options available to the Commission_ The current applications include a lot line adjustment to provide additional land to meet the required 1500lot depth; variances for a building pad exceeding 30% average slope and 40% actual slope, and for encroachment into required front and side yards; and design review for a 4390 sq. foot main residence. Attention has focused on, the variance and lot line adjustment applications since approval of both applications would be necessary for any structure to be built on the site, irrespective of design considerations. Each of these applications shall be addressed in turn. VARIANCE A variance may be approved to allow relief from otherwise applicable zoning regulations. Because a variance suspends the normal, zoning rules, the authorizing statute requires strict findings before.a variance may be approved. NUV-Ld -J4 luc 13;J0 C. UJ/ Uj TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Legal Standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land Use Permits DATE: November 29, 1994 PAGE: 2 1. Statutory Provisions. -Government Code § 65906 provides for zoning variances only when special circumstances, such as a property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings would prevent the applicant from development privileges enjoyed by other identically zoned property in the vicinity. The approval may be conditioned so as not to grant special privileges to the applicant. Variances may not be approved to allow a different use than those expressly permitted. Variances have been described as a "safety valve" based on the concept that the "property owner is allowed to use his property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variations that will place him in parity with other property owners in the same zone." (Curtin,. California rand ice and. Planning Law, 1994 ad., p. 42.) A variance allows administrative adjustments to avoid unique hardship on the property, but may not be granted if it will adversely affect the interests of the public or other residents or owners in the vicinity. (Id.) 2. Local Ordinance Provisions. Article 15 -70 of the Saratoga Municipal Code addresses variances. Section 15- 70.020(a) authorizes variances for such features as site area, frontage, site width and depth, yard setbacks, and so on. Section 15- 70.060 sets out the findings required to approve a variance. The findings reflect statutory direction, and must be made for each variance approval based on substantial evidence in the record. The required findings relevant to the Constantin request are as follows: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the vicinity and in the same zone district. Comment: The finding should identify the special circumstances and state how, or in what way, the applicant is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other owners in the vicinity. Section 15- 70.010 of the Code clarifies that the cost of complying with the regulations is relevant to consideration of the variance, however, cost "shall not be the sole reason for granting a variance." Furthermore, the presence of special circumstances causing hardship for the applicant is not, in and of itself, NUV -Ld -64 IUL t, U4/ Ub To; Planning Commission FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Legal Standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land Use Permits DATE: November 29, 1994 PAGE: 3 sufficient grounds for granting a variance. All of the other required findings must also be made. b. Granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone district. Comment: In considering this finding, it may useful to know if other similar variances have been granted; it may also be useful to know if there are other situations similar to those requested in the variance which exist by way of legal nonconforming status, if such information is available. a. Granting the variance will not.be detrimental to the public.health, safety and welfare, nor materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Comment: Information relevant to this issue includes, but is not limited to, the general plan, the NHR specific plan and their related EIRs, engineering reports, historical data, personal experiences of the applicant and /or others in the vicinity. There is no established "weight" to any of these sources of information. The Planning Commission must decide how much weight to give the information as it contemplates how the information relates to the finding. The Planning Commission's action on a variance request is discretionary; the request may be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved. To approve a variance, the Planning commission must be able to make all of the above described findings. Similarly, the Planning Commission may not approve the variance if it cannot make all of the required findings. Variances may be conditionally approved if the conditions provide the means to make the required findings. For example, if the Commission felt a particular variance was acceptable only for a particular structure in a particular location, an approval could be conditioned to link with approval of the specified structure and location. By the same token, disapproval of a variance does not necessarily mean that no variance could ever be approved, it may mean that the particular variance with its related structure and /or location cannot be approved. An applicant would be free to propose a variance for a different structure or location to try to respond to whatever concerns underlay the disapproval. NUV -�d -�4 r u�iuy TO: Planning Commission PROM; Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Legal Standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land Use Permits DATE: November 29, 1994 PAGE: 4 3. Planning Commission Action. Although the Planning Commission's October 26, 1994 discussion focused on the lot line adjustment portion of the Constantin applications, the key issues relevant to the proposed development of the property along Kittredge Road are raised by way of the variance requests. Clearly, the most significant characteristic of the property and its primary nonconformity with the zoning ordinance is its extreme slope, as reflected in the variance requests. For this reason, we recommend the variances be considered first. The lot line adjustment may have seemed the "easier" request at first glance, because of its limited review. The scope of that limited review, however, is conformance with the zoning ordinance. While the zoning variances are outstanding, it is virtually impossible to determine such conformance. Furthermore, because the nature of the variances is so central to the proposed development of the Kittredge Road parcel, it makes little sense to condition a lot line adjustment on later approval of the variances. Under the present circumstances, consideration of the proposed lot line adjustment should follow consideration of the variances. LOT LINE ADZUSTMENT A lot line adjustment is a way of adjusting. ,a property line between parcels without having to observe the extensive substantive and procedural requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. More specifically, the Map Act exempts lot line adjustments then establishes the elements of such an adjustment, establishes limitations on the local agency's consideration of such requests, and establishes the. procedural requirements for effecting the adjustment. (Government Code § 66412(d)). 1. Elements of a Lot Line Adjustment. The essential elements of a lot line adjustment are that the adjustment be between two or more existing adjacent parcelsl, where land taken from one parcel is added to another parcel, and where the same (or fewer) number of parcels exists after the adjustment as before the adjustment. . The Constantin application involves an adjustment 1 The site proposed for the residence is existing but was not legally created under the Map Act. The subject lot line adjustment is requested as a means of satisfying one of the conditions of a conditional. Certificate of Compliance recorded for the property. I1UV -C�'J4 IUG 10;Jd r, Uo/ Ud To: Planning Commission FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Legal Standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land Use Permits DATE: November 29, 1994. PAGE: 5 between two adjacent parcels and will result in two parcels. Thus, the application meets the statutory definition of a lot line adjustment. 2. limitations on Review of a Lot Line Adjustment. The Map Act explicitly limits the scope of a local agency's review of lot line adjustments. The local agency may only review "whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances." (Government code 5 66412(d)). similarly, the local agency may not condition a lot line adjustment except to conform to such ordinances and for other specified purposes not relevant to this case. Local agency review was not always so limited. Until January 1, 1986, 5'66412(d) contained the description of lot line adjustments, but prescribed no limits on the review or related procedures. Many jurisdictions interpreted the provisions as applying only to minor adjustments of lot lines; local review of the requests was often very comprehensive and highly discretionary, evaluating such features as lot design and orientation, location of the adjusted lines along topographic features, and so on. These earlier statutory provisions also contained no procedural guidance, so many local agencies processed lot line adjustments generally via a tentative parcel map procedure. In 1985, the Legislature amended S 66412(d) to add strict limits on the permissible scope of local agency review. Local agency discretion was narrowed to the sole issue of conformance with local zoning and building codes. Furthermore, local agencies were prohibited from requiring a tentative, final or parcel map for lot line adjustments. . A recorded deed or record of survey was sufficient to effect the adjustment, once approved. The procedural provisions have since been amended to require a recorded deed, with the option of a record of survey in certain limited conditions. The substantive limitations have not been amended. Although caselaw on lot line adjustments is sparse, one recent case has interpreted the substantive limitations provisions. BAn Dieauito partnership, L.P. V. City of San Diego, 7 Cal. App. 4th 752 (1992)- In that caso, the applicants' lot line adjustment involved reorienting nine parcels comprising 189'acres so that all nine parcels would meet recently adopted minimum road frontage requirements_ The City denied the lot line adjustment on the grounds it was not a minor "adjustment" of lines, but was instead IVUV -CJ -J4 1ua 10;�� r, UiiU� T0; Planning Commission PROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Legal standards Guiding Decision on Constantin Land [Ise Permits DATE: November 29, 1994 PAGE: 6 a resubdivision of the property for which a tentative map would be required. The court rejected the City's action. The court stated the plain meaning of the statutory language must be followed; if the language is clear, there can be no room for interpretation. in reviewing the statute, the Court found such clarity in that there was no explicit requirement the adjustment be minor, and in that the City's regulatory function was "strictly circumscribed ... with very little authority as compared to ... a subdivision." Likewise, the court rejected the City's contention that local Code provisions permitting parcel. maps for lot line adjustments was authority for the City's action. Thus, Sdn Diecuito compels a strict reading.of the lot line adjustment statute. A city's determination of whether a lot line adjustment is appropriate turns on "whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances.,, The request may be approved, conditionally approved or disapproved based on that determination. 3. Conformance of constan=_ Request wLth Zoning and Bu' na Ordinances. The Constantin property is zoned RR, Hillsides Residential pursuant to Article 15 -13 of the City Code. This district applies to certain hillside areas in the City, and contains provisions designed to address the complications that often accompany development in these, areas as opposed to flatter areas. Parcel 1 of the proposed adjustment currently consists of 1.18 acres characterized by an average slope of 73$. The lot line adjustment would increase by its size by approximately 1300 square feet, to 1.21 acres. The slope would remain virtually unchanged. This parcel is proposed for development of a single family residence and involves related variance and design review applications. The area proposed for the residence is along Kittredge Road, and is characterized by 85% slopes. The area to be added to Parcel 1 is not near the proposed building site, and does not appear to lessen the average slope, as the applicant's map notes the proposed Parcel 1 is approximately 74 %. As noted in the staff report, the purpose of the lot line adjustment is to comply IYUV -G� -J4 IUC 10;40 TO: Planning Commission FROX: Michael S. Riback, City Rs: Legal standards Guiding Permits DATE: November 29, 1994 PAGE: 7 r, ubiud Attorney Decision on Constantin Land Use with the 150' lot depth requirement which was a condition of the conditional Certificate of Compliance recorded for Parcel 1. Parcel 2 of the proposed adjustment currently consists of approximately 1.07 acres; proposed Parcel 2 would consist of 1.04 acres. The applicant's map indicates an average slope of approximately 48% for this parcel. The slope on Parcel 2 is more varied; it appears future development of the parcel would likely be proposed on a less sloped area at the center of the parcel. Under Section 15- 13.050(e)(2) of the current HR district regulations, the average natural grade beneath a structure shall not exceed 30$, with the actual grade not to exceed 40 %. Variances to these standards may be granted if the required findings can be made. Because all of Parcel 1 exceeds the 30% average slope standard, and also exceeds the 40% actual slope standard, there appears to be no possibility of development anywhere on Parcel 1 without review and approval of one or more slope variances. The need for variances is less clear on Parcel 2. Although the average slope across the site is approximately 48%, it is not clear what the average and actual slopes are in the center of the site where the less steep area occurs. Simply comparing the contours by sight suggests it might be possible to build without variances, or with much lesser variances. 4. Effect of Local Lot Line Adjustment ReMalations. Lot line adjustments are addressed in Article 14 -50 of the City code. Many of the Code provisions reflect the 1985 statutory amendments. Of particular interest is. section 14- 50.040(b) outlining the findings for approval of a lot line adjustment. These provisions require a finding of consistency with the General 2 For the purposes of conditioning a certificate of Compliance, the Map Act generally requires the local agency to consider the local ordinance conditions that were in effect when the owner took title. When the conditions of the Certificate are met, the owner then has the ability to buy, sell. or lease the property. In contrast, the question of whether the parcel can be developed is a function of compliance with the zoning ordinance Then the development is Dronosed. In other words, a Certificate of Compliance does not guarantee that the property it certifies is buildable, only that it can be sold, leased or financed. 1iUV -Cd -J4 1UC 13:41 TO: Planning Commission PROK: Michael S. Riback, City RE: Legal standards Guiding Permits DATE: November 29, 1994 PAGE:, 8 r, uui ut� Attorney Decision on Constantin. Land Use Plan and the zoning ordinance. The Code states that "consistency" with the zoning ordinance may be found "if no new violation of such regulations is. created by the adjustment ... .11 The Code seems to expand the statutory language, to permit inconsistency with the .zoning ordinance so long as the lot line adjustment does not make the inconsistency any worse. It is not clear that this interpretive guidance is acceptable under the strict rule of san Dieauito. Even if no "new violation" is created, the "parcels resulting from" the adjustment do not conform to the zoning ordinance, as explained above, thus the City is not required to approve the adjustment. 5. O tions for Planning Com �sion Actin. As noted above, we suggest the Planning Commission consider and resolve the variance issues first because they are the key to any development on Parcel 1. If a variance is approved for Parcel 1, and there are no remaining unresolved nonconformities with the zoning ordinance, and Parcel 2 is determined to conform to the zoning ordinance, the lot line adjustment may be approved. The Parcel 2 conformity finding would likely depend on whether there is the potential for a building site somewhere on the parcel which would not require a variance, or. at least for which the variance would be relatively minor. mnrsw \Z73 \memo \nav99 \11a.mkf 3 The "no new violation" standard for lot line adjustments is not uncommon. If the City wishes to retain this standard, it might consider including it in the zoning ordinance. Then the standard would be among the statutorily sanctioned elements of review. PLANNING COMMION MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 12 - 2. DR -94 -031 - Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Rd., request for Design Review approval V -94 -016 - to construct a new 4,390 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant hillside LL -94 -012 - parcel with an average slope of 73 %. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85% and to allow the residence to encroach into a required front yard setback. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth requirements. The subject property is 1.18 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the report on this item. Accepting that the lot was a legal lot of record, staff has identified two alternative recommendations for the Commission's consideration this evening. The first was to approve the project as is with a detailed resolution with mitigation measures as cond'I'do ls. The second would be to continue the application to address specific design, building, or other features of the building which the Planning Commission may deem appropriate to minimize the impact of the structure on this particular site. Commissioner Caldwell commented that it was difficult to interpret what the Public Works Director was stating in his report. She stated that staff has indicated that the lot was a legal lot of record and she questioned if that was all the Public Works Directors memorandum was intending to convey. Planner Walgren responded that the Public Works Director was summarizing a very extensive title research process. Commissioner Caldwell recalled that a fairly extensive discussion took place when the application came before the Commission a couple of years ago. The discussion involved Commission members and with the City Attorney during the public hearing regarding this piece of property. Discussed were the parameters that would guide the Commission in its analyses of the application and looking at the various uses that could be made of the property. Case law was discussed as to what a landowner could do with such a piece of property, even if it was at 35 percent slope. She requested that staff elaborate on this issue for the benefit of the new Commissioners. City Attorney Faubion commented that the threshold concern that the City had the last time this item was reviewed was whether the property was a legally created lot because of its shape, size and contour. She indicated that Mr. Perlin's memorandum and months of research culminated in the recordation . of a conditional Certificate of Compliance. She explained that normally, lots are created and subdivided in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the local subdivision regulations which implement the Map Act. She stated that there were lots that were not created in conformance with the Map Act before the Map Act was implemented or before there was a local subdivision ordinance. She informed the Commission that the Certificate of Compliance was a way of dealing with those kinds of lots. Recordation of a Certificate of Compliance or a conditional Certificate of Compliance basically states that the lot was legally created according to the Subdivision Map Act with whatever the provisions were at the time. It can also stipulate that the lot was not created exactly the way it should have been. If conditions were needed, the applicant would be required to complete the conditions that would have been required at the time. The Certificate of Compliance was a way of trying to bring things up to speed after the fact. It PLANNING COMMOON MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 13 - was determined after months of research and going back to countless deeds and working with the applicant's representative that'the property was eligible for a conditional Certificate of Compliance and that was what was recorded. The Certificate states that the property was legally created if it met the conditions. The Certificate does not state what can be built o developed on a parcel. It just states that the lot was legally created. She indicated that normally, the presumption was that once a lot was created as a lot of record, that the property owner could do whatever the zoning ordinance stipulates. Once you have a Certificate of Compliance that has been recorded and the conditions have been met, the question of what one can do with the property was a function of the City's development ordinances. The City would need to review the Zoning Ordinance to determine what uses are permitted and if the applicant can demonstrate compliance with those uses, those uses can be approved for the property. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the Commission may find that the applicant may appear before it and state that he /she has a constitutional right to build a home on the lot. She questioned what the City Attorney's response to the request would be. City Attorney Faubion responded that case law states that a property owner has a constitutional right to have an economic viable use of the property. It was a question of judgment as to what is an economical viable use of the property. She stated that if you have a Zoning Code which states that the one and only permitted use on the property was that of a single family home, then, if you denied that home, it would raise the issue as to whether ones right has been fringed upon to have an economical viable use. If the zoning ordinance allows for a range of uses, then it becomes a cloudier issue. She noted that whatever use is allowed under the zoning codes, the City does not need to guarantee a profit but that there has to be a reasonable economic viable use of the property. Commissioner Caldwell inquired what uses were allowed under the City codes. Planner Walgren responded that there was a short list of permitted uses which include single family residences, accessory structures related to the single family (i.e., swimming pools, guest house, etc., and the raising of fruit and nuts and other orchard type uses. He indicated that the zoning further allows conditional permitted uses through the granting of a conditional use permit such as schools, fire stations, and health care facilities. Commissioner Caldwell commented that a copy of a fax was received from J.C.P. She indicated that the fax did not appear to be a completed document because it did not contain a signature block. She asked if the one page fax was all that was received. Planner Walgren responded that only a one page fax was received from J.C.P. this evening. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the applicant's engineer has developed a range of corrective measures to address the unstable soil conditions and that engineer states that the property would be enhanced by house being built on it. It occurred to her that there has to be other ways to deal with drainage and stability issues that do not involve building a Planner anner Walgren clarified that he did mean to imply that the geologist thought that the house would enhance the site or was positive in that sense. The geologist was asked to review the plans to determine if the site could safely be. built upon. It was their determination that through this corrective measures, the house could be built in a safe PLANNING COMMI ON MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1994 • PAGE - 14 - manner. As a result of the corrective measures, several of the adjacent landslides would also be repaired. Planner Walgren further commented that the landslides could be repaired regardless of whether the house was built or not. The same process could occur if one wanted to repair the landslide by removing the unstable soils, recompacting it, and revegetating the site. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the bottom of the Certificate of Compliance states that the property shall be brought into compliance with the applicable standards that were in effect in February 1970." She inquired as to the meaning of that statement. City Attorney Faubion responded that the Subdivision Map Act states that when you issue a conditional Certificate of Compliance, you have some decisions to make as to what conditions would be applicable.. In this case, the conditions that the Commission would apply would be those in affect at the time that the applicants took title of the property. Reviewing the deeds indicated that title transfer occurred in 1972. The Commission would need to go back to review the codes to determine what conditions applied. at that time. Planner Walgren responded that the zoning regulations in place in 1972 were fairly minimal compared to those that exist today. All that was required to record a lot to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance was that the lot be 40,000 square feet in size (the zoning in place at the time was R -1 (40,000) zoning district where today it is Hillside residential with two acre minimum) and based on 85 percent slope, you would go up from there to probably 10 acres with a minimum depth and width of 150 feet with certain frontage requirements. He indicated that the applicant's parcel meets all of the requirements with the exception of the 150 foot depth. He noted that part of the application this evening was for a lot adjustment request to adjust the down slope property line further to the northeast to gain the 150 feet. The lot line adjustment is being made with the adjacent parcel which the Constantins' own to make the lot conform and meet the conditions of the Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission was required to approve the lot line at this time or is the Commission empowered to deny the lot line adjustment. Therefore the lot could not be built upon. City Attorney Faubion responded that the first question was that of the lot line adjustment. She stated that it was not very broad and that the Commission did not have the discretion to deny the lot line adjustment if it was consistent with development codes and that the lot line adjustments were exempt from environmental review. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the Commission was to apply today's lot line adjustment requirement or whether the conditions in effect in 1972 would apply? City Attorney Faubion responded that the Commission would need to apply today's conditions because the application for lot line adjustment was being requested today. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if one of the issues that the Commissioners would look at in its consideration of the lot line were those of health and safety? City Attorney Faubion responded that the language of the statute states that "shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval except to conform to local zoning and. building ordinances ". This basically means that if the zoning ordinance calls for 200 feet, you could not approve a lot line adjustment for a 100 feet. However, a variance could be applied for. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if the resulting two lots would be conforming lots? Planner Walgren responded that the two lots would be conforming lots. He noted that the PLANNING COMMPION MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 15 - lower parcel was also vacant and conforms to the minimum lot size requirements of depth and width. Both parcels would then be conforming with the applicable requirements. Commissioner Kaplan noted that Section 15.70.60(c) and 15.70.020b1 addresses part of the question of whether putting the home on this lot would be detrimental to public safety. She commented that in reading these sections, there was some question as to whether public safety issues were addressed. City Attorney Faubion noted that section 15.70.60(c) recited by Commissioner Kaplan was a section located under "variances ". So that finding would have to deal only with the sideyard variance not for the entire project. She inquired about section 17.70.020 b 1 which states that "no variances for setback distance between structures, fences, walls and hedges shall be required for a new, main, and accessory structures proposed to built on existed grading pads." She inquired if there was an existing graded pad on this lot. Planner Walgren responded that the section of the code as quoted by Commissioner Kaplan was a provision that references another section of the code when you are establishing setback requirements and that it was not a section of the code that was relative to this proposal. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that a letter was received this evening from Mr. Bober. He then opened this item to public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Constantins, commented that this was a difficult site, evidenced by the applicant's efforts to obtain sewer over the past 12 years. She informed the Commission that William Cotton, geologist, reviewed the property prior to the placement of a line being shown on a piece of paper. In 1988, the City assured the property owner that since the lot was a legally created lot, that the City's position was that development of a single family home could occur. As the designed progressed, there were meetings with staff. Staff reaffirmed the City's position of a legally created lot and that the owner had a right to develop on that lot. It is evidenced that any development on this lot would require a minimum of one variance to the slope. It was also evident to staff at the time that a variance to the setbacks from the property was the most appropriate.' The variance request is being made so that it would eliminate additional cuts to the hillside. Keeping the house closer to the road provides a much safer and acceptable grade on the driveway according to the fire department. After two years of design work, and arborist review, and four additional geological studies, this application was ready for hearing in 1991. She stated that she was astonished during those hearings to have the question of the legality of this lot raised. This led to a long expensive investigation involving engineers and attorneys. Two years later, it was determined by the City Engineer that this lot was a legal lot. The request tonight was to request Planning Commission approval of the application. The lot line adjustment would bring this lot into conformance and meet the conditions of the conditional use permit as directed by the City Engineer. She indicated that the three variance request were as follows: 1) slope, 2) front setback, and 3) rear setback. She informed the Commission that the design of the. home has taken into account the recommendation of the arborist. The geologist has suggested soil removal for the construction area. The lower level of the house is shielded from view by heavy tree cover. and the upper portion of the home would be visible from the road. The house was well articulated to reduce any perception of bulk. The design was created to physically addresses the geologist's recommendation for giving added stability to the site. The house is 126 feet PLANNING COMMON MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 16 long, curving around the site of the hill and is only 34 feet wide. She informed the Commission that she had the second page of the fax from Mr. Cotton's office should the Commission wish a copy of it. She stated that it was determined that deeply drilling of the foundation would add stability as well as correct geological conditions and water runoff. She stated that she had a report dated July 1994 from Barry Coats which states. that the developer be doing the City a favor to remove all of the eucalyptus trees from the site. The only trees Mr. Coats recommended be saved were the five oaks located down the side and down hill from the proposed home. She felt that with the removal of the eucalyptus trees and with the use of stratum and tile materials to be used in the exterior would be in keeping with the findings of the latest fires which occurred in Oakland and Laguna Hills. She indicated that she has received letters in support from several of the neighbors. She understands that there are a lot of neighbors who would like to see this lot kept in its natural state. She felt that it was her client's right to have the use of the property such that the use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. In. fact, this property was reviewed by experts who indicated that this development. would improve the water runoff problem and would improve the geologic conditions. She requested Commission approval of this application. She has worked very had to met every requirement as put forward by staff.. Commissioner Caldwell commented that Ms. Fanelli has stated that she received a recommendation from staff that the owner has a right to develop on the lot. She stated that she did not recall having that statement reported to the Commission previously with this application. It was her understanding that development was a privilege and not a right. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City Attorney has indicated that there needs to be some reasonable use of the property available to the owner. It may not necessarily be this house or a smaller house. You would need to review the land use that is permitted in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. However, construction of homes and accessory structures may be difficult to do on a slope of this size and magnitude. The City Attorney has stated that the Commission could review a reasonable alternative land use. He stated that it was staffs position that the Commission look at it from a legal standpoint, that the applicant has a right to. use the property because a conditional Certificate of Compliance has been recorded. The issue before the Commission was that of determining what was the best use for the property. Ms. Fanelli commented that this proposal was not prepared blindly. Many meetings have been conducted with staff. She felt that it was important to understand that people, Commission and staff go through changes. She felt that the applicants tried to comply with what was put before them. She felt that it was imperative for people to be able to put faith into what they are told and directed to do. City Attorney Faubion clarified for the record that a conditional Certificate of Compliance was recorded for property that was not legally created. The Certificate of Compliance and tells you how to obtain legal status for that property. The City's fear that the property was not legally created was in fact realized and resulted in a Certificate of Compliance being issued and recorded. PLANNING COMMISON MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 17 - Chairman Asfour asked if the lot line was approved, would it create legal lots. City Attorney Faubion responded that the lot line adjustment would meet a condition of the Certificate of Compliance. Jim Bober 15325. Norton Road, stated his opposition to three variances because the construction of the home was not in compliance with City Code Section 15- 13.010 which indicates such things as preservation of natural landscaping, preservation of soil conservation, fencing based on steepness of slope, no disturbances of natural terrain, and minimizing hazards. He felt that the home would somehow violate all points. He also felt that the home would violate his right to privacy. He would have a 126 foot long structure looking down his pool area. He also felt that approval of the home would violate the hillside with a home of excessive bulk that does not fit into the surrounding buildings and neighborhood. He questioned if there were any studies completed that identified the long term effect of having a 4,200 square foot house supported at an 85 percent slope, forcing the structure into his property if some catastrophe happens (earth quake or landslide). He noted that there was continuous sliding in the area. He expressed concern for his family's safety with a landslide.. He questioned what measures would be undertaking during construction of the home to ensure land stability. He also questioned if bonding could be required to ensure that the project is completed and to ensure that land stability is accomplished? Chairman Asfour asked what Mr. Bober would like to see developed on this property. Mr. Bober responded that he would like to see agricultural uses be allowed on the site. He felt that the property owners bought the site knowing its constraints. Noreen Vamaoka, 20645 Sigal Drive, informed the Commission that her residence suffered severe damage from the October 1989 earthquake and that it took three years to repair the damages. She stated that she had extensive geologic survey performed. She felt that this area was precarious and very sensitive. She recommended that further longitudinal and geologic studies be required for the area. She indicated that the area is prone to flooding. during rainstorms and is located near an earthquake zone and fault line. The damage sustained to residents can be severe and she hoped that other residents do not experience the damages that she has sustained because the area is unstable. Commissioner Patrick commented that the applicant was proposing to undertake the measures which Ms. Vamaoka stated that she has completed. She inquired if Ms. Vamaoka has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant. Ms. Vamaoka responded that she has not reviewed the plans. Beverly Phipps informed the Commission that he resides on the property directly below the site under discussion. He requested that the Commission deny the slope variance. He provided the Commission with a diagram showing an 85% and 73% (average) slope. Although the home has a two story roof line, it - appears as a three story home with a very large frontage. He felt that the very steep slope forces the design of a linear structure. It provides every room with 'a view of the whole valley. Conversely, the whole valley will have a view of the home. He stated that it has been indicated that landslides can be mitigated. PLANNING COMMIS *N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 18 - He did not feel that with the construction of the home, it would allow for natural vegetation to occur. He felt that the existing vegetation would be significantly interrupted by the heavy equipment to be utilized. He requested that the City Attorney review the following: 1) would the City indemnify the citizens who live below the site from the possible consequences that could occur? 2) that the adjacent residents be provided with a written account of the condition under which the conditional Certificate of Compliance was granted and what the conditions mean? 3) he offered the alternative solution of condemnation for consideration because the site was not suitable to build a home upon, one that could be paid for by the collective response of the citizens who see the hillside. He questioned if it was public record that staff has mislead the Constantins to believe that they had permission to build on the site. He felt that a terrible precedent would be set if the home was allowed to be built upon. He felt that the variances should be denied so that privacy and views are protected for individuals who live above and below the site and for the valley residents. Commissioner Patrick questioned if any damage has been sustained from the landslides to date. Mr. Phipps responded that he has not experienced any significant damage to date from landslides. Murry Farrow, 20860 Kittridge Road , expressed concern with the structural integrity of Kittridge Road and damage to the hillside. He noted that the geologist reports rules out the possibility of stability of Kittridge Road. He felt that by granting the variances to allow this project to continue, that the applicant be required to incur the responsibility for the maintenance of Kittridge Road or that assurance be provided to the residents that should the geologist report be proven wrong, that the property owner would repair any road damage. Thomas Gross, 20877 Kittridge Road, stated that he did not believe that there were any adjacent residents that would support this massive structure on the vertical cliff. He informed the Commission that the existing road was a private road, maintained by the homeowners. He stated that the homeowners spent over $20,000 trying to stabilize the road. He felt that the road was very unstable and that the use of massive equipment to build the home would add to its instability. Gail Cheeseman, 20800 Kittridge Road, stated that she felt that this development would undermine the building codes. Ms. Fanelli reiterated that the Costantins were not experts in geology or engineering. She felt that it was important to remember that they were required to make the studies by the City that lead to these findings. She also noted that this proposal has been cleared by the specialists. Commissioner Abshire commented that the staff report mentioned that about four eucalyptus trees were to be removed. At his site visit, he noticed that the eucalyptus trees were the most prominent growth on the site. Under schedule B, the applicant indicates that six eucalyptus trees are to be removed for the house and grounds and 10 for slide repairs. He questioned which number was more accurate. Ms. Fanelli responded that Mr. Coats has PLANNING COMMISON MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 19 - suggested that all the Eucalyptus trees be removed per his report dated July 19, 1994. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the arborist report referred to by Ms. Fanelli was not included in the Commission's packet but that it would be furnished to the Commission at its next meeting. Commissioner Patrick inquired what plans, if any, do the owners have to post a bond to do whatever is required to mitigate any liability should anything occur with construction problems and the like. She commented that the site was a very steep slope and bringing a tractor to the site would be difficult to do. Ms. Fanelli responded that the Building Department requires that prior to issuance of building permits that a bond for all improvements be posted along with an indemnification bond to ensure the successful completion of the property. Commissioner Patrick questioned if the owners were willing to pay for the repair of the roadway should it collapse? Ms. Fanelli responded that the issue has not come until this evening so she could not answer the question. She stated that Mr. Gross built his home a few years ago and that she presumed that heavy equipment went up the road to build the house. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Chairman Asfour asked the City Attorney what the City's liability would be should the Commission approve development on the site and should something happen at a later date. City Attorney. Faubion responded that cities are not liable for their discretionary action absence of gross negligence. If the Commission approved a project given information that the project would not fly, then their would be a question of liability down the line. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission could be pragmatic in its discussion with what recently happened with the Bass subdivision on the Eden Road area with the road collapsing with serious damage to several homes and landslides all around the subdivision. She noted that the roads involved were private and that the City declined dedication of the roads because it had real concerns about the stability of the whole area. The City ended up providing a solution for the situation and incurred some cost. Pragmatically, the City ends up being the source of the solution when the citizens have no where else to turn. Attorney Faubion stated that the issue of liability was extremely complicated. She requested that the Commission keep in mind that there are legal and practical questions. Legally, she felt that the liability may be limited, but as a practical matter, the City has to deal with the citizens of the community. The City may take on more liability than it is legally obligated to because of its citizenry. She gave the opinion that the legal status stops at a certain point and then practicality takes over. Commissioner Kaplan inquired what liability do the individual Commissioners have with this application? City Attorney Faubion responded that so long as the Commission acts as an agent for the City, and if its decisions were made taking into account all information to make a sound decision, it would be exempt from liability to the extent that the City is. PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 20 - Chairman Asfour stated that it was his opinion that the owners were entitled to use the lot whether it be this house, a smaller house, or something else. The question ends up being not whether there is to be development on this lot, but what can be built on it. Commissioner Caldwell commented that it appeared to her that any structure(s) to be developed on this property would require a variance to the slope. Commissioner Murakami commented that Mr. Phipps raised a question regarding setting a precedent for the lot as far as degree, steepness, and the severe constraints of this type of property. He inquired if staff was aware of other lots similar to this one that could be developed in the future if this proposal was approved. Community Development Director Curtis responded that there were no another lots in the City in the extreme situation as this lot was that he was aware of. Commissioner Kaplan read the "Purposes of Article" from the Hillside Residential district (HR 15- 13.010), that took affect on December 1993. Commissioner Abshire commented that this was a difficult application. He felt that the site was a hazard and that in some point in time, an accident would occur. For that reason, he stated that he could not see a home built on the site. He felt that development would be changing a wooded hillside to something that would look like a major structure. He felt that construction of the home would give the appearance of a hotel, changing Saratoga. Commissioner Patrick commented that at looking at the site, she could not imagine anyone purchasing this lot with the intention of building a home that they would reside in. She could not see a home being built in an unstable area. She felt that a home built on the hill would be seen by everyone. She did not feel that the home would fit in the hillside and would stand out from the hillside. She stated that she could not support the home and that she did not know what she could approve on the site. She felt that whatever was approved, would need to be much smaller and more sensitive and configured with the hillside. Commissioner Caldwell stated her concurrence with Commissioner Patrick's comments. She indicated that she reviewed the design review findings and that she could not find any common ground between the purpose of the zoning district and the design review findings that need to be made to approve construction on the site. She felt that every finding was at odd with what the Commission is being asked to review. She could not state that no structure would be appropriate for this site, but that she had to admit that she finds it hard even imagining a structure that would be appropriate for it. She believed that the site was not appropriate for a home. She felt that the property was zoned appropriately for development in association with vegetation, orchards, or vineyards. She worried that even with that type of development that any machinery that was brought in to the site would pose a safety hazard to those who live below the site. She did not believe that this issue has been adequately addressed. She felt that it would probably be possible to develop the site for agricultural uses as permitted by the zoning district without using the type of machines that would be necessary to build a home on the site. PLANNING COMMIS*N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 21 - Commissioner Murakami stated that when he originally looked at the site and looking at all the variances, he felt that the applicant had a right to build something on the lot. The main concern to him was that of liability. He felt that the land was unstable. Therefore, he could not approve the home because of these factors. Commissioner Kaplan stated that in order to grant a variance, the Commission would need to make a finding that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the properties in the vicinity. She felt that this was a good ground for the Commission to deny the variance because of the potential impact to the public healthy, safety and welfare. She stated that she could not approve this house and that the agricultural use could be approved if it was a permitted use. Chairman Asfour commented that the question was what the owner could build on the lot. He stated that he could not support the application as proposed because it was too large for the hill and that it would stand out. He inquired if the applicant would want a vote tonight. Ms. Fanelli requested that a vote be taken on each separate item (design review, lot line adjustment and variance). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it would be staffs recommendation to have the Commission act on each item separately and then direct staff to prepare resolutions on the requested actions. The items would then be continued to allow staff to return with resolutions incorporating the Commission' action. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the City Attorney felt that the Commission should act on the applications as a group or whether the Commission could act on the lot line separately? City Attorney Faubion responded that she would suggest that the Commission keep the three applications as a group until such time that the Commission takes final action on all three applications. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MADE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION REFLECTING THE COMMISSION'S INTENT TO APPROVE APPLICATION LL -94 -008. Commissioner Abshire asked why the Commission was acting on the lot line adjustment before the variance. Community Development Director Curtis responded that action could be taken on the adjustment so long as it does not increase the intensity of the land use. For example, there currently exist two lots and that there would still remain two lots with the net result of no significant changes. THE COMMISSION RECESSED FOR A FEW MINUTES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ALLOW HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI WITHDREW THEIR MOTIONS. PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 22 - City Attorney Faubion provided a brief description of the discussion that was conducted. She commented that there were complicated issues. The decision that the Commission would need to make is permeated with difficult questions. There were comments regarding options available. It seemed to her that given the risk, the number, the diversity and the difficulty of the issues necessary to decide on the set of applications, she suggested that the Commission direct staff to lay out the options available to the Commission and include appropriate actions (i.e., draft resolution of approval, draft resolution for something smaller nature). She noted that there were a number of questions regarding of liability. She stated that she would like to have answered as much of those questions as possible before the Commission moves towards any kind of direction. She suggested that the Commission request that staff lay out the various options that it has for its next meeting. Chairman Asfour recommended that the public hearing be reopened and that staff be asked, having heard the Commission's concern regarding size and other issues raised, to return with appropriate recommendations. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /MURAKAMI MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC AT 11:02 P.M. Ms. Fanelli stated that she did not understand why action could not be taken on the lot line adjustment and why it needed to return to the Commission. Community Development Director responded that when there are multiple applications similar to this request, staff would like to keep all the applications together so that there are not different approval dates. Staff would recommend that all applications be continued, irrespective of how simple one may seem. City Attorney Faubion clarified that keeping the applications together does not imply nor suggest that the same action has to occur on all three applications. She felt that it would be difficult to have the three parts of the application somehow split up. Ms. Fanelli informed the Commission that it was the original intent to apply for a lot line adjustment separately but that it was suggested by staff that the three applications should be considered together. Commissioner Caldwell responded that she did not see any difference in the comments that were made by Ms. Fanelli than what action the Commission would be taken this evening (i.e., keeping the three applications together). The continuance would give staff the opportunity to draft resolutions for the Commission's review in addition to providing additional analysis. Chairman Asfour clarified that the action to be taken tonight on the lot line was not to approve it, but to request that staff return with a resolution. Ms. Fanelli commented that she wanted to proceed with the lot line adjustment because she wanted to get one of the applications out of the process so that action could be taken on the rest of the applications. PLANNING COMMIS ►N MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 23 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS DR =94 -031, LL -94 -008 & V -94 -012 TO THE COMMISSION'S MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1994. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT).. 3. DR -94 =026 = House; Lots 10 & 11, Tract 7770, Old Oak Way, request for Design V -94 -017 - Review approval to construct a new 6,950 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant hillside parcel. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed front yard fencing to exceed 3 ft. in height. The subject. property is 5.4 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the site met geologic standards. Planner Walgren responded that the project had been reviewed by William Cotton's office and that the plans have been granted a clearance for grading, drainage and construction for this property. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 11:12 p.m. Goodwin Steinberg, architect, San Jose, informed the Commission that the applications, Mr. and Mrs. David House were present should the Commission have any questions for them. He informed the Commission that the variance request for a fence. The house was a one story home with existing trees well above the roof line. He provided the Commission with a model and described the design of the proposed home along with picture samples of homes that he has built that show coloring, details and quality of the architecture. Commissioner Kaplan stated that if it were not for the fact that the applicant wished to have a swimming pool on the same building pad, she questioned if the house could be moved off the steep side of the hill (pushing the home back)? Mr. Steinberg responded that the rooms were worked into the sculpture of the hill and that he did not feel that there was room to change the structure without changing the building. In. response to Commissioner Murakami's question, he indicated that the design of the home was that of a contemporary, California Ranch design. Planner Walgren noted for the record that letters were distributed to the Commission from Andy Carter and Kathy Dolan, 13194 Pierce Road. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the location of the fence that required the variance. Mr. Steinberg responded that the fence was proposed quite a distance from the home. He indicated that the fence was proposed for security reasons and that the design of the fence was a very open, six foot wrought iron fence. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the reason for the use of metal fencing material. Mr. Steinberg responded that the wrought iron fence was transparent, light and would allow one to see through the landscaping. The metal fence would not disturb the look and would be more durable than wood (maintenance). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 2 - Correcting page one of the agenda, item 1 to reflect that the Constantin's design review application was for a "4:::x];'7'3:" square foot residence, not a 114,399" square foot residence.. Correcting page three of the agenda, item 8 to reflect that the zoning district for the Wells application to be R -1 €€3' Q 3 not R -1 ' ^=v-; 999. ...................... ....................... Correcting agenda item 1, page 51, under the design review subheading, amend the third bullet to read: "At two stories, and 24 ft. in height, the proposal does ` appear to meet the intent of minimizing viewshed impacts... " . Chairman Asfour noted for the record that the Commission received a letter from Matteoni, Saxe, and Nanda, Attorneys at Law, relating to the Constantin application (agenda item 1) . He stated that due to the length of the letter, he would not have the opportunity to read the letter received this evening. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR -94 -031 - Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Rd., request for V -94 -012.- Design Review approval to construct a new 4,473 LL -94 -008 - sq. ft. two -story residence on "a vacant hillside parcel with an average slope of 7311. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 851 and to allow the residence to encroach into required front and side yard setbacks. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth requirements. The subject property is 1.18 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (Cont. from 10/26/94 in order to prepare and adopt denial Resolutions; ------------------------------------------------------- application expires 2/22/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He recommended that the Commission follow -up on its original motion to deny the project by first denying the variance request based on the Health, Safety, Welfare concerns cited during the public hearing and articulated in the resolution based on building on an 850 slope. Following this action, the Commission should deny the lot line adjustment based on the inability to find that the project would conform with applicable zoning and building requirements. Lastly, denial of the design review for the residence based on the inability to approve the two previous applications. . Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Virgina Fanelli, representing the Constantin's, informed the Commission that the applicant did not wish to continue this item. Bob Saxe, attorney representing the Constantin's, addressed the history of the creation of this parcel. He referred to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 3 - Certificate of Compliance attached as an.exhibit to the letter he submitted this evening to the Commission. He informed the Commission that it was brought to his attention that a conditional Certificate of Compliance was recorded, not the Certificate of Compliance that his client thought was.to be recorded. He stated that at the time the parcel was created it needed a 150 foot lot depth. Therefore, the lot line adjustment application is necessary to satisfy the Certificate of Compliance condition, including a variance. He further stated that the lot line adjustment does not have anything to do with the buildability of a parcel. A lot line adjustment allows a property owner to move a line between two existing parcels. He felt that there was a theory that in order to receive.lot line adjustment approval, the property owner would need to comply with all the zoning requirements. The staff report states that you need to look at the property to determine whether there is any non - conformity in terms of zoning before granting a lot line adjustment. He felt that this was an incorrect interpretation. It was his opinion that you look at the impact of the lot line adjustment to determine if it would create a non- conformity. Under the rationale presented to the Commission this evening, he did not feel that the Commission would be able to grant a lot line adjustment to any parcel in this community where there exists a non - conformity with the respective zone. He stated that the applicant was before the Planning Commission for approval of a lot line adjustment because the applicant was required to do so. He accepts that this was a way to solve both problems; granting the lot line adjustment, thus allowing a condition to be satisfied which would allow for the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance. He stated his .agreement with the City Attorney that variances were discretionary. He informed the Commission that pages 4 and 5 of his letter addressed the findings that can be made in order to grant the variance. He stated that it was difficult to understand how this parcel could be treated differently than other parcels that have come before the City over a period of ten years. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M.. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). Chairman Asfour requested that City Attorney Riback respond to Mr. Saxe's comments. City Attorney Riback noted that the Commission has a copy of the report prepared by City Attorney Fabion. He noted his disagreement with Mr. Saxe regarding whether or not the lot line adjustment can be granted for property that is found to be non - conforming with zoning and building regulations. He read from the Subdivision Map Act which states that a local agency or advisory board shall limit its review and approval with the determination of whether or not the parcels resulting in one lot will conform to local zoning or building agencies. It was his opinion that should a lot line adjustment be granted prior to a variance being granted on the parcels, that it would not conform to the City's building and zoning ordinances because of the parcel's slope. He stated that a lot line adjustment could not be approved until a variance is approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan requested clarification regarding page 3, paragraph b, of the City Attorney's Report, pertaining to granting of special privileges. City Attorney Riback clarified that paragraph b was one of the findings that must be made in order to grant a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Kaplan commented that page 5 of the City Attorney's Report requires that the Commission determine whether or not parcel 2 has a potentially buildable site. She inquired if that was an issue that the Commission had to determine tonight. (Does the Commission need to make a decision that parcel 2 would not be buildable either ?) City Attorney Riback responded that for the purposes of the lot line adjustment, there would be an adjustment to take land from parcel 2 to add to parcel 1 and that a finding that would need to be made is that the parcel remaining would conform to zoning and building regulations. Commissioner Kaplan noted that one of the issues raised was whether or not parcel 2 would remain as a buildable lot or a conforming lot, again a question of slope. She questioned if that was to be factored into this decision. City Attorney Riback responded that he was not familiar with parcel 2. It may be that the slope is such that it is excessive or exceeds the allowable slope under the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Patrick asked if the Commission was to approve a lot line adjustment, would that imply,that lot 2 would be a conforming lot. City Attorney Riback responded that approval of a lot line adjustment would imply that lot 2 would be a conforming lot and that a finding would need to be made that the remaining parcel would comply with zoning regulations. Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to what rights would be granted if the Commission approves a lot line adjustment. City Attorney Riback stated his concurrence with Mr. Saxe that granting a lot line adjustment does not imply that the lot was a buildable site. He further stated that there was a difference between buildability and conformance with the City's zoning and building regulations. He clarified that a lot line adjustment cannot be granted without approval of the two variances before the Commission. It may be that parcel 2 may need to be looked at as well. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this was a legal lot of record. He did not feel that this issue was addressed in the City Attorney's memorandum. City Attorney Riback responded that it was not addressed because it was not an issue this evening. Commissioner Siegfried responded that it was an issue for him because the City has historically taken the position that if you have a legal lot, you can build on it. City Attorney Riback stated that a conditional Certificate of Compliance was issued for this parcel. What that means is that if the condition is met, than the parcel is a legal parcel. It was determined that the lot was not legally created. It was determined after some lengthy period of time by virtue of looking through the historical records including title reports relating to this property. Commissioner Siegfried requested that the public hearing be reopened because Mr. Saxe has PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 5 - indicated that this was a legal lot of record and requested further clarification. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would be willing to accept what the City Attorney has prepared in terms of what the City's position is. COMMISSIONERS HEARING. THE PATRICK VOTING SIEGFRIED /MURAKAMI MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN, AND NO AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. Mr. Saxe stated that it was his understanding that the City was to file and record a Certificate of Compliance only to find out a year later that a conditional Certificate of Compliance was recorded instead of a Certificate of Compliance. City Attorney Riback stated that he would need to consult with Ms. Fabion from his office to expand on the issue of the conditional Certificate of Compliance as she took the lead in discussions with Mr. Saxe. He stated that he would provide the Commission with a response at its next meeting. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to what action the property owner could have taken once the applicant felt that the Certificate of Compliance should have been an unconditional one? City Attorney Riback responded that the conditional Certificate of Compliance was an administrative action, one appealable to the Planning Commission within 15 days following notification of action. He stated that he could not believe that notice was not given to the property owner and that there was no discussion regarding the action. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05. City Attorney Riback commented that the conditional Certificate of Compliance was a draft provided to Mr. Saxe and that at a later date, it was revised. He felt that maybe the condition was revised upon review by the City Engineer. Commissioner Siegfried commented that what he hears Mr. Saxe stating was that his attachment was what he thought was going to be recorded and what was recorded was something different. Commissioner Kaplan commented that she would not be able to review and digest the letter submitted by Mr. Saxe this evening and that she does not take this matter lightly. She felt that this item would be appealed and recommended that the Commission vote on this item. She stated that she would take the advise from the City Attorney. Commissioner Patrick commented that notice is given when a document is to be recorded and that would have,been the appropriate time to complain or object to the contents of the document to be recorded. She stated that she would need to rely on the conditional Certificate of Compliance that was issued and that she would relay on the City Attorney's advise on this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 6 City Attorney Riback pointed out that the lot line adjustment application was applied for in August 1994. If the conditional, Certificate of Compliance was an issue, it seemed to him that this issue should have been brought up at that time. Chairman Asfour concurred that the report states that the document was recorded and was ready to proceed. He felt that there was ample time for the property owner to come forward and contest or appeal the conditional Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Kaplan questioned why the finding as listed in Resolution No. V -94 -012, Paragraph 4, could not read: "The Planning Commission finds that the granting of the Variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare...." City Attorney Riback responded that in order to grant the variance, the Commission would need to make the finding that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. i Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the Commission would need to make the findings to grant the variance but findings are not required to deny a variance. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -94 019, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he abstained because he believed that there was a fundamental issue that he thought was raised when this item was continued as to whether or not this was a legal lot of record. He did not agree with. the City Attorney's opinion and did not believe that the issue was addressed. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -94- 008, DENYING THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -94- 031, DENYING THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PER THE STAFF REPORT. t THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Caldwell entered and was seated. 2. V -94 -019 - Holt; 14690 Oak Street, request for Variance approval to construct a 625 sq. ft. one -story addition 9.83 ft. from the exterior side property line where 19 ft. is the minimum distance required and to extend the existing front porch pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total proposed floor area including the existing detached garage is 2,277 sq. ft. The subject property is approximately 7,525 Grace E. Co , Deputy City Clerk Saratoga ity Council 13777,Ffuitvale Avenue Sarat6ga, CA 95070 Dear Mrs. Cory, 20800 Kittredge Road Saratoga, CA 95070 January 11, 1995 Re: A.P.A.: 517 -14 -061; Applicant Constantin, DR -94 -031; V -94 -012, LL -94 -008 Please include a copy of the following in your file. The building code is supposed to provide protection of the hillsides, but the building project APA 517 -14 -061 on Kittredge Road makes a mockery of the code. This project asks for a 4,390 sq. ft. building on 1.18 acres to be built on a slope of 85% with the lots vegetation scraped off the surface. The citizens of Saratoga need a clear definition of development in the hillside zone within the city to protect the hillsides from obtrusive projects and overdevelopment. We hope that the city will define more clearly how many variances a project can entail. We certainly believe that the number of variances necessary for this building project is unacceptable. We went to a meeting in October and three meetings two years ago to protest this same project along with many other people aware of its high impact. In the plans and details available at the Saratoga Planning Department there is no mention of all the objections raised at those meeting two years ago. The only situation that has changed is a new surface on the private part of Kittredge Road which the driveway would access. However the road is very prone to movement and it probably won't be long before the road will be covered with alligator back cracks again. This project certainly will have an adverse effect on the condition of the private road. We highly object to this proposed project on Kittredge Road. The design will be very offensive to people in the Valley looking up at this huge building which one of the Planning Commissioners likened to the looks of a hotel. We hope that the Saratoga City Council will not allow this kind of high impact, both visually and ecologically. This lot has value as a wood lot to remove eucalyptus, not as a house lot. We hope that the City of Saratoga's top priority is public trust. Enforcing the building codes will go a long way toward building and maintaining public trust. Sincerely. yours, Gail and Doug Cheeseman RECEIVED JAIN 111995 15291 Norton Road Saratoga, CA 95070 VL.A14NING DER A.P.N.: 517 -14 -082 January 6, 1995 Mr. Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ref: Notice of Hearing DR -94 -031, V -94 -012 & LL -94 -008 CONSTANTIN; 20855 KITTRIDGE ROAD Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a new 4,390 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant hillside parcel with an average slope of 73 %. Dear Mr. Curtis: This is an appeal for the second denial of a design review and variance for a very large house on a parcel that has not improved as a potential building site since either of these applications. The very steep hillside of this property is unstable and the property is in close proximity to an earthquake fault (Berrocal) discovered after the 1989 earthquake. 7 Approximately nine years ago the property in question experienced a landslide that brought down 100 foot tall trees along with mud and rock close to our home, which is directly below this site. A building on this site would also totally eliminate any privacy in our home since it would be positioned directly above. This property is so steep that any building would require extensive excavation and removal of trees and other natural foliage and construction on pillars. Building on this property will endanger our house and others. The other effects are a drastic change in the natural appearance of the environment, which is a major factor in the desirability of this neighborhood for the long term current residents and subject the hillside to potential erosion. The parcel is not a suitable building site in that it would damage the fragile geology, destroy the natural appearance of the area and most importantly would place our house in jeopardy. Therefore, the Saratoga Planning Commission should reject this appeal as it has the prior applications for building on this site. Sincerely, David Arnold Matteoni Saxe Nan a' L A W T E R S December 14, 1994 Honorable Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 1994 PLANNING DEPT. Re: Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Road V -94 -012, LL -94 -008, and DR -94 -031 Dear Commissioners: Kodak Center 1740 Technology Drive Suite 250 San lose. CA 95110 408.141 -7800 FAX 408 44 1 -7 30 2 Norman E. ,N,Iatteoni Al4un Robert Saxe N4agaret Eckcr Nanda Pegg y M. O'Laughlin Debra L.Cauble Judy C. Tsai Brculley &I. Matteoni I was first contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Constantin in 1991 in connection with a stalled Planning Commission hearing on the design review application for their Kittridge Road property. Notwithstanding a favorable staff report and a positive report from the geologist retained by the City, the Constantins explained to me that one or more of the Planning Commissioners had suggested that before acting on the design review application, the City should research whether the Constantin parcel had been legally created. That suggestion came as a surprise to the Constantins, who had owned the property for more than 20 years, paying not only taxes but assessments in excess of $50,000 as their share of the cost in bringing sewer lines into the area. In good faith, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin left their design review application on hold to begin the process of establishing the legitimacy of their parcel. They retained Mr. Robert Shook, a former Saratoga City Engineer, to research the origin of their parcel and the surrounding properties. After several weeks of research, Mr. Shook presented evidence to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the Planning Director, and the City Engineer that the Constantin parcel was created on September 1, 1962, as the residue from the creation of adjoining APN 517- 14 -70. Based on that information, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin requested issuance of a Certificate of Compliance as provided for under the State Subdivision Map Act. An A... ,ieuun Inrh,Jmq e hojc.sionnl Cn.p. Honorable Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 2 Under Government Code §66499.35., a city or county must issue a Certificate of Compliance upon determining that a particular parcel was created in compliance with provisions of the Map Act and of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. If the city or county determines that the parcel was not created in compliance with the Map Act and local ordin- ances enacted pursuant thereto, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance must be issued. In issuing a Conditional Certifi- cate of Compliance, the local agency may ". . . impose any conditions which would have been applicable to the division of the property at the time the applicant acquired his or her interest therein ." Several months of review and discussion followed submittal of Mr. Shook's report, but ultimately, the City Attorney agreed that issuance of a Certificate (as opposed to a Conditional Certificate) of Compliance was appropriate. Correspondence dated June 1, 1992, from the City Attorney, together with a draft Certificate of Compliance is attached to this letter. In that same letter, the City Attorney conveyed the desire of the City Engineer and the City Surveyor that the Constantin parcel be surveyed. I relayed the request to the Constantins, who immediately retained the services of a surveyor. The following month, in correspondence dated July 29, 1992, I confirmed to the City Attorney that the requested survey work was under way and further confirmed my under- standing that the draft Certificate of Compliance forwarded to me for review would be recorded upon completion of the survey work. A copy of the July 29, 1992, correspondence is attached. I heard nothing further from the City Attorney and assumed the matter was closed. More than a year later I learned from the Constan- tine that the City had not recorded the draft Certificate of Compliance forwarded to me for review, but rather had recorded a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. There would be no lot line adjustment application before you had the City recorded a Certificate of Compliance. It is only to satisfy the condition of the Conditional Certificate that Mr. and Mrs. Constantin are required to process this application in order Honorable Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 3 to achieve the minimum 150 foot lot depth standard in effect on February 10, 1970, when they acquired the parcel. Lot Line Adjustment Application It is clear the Constantins are entitled to a Certificate of Compliance rather than a Conditional Certifi- cate. Nonetheless, your approval of the lot line adjustment satisfies the condition of the Conditional Certificate thereby achieving the same result. In obtaining a Certificate of Compliance, we are aware that the document is the equivalent of a birth certificate. It only establishes that the parcel came legally into existence. It guarantees nothing in terms of whether the property can actually be. developed under applicable local ordinances. The net effect of the proposed lot line adjustment is to add approximately 1,300 square feet, thereby increasing the parcel in question from 1.18 acres to 1.21 acres. The parcel from which land is taken is reduced from approximately 1.07 acres to 1.04 acres. It does not affect the development potential of either parcel except to the extent .that the Constantin parcel proposed for development now meets the lot depth provision erroneously required under the Conditional Certificate of Compliance. Accordingly, the lot line adjustment application should be approved under §14- 50.040 of the Saratoga Ordinance Code. Variance The second application of concern is the Constantin, request for a variance from the development criteria under §15- 13.040 that structures not be built on slopes exceeding 40% natural slope. Relief from that slope constraint.may be granted either by a variance under Article 15 -70, or by way of an exception which the Commission could make pursuant to §14- 35.010. In this instance, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin have filed a variance application. Their request is no different than those submitted by the owners of other parcels in this steep hillside area when seeking design review approval. In fact, Honorable Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 4 the steep terrain in this neighborhood has consistently been the basis used to justify the granting of variances and exceptions. On April 10, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a variance as to the average slope requirements for the property located at 15395 Kittridge Road - three parcels removed from the Constantin parcel. In granting the variance, the Planning Commission made the following findings as set forth in Resolution No. V -91 -003: "A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that any building pad location on this parcel, which was granted Building Site Approval by the City in 1979, would require a variance from either slope or setback requirements. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in that this hillside parcel has a steep 46% east -west slope from Kittridge Road above, down to Norton Road with no potential conforming building pad locations. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specific regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district in that by denying any variance request, the applicant would Honorable Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 5 be precluded from developing the property. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that other steep hillside uarcels have been aranted similar requests. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties with improvements in the vicinity in that the city's Geologist, Engineer and Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District, .have all had an oppor- tunity to review and comment on the application and their conditions have been incorporated into Resolution DR -90 066." (emphasis added) The similarities between the Constantin parcel and the neighboring parcel for which a variance was granted are obvious. In both cases, there was no potential building pad conforming to the slope restrictions. In both instances, the City's Geologist reviewed and approved the site. Although I am not aware of the details of the Geologist's review of the 15395 Kittridge Road site, you have been told by the City Geologist that development of the Constantin parcel would in fact improve geotechnical conditions in the area by stabilizing the site and thereby reducing any geologic threat to adjoining properties. For the past several years Mr. and Mrs. Constantin have satisfied every substantive development issue raised concerning their property. However, they continue to be frustrated, not by substantive issues, but by legal gymnastics and ever evolving legal interpretations and theories tailored Honorable Planning Commission December 14, 1994 Page 6 to create seemingly unsolvable procedural dilemmas - when all they have ever asked is to be treated the same as their neighbors. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, ALLAN R. SAXE ARS:md - cc: Mr. and Mrs. John Constantin matteoni Saxe Nan L A W T E R S Kodak Center 1740 Technology Drive Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 July 29, 1992 408441 -7SCC FAX 405 441-7302 Ms. Kathleen Faubion Meyers Nave Riback & West Norman E. ,ert o i r .Alan Robert Saxe 777 Davis Street, #300 Margaret EckerNarula San Leandro, CA 94577 Peg, M. O'Laughlin Debra L.Cauble Re: Constantin Certificate of Compliance (City of Saratoga) Dear Ms. Faubion: This letter will confirm that Mr. & Mrs. Constantin have requested preparation of the record of survey requested in your correspondence of June 1, 1992. I do not know the current status of the work, but their surveyor will contact the Saratoga City Engineer, Mr. Larry Perlin, as soon as it is completed and ready to record. It is my understanding from your correspondence that the record of survey will be recorded concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance forwarded in draft form with your June 11 1992 correspondence. Thank you very much for your patience. and diligence in pursuing resolution of this complex matter. Very truly yours, ALLAN R. SAXE ARS:md cc: Mr. & Mrs. John Constantin .fin .�,�: r.uu m Lri luJ,n� ,r I'n,�,•..r „mu r :, •rp S MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER MICHAEL R. NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION PENINSULA OFFICE STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER GATEWAY PLAZA 1220 HOWARD AVE.. SUITE 250 MICHAEL S. RIBACK 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 -4211 MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (415) 348 -7130 KATHLEEN FAUBION TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 FACSIMILE: (415) 342.0886 FREDERICK S. ETHERIDGE FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 WENDY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER - June 1 1992 STEVEN T. MATTAS / OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN REPLY TO: San Leandro Allan R. Saxe Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda 1740 Technology Drive, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 RE: Constantin Certificate of Compliance Dear Mr. Saxe: I believe we have finally resolved this long- standing issue. In the course of reviewing this case with the City Engineer and City Surveyor, there were two primary issues of concern. Each will be discussed separately. 1. There appears to be no "positive" description of the Constantin property. The fact that the Constantin parcel was "created" as a residue parcel from a series of transactions over several years has been a complicating feature in this request. Among the complications is the fact the City has no positive description of the property as a single integrated unit. The result is that although the City must issue some kind of Certificate of Compliance, we do not really know what the precise size, area and actual (as opposed to composite by reference to series of deeds) description of the property to be covered by the Certificate is. The City Engineer and City Surveyor feel strongly that a Record of Survey must be filed for the property before issuing a Certificate of Compliance. The Record of Survey will also be recorded with the Certificate to clearly identify the actual property covered by the Certificate. 2. The recorded Certificate must include a statement that the Certificate examines only creation of the parcel, not development (i.e. "buildability ") of the parcel. You.and I have discussed this issue several times. I believe we are both clear that once a Certificate is recorded, Allan R. Saxe June 1, 1992 Page 2 . z the Constantine then are free to pursue permits for the development of the parcel under applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. At this point, those permits are generally discretionary, and there is no guarantee the permits will be approved. As in the past, I am attaching a draft Certificate of Compliance for your review. It is similar to the draft attached to our March 30, 1992 letter. If you have no additional comments on the draft Certificate, we will record the Certificate immediately upon receipt of a Record of Survey of the Constantin property. If you have any questions about a Record of Survey, please contact Larry Perlin, the City Engineer, at 867 -3438. Thank you again for your continued assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER Kathleen Faubion Attachment cc: Larry Perlin w /att. James Walgren w /att. 273 \1tr \const4.mkf RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Space above this line for Recorder's use CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Division 2, Title 7, Section 66499.35 California Government Code DRAFT The City of Saratoga, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, based upon information provided, has determined that the real property described in this Certificate complies with applicable provisions of the state Subdivision Map Act and of the City of Saratoga Subdivision Regulations or prior law regulating divisions of land or was created prior to adoption of applicable laws. Property Owner(s) of Record: Constantin, John C. & Cleo P Trustees (shown on latest equalized assessment roll) Date Owners Acquired Property: February 10, 1970 (8824 O.R. 496). Date Subject Property Created: September 21, 1962 (5727 O.R. 421), See Notes. Assessor's Parcel Number: 517 -14 -071 Description: See Exhibit "A ", attached.Enote.: rW1se-1 upon rec,e►Pf.cf Record e� Suw e�� NOTES: 1. Parcel Creation. The subject parcel was "created" on September 21, 1962, as the residual of a series of transactions over some 15 years. See Exhibit "B ", attached, for summary of the transactions. 2. Standards Applicable at Parcel Creation. This is a Certificate of Compliance under Government Code Section 66499.35(b). At the time the subject property was created on September 21, 1962, the City of Saratoga had already adopted subdivision regulations pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act. These regulations were contained in Ordinance NS -5, adopted on October 4, 1961. The ordinance applied not only to divisions of land, but also to single parcels; it required formal Site Approval even for single parcels. (Part 1, Section 1; Part 3.) Site Approval was not, however, required until a structure or a certain specified amount of paving was proposed. (Part 3, Section 2.) Because no structure was proposed at.the time the property was created, no Site Approval was then required. 3. Certificate Does NOT Certify a Buildable Parcel. This Certificate of Compliance only addresses creation of -the subject property. This Certificate does not imply or guarantee the subject property is a buildable parcel. The determination of whether the property may be built upon will be made at the time construction is proposed. The determination will depend on whether the development complies with the General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other development standards applicable when construction is proposed. 4. Relation to Other Laws. This Certificate of Compliance shall in no way affect the requirements of any other County, State, Federal or local agency that regulates development of real property. Dated: By: City Attorney City of Saratoga rev. 5/13/92 273 \misc \coc2.mkf ti ?O 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL AIENIBERS: Ann Marie Burner Paul E. Jacobs Gr7 /0i,, A90ran Karon 7ucl;er M E M O R A N D U M Donald L. th Tolle TO: Planning Commission \ FROM: James Walgren, Associate Planner DATE: October 26, 1994 SUBJECT: DR -94 -031, LL -94 -008 & V -94 -012 Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Road DISCUSSION Description: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,390 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant hillside parcel with an average slope of 73 %. variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85% and to allow the residence to encroach into required front and side yard setbacks. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth requirements. The subject property is 1.18 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Background: This proposal to develop this severely constrained site with a 4,390 sq. ft. two -story residence was first presented to the Planning Commission at the May 8, 1991.public hearing. Following neighborhood testimony opposing the project, and Planning Commission deliberation,. the application was continued to the May 28, 1991 study session meeting in order to have the City's Geotechnical Consultant, Mr. Bill Cole, present to address specific slope stability concerns. In summary, Mr. Cole stated that the end result of construction on this site would contribute to stabilizing the slope (minutes from these two meetings are attached). Between this study session meeting and the next anticipated hearing, the City Attorney's office raised questions regarding the legality of the parcel itself. It was agreed by the City Engineer Printed on recycled paper. Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Road Page Two and the City Attorney that the application should be put "on- hold" until a complete title research could be performed to determine how the lot was created, and whether or not it was created properly according to the Subdivision Map Act provisions and applicable local ordinances in effect at the time it was created. Once the legality of a parcel is confirmed by a local jurisdiction, a Certificate of Compliance is issued. This is a common process /practice in older communities, especially with mountainous terrain, to restrict the development of lots which were never intended as building sites. The property was ultimately granted a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. The conditions included that the parcel .meet minimum lot configuration. requirements in effect when the Constantins' purchased the lot in 1970. This condition resulted in the new Lot Line Adjustment application. By adjusting the lower property line with the adjacent down -slope property (which the Constantins also own), the subject property now meets the minimum lot depth requirement of 150 feet. A chronology of previous application events prepared by the applicants' representative, Ms. Virginia Fanelli, and the Conditional Certificate of Compliance are attached for reference. Resubmittal: Based on the City's granting of the Conditional Certificate of Compliance, the applicants have now resubmitted the same plans for consideration. Due to Zoning Ordinance amendments adopted in 1992, the approval requests now include a Variance to the southeast side- yard, setback. When originally submitted the side -yard setback was 20 ft. As amended, the side -yard setbacks are now either 20 ft. or 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater. The subject parcel is exceptionally wide, requiring a 45 side -yard setback. If the Planning Commission feels that the Design Review findings can be made to support the project, staff would support this additional Variance request based on the original findings in the May 8, 1991 staff report. Due to these same ordinance amendments, a building height Variance is no longer necessary. Additional new information includes the landslide repair plan marked Exhibit "B". This repair work was identified in the original Geotechnical Clearance report presented to the Planning Commission in 1991. This new exhibit graphically illustrates the area to be repaired. It would result in the removal of at least two eucalyptus trees and possibly several smaller non - ordinance protected Coast Live Oaks. The City Arborist has reviewed the original plans and a condition of project approval would require that he also review and approve a final engineered grading plan prior to the issuance of any permits. A site revegetation and tree _ replacement plan would also be required and subject to his review. Constantin; 20855 Rittridge Road Page Three RECOMMENDATION There are probably few parcels within Saratoga's jurisdiction that are as physically, topographically or geologically as constrained as this lot. However, based on the City Geologist's preliminary clearance of the project, staff is obligated to proceed with the applicants' Design Review request. Likewise, given the lack of an alternative building site location on this legal lot of record, staff also feels a responsibility to support the Variance requests per Section 15- 70.060 of the City Code. Staff's analysis therefore concludes that the Planning Commission has the. two following alternatives to consider. 1. Direct staff to prepare Resolutions for the November 9th public hearing to approve the application as submitted with the revised material changes discussed in the staff report. Replacement trees would be required for the removed trees; or 2. Continue the application to allow the applicant to address any additional design and configuration changes the Planning Commission deems appropriate. Attachments: 1. Letter from Virginia Fanelli dated 9/30/94 2. Letter from David Arnold dated 10/15/94 3. Certificate of Compliance & City Engineer memo dated 3/31/93 4. Staff report dated 5/8/91 5. Planning Commission minutes dated 5/8/91 & 5/28/91 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" 7. Preliminary landslide repair plans, Exhibit "B" RECEIVED FC OCT 12 1994 PLA14NING DEPT- Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning / Property Management / Real Estate Broker Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Chairman Asfour and Commissioners: September 30, 1994 RE: Constantin - Dr 94 -031, V 94 -016 and LL 94 -012 The project before you has been evolving over the last 24 years. Many issues have been studied and resolved by Mr. and Mrs. Constantin, the planning staff and technical specialists prior to submitting the applications for your review and approval. To assist you in your review, we have compiled the following chronology of events. 1970 - The property was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Constantin. 1972 - Began investigating the feasibility of bringing a sewer line to the property. At first this involved just their own property, but as other development occurred in the area and surrounding septic systems failed, they agreed to add other homes to the plan. 1982 - The sewer line was laid to serve both Kittridge and Norton Roads at a cost to the Constantins of nearly $50,000, 4 times the cost of bringing a line only to their home. 1987 - Bill Cotton gave a preliminary geological review of the site prior to any plans being drawn. 1988 - JCP Geologists- Engineers performed a site - specific geotechnical investigation. Mr. and Mrs. Constantin began design plans and met with Planning Director Yucheck Hsia and staff to discuss the issues of slope and front setback. The planners stated that they could support the variance for the front setback based on the overriding considerations of safety and minimizing the disruption to the lot and the variance for slope based on Section 14 -35 of the City Code regarding Exceptions which substantiates the city's long standing position that persons have the right to develop legal lots of record. 1989 - The City Geologist did a second review of the site. 1990 - Met with new Planning Director Steve Emslie and again were assured that the staff would support the required variances and the development of the lot based on Section 14 -35. The application was submitted and the City Geologist completed another review. 10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 996 -8188 • Fax (408) 996 -8261 1991 - JCP completed another geologic study of the property and the City Geologist issued a report that he was satisfied that development of the parcel was feasible. The project was set for a hearing before the Planning Commission. The issue of the legal creation of this parcel was raised at the Planning Commission hearing. It was determined by the City Attorney that the Design Review and Variance hearing would have to be postponed until legality could be proved. The Constantin's formally withdrew their application at the city's suggestion. Mr. and Mrs. Constantin hired Robert Shook, Civil Engineer, to do a complete title search of the property. Mr. Shook's findings were presented to the City Attorney in November, 1991. 1992 - After several months of no response, the City_ Attorney, in April, promised the Constantin's a response within 2 weeks. 1993 - In March, 1993, a determination was made by the City Engineer, Larry Perlin, that the lot was legally created and he issued a "Conditional Certificate of Compliance ". The lot line adjustment map, accompanying the current application, was prepared to meet the condition for obtaining a Certificate of Compliance. 1994 - Applications for the lot line adjustment, design review and variances were filed. As you can see from the above history of events, Mr. and Mrs. Constantin have spent many years, a great deal of money and an extraordinary amount of frustration to realize their dream of building a home on this property. There is no question that this is a difficult site. The geologic studies have been extensive and thorough. The architect has studied those reports and applied the information into a design which follows the long contours of the property with the least amount of cut possible. He has striven to meet all the design review requirements. The variance for the road setback is one which actually preserves the site from further cuts while providing a driveway and turn around which meet the Fire District's requirements. The side yard setback variance came about only because the ordinance has changed since the house was actually designed for the 1991 application. The City Engineer has determined that the lot is legal. The geology reports found the lot is buildable as proposed. " The stability of the subject property will be improved considerably by the development process... If the size of the development is scaled back, then the associated benefits of the development will correspondingly be scaled downward." The architect has designed with great sensitivity to the site. Now, we are asking for your approval on October 26th so that Mr. and Mrs. Constantin may finally build their home. Very truly yours, Vi, �4 Vg' is L. Fanelli RECEIVE" OCT 18 1994 15291 Norton Road' rLA11W G DEPT. Saratoga, CA 95070 A.P.N.: 517 -14 -082 October 15, 1994 Mr. Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ref: Notice of Hearing DR -94 -031, V -94 -016 & LL -94 -012 (APN 517 -14 -071 & 081) - CONSTANTIN; 20855 KITTRIDGE ROAD Request for Design Review Approval & Variance Approval - Dear Mr. Curtis: My family and I live directly below the property in question and strongly object to granting a variance approval to allow a 4,390 sq. ft. home to be constructed on this very steep (73% average) slope. The steep hillside of this property is unstable. Approximately nine years ago the property in question experienced a landslide that brought down 100 foot tall trees along with mud and rock close to our home. This property is also in close proximity to an earthquake fault discovered after the 1989 earthquake. Building on this property will endanger our house and others. Therefore, the Saratoga Planning Commission should reject this application for building on this site. Sincerely, David Arnold 0 �4� L4_,= — u� RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Saratoga RETURN TO: City of Saratoga -erg - ----� r 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 TO BE RECORDED WITHOUT FEE AS PER GOVERNMENT CODE 6103 CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE APN: 517 -14 -071 . Lands of: John C. Constantin and Cleo P. Constantin, Trustees Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 66499.35(b) of the Government Code of the State of California that the real property described in "Exhibit All attached hereto and made a part hereof, complies with the provisions of Division 2 of Title 17 of said Government Code, cited as the Subdivision Map Act, and all local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be brought into compliance with the applicable standards of the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance No. NS -3, as amended, and more particularly, with the standards for the R1- 40,000 zoning district which were in effect on February 10, 1970. Alternatively, the owner shall obtain Final Site Approval and Variance Approval for the property by filing a Parcel Map and Site Development Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City of Saratoga's Subdivision Ordinance No. NS. -5, as amended, which were in effect on February 10, 1970. Further, that as a result of this Conditional Certificate of Compliance, the sale, lease or financing of the subject property as described herein shall not constitute a violation of said Division 2 of Title 7 or any local ordinances, except as conditioned above. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. CC -93 -001 APPROVED BY: wa DATE: Larry I. erlin ATTEST: City Engineer printed onrecycedape E . Cory., Depu c� ty Clerk o 0 � u�v c , 117TH o , to 1 -_ Fh?"ITVAILE AVENUE • ARATOG_' . C i:\ l: -. •, C' - , - MEMO TO: James Walgren, Associate Planner FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer . SUBJECT: Constantin Certificate of Compliance DATE: March 31, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------- At long. last, I have concluded the necessary research to determine whether a Conditional or Unconditional Certificate of Compliance should be issued to the Constantin's for their Kittridge Road property. Based on this research, I am prepared to issue the attached Conditional Certificate of Compliance. My reasoning is as follows: The Constantin parcel was "created" on September 21, 1962 as the residue of multiple transactions over the years. On that date, the property was in the R1- 40,000 zoning district as defined by the City's prevailing Zoning Ordinance No. NS -3 which was originally adopted on August 16, 1961. The City's prevailing Subdivision Ordinance on that date was Ordinance No. NS -5 which was originally adopted on October 4, 1961 and subsequently amended on June 20, 1962 and July 5, 1962. The relevant sections of the City's Subdivision Ordinance which would have governed the division of land in the City and the creation of the Constantin parcel on September 21, 1962 were: 1. Part 1, Section 2.2 which defined the means by which the Constantin parcel was created as a division of land subject to the requirements of the Ordinance. 2. Part 1, Division 7 which stated that parcels created through the division of land had to comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. Part 2, Section 3.4 -1 which stated that parcels created through the division of land had to meet the minimum standards for lot. area, width, depth and frontage as contained in the Zoning Ordinance, or that a variance from the zoning standards had to be obtained from the Planning Commission. Primes on recyciec oaoer The City's Zoning Ordinance which was in effect on September 21, 1962 was Ordinance No. NS -3 which was originally adopted on August 16, 1961. As previously stated, the Constantin parcel on that date was in the R1- 40,000 zoning district. Article 3, Section 3.5 of the Zoning Ordinance required a lot width of 150 feet, a lot depth of 150 feet and a lot frontage of 100 feet for lots within the R1- 40,000 zoning district. From the evidence the City has on the Constantin parcel, it does not appear, that the 150 foot lot depth standard was met and therefor, the creation of the Constantin parcel did not conform to the prevailing zoning standards and consequently, did not comply with the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance at the time the parcel was "created ". As a result, and pursuant to Section 66499.35(b) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City is compelled to issue a Conditional Certificate of Compliance for the property. The conditions which may be imposed on the Certificate by the City are those which were in effect in the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances on the date when the Constantin's actually acquired the property, February 10, 1970. I have researched all of the successive amendments to both the Subdivision Ordinance No. NS -5 and the Zoning Ordinance No. NS -3 up until February 10, 1970 to determine any conditions which might have been applicable to the creation of the Constantin parcel and which the City might want to attach to a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. The Subdivision Ordinance was amended 19 times and the Zoning Ordinance 22 times prior to February 10, 1970. There appears to be only one amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, adopted on June 17, 1964 via Ordinance No. NS -5.8, which would appear to apply in the Constantin's circumstance. This amendment dealt with the creation of hillside lots and required the preparation and approval of a Site Development Plan for the property prior to Tentative Map Approval of a subdivision or Tentative Site Approval of a lot. I_now believe I know all that is relevant to know about the creation of the Constantin parcel and the applicable City ordinances to determine 1) that a Conditional Certificate of Compliance should be issued for the property by the City, and 2) what conditions should be attached to the certificate. These conditions are: 1. The property shall be brought into compliance- with the applicable standards of the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance No. NS-3, as amended, and more particularly, with the standards for the R1- 40,000 zoning district which were in effect on February 10, 1970. Alternatively, the owner shall obtain Final Site Approval( and Variance Approval for the property by filing a Parcel.Map and Site Development Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City of Saratoga's Subdivision Ordinance No. NS -5, as amended, and Zoning Ordinance No. NS -3, as amended, which were in effect on February 10, 1970. The above condition provides the Constantin's with two alternatives to bring the property into compliance with Map Act statutes. The first part of the condition requires the Constantin's to bring the property into compliance with the City's zoning standards which were in effect at the time they acquired the property since the property did not comply with the zoning standards which were in effect at the time the parcel was "created ". To do this, the Constantin's would have to somehow reconfigure the boundaries of the parcel to meet the 150 foot depth standard which is not satisfied by the existing configuration of the parcel. The second part of the condition affords the Constantin's an alternative process to bring the property into compliance by following the procedures of the City's Subdivision Ordinance which were in effect when they acquired the property. If they elect to proceed under this approach, they would need to process an application for Site Approval which would force them to process a Parcel Map and a Site Development Plan. However, because the parcel does not comply with the zoning standards which governed when they acquired the property, they would also need to apply for and obtain a variance as part of the Site .Approval process. Either of these two alternatives would need to be completed and the property brought into compliance before the City could even accept an application for Design Review for the property. If and when an application for Design Review is accepted by the City, it would be processed under todays current .zoning standards. I know all of this may seem overly complicated, but I am now convinced that it is the proper way to proceed. Therefor, please review the attached draft Conditional Certificate of Compliance and let me know your comments within one week from the date of this memo. If I do not hear from you by then, I shall assume you have no comments and I will issue the final Conditional Certificate shortly thereafter. Also, I have attached for your information, copies of the relevant sections of the old Ordinances No's. NS -3 and NS -5. cc: City Attorney City Surveyor Planning Director u.. r,r; Hang . REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR -90 -079, SD -90 -009 & V -90 -037; 20855 Applicant /Owner: Constantin Kittridge Road Staff Planner: ,Tames walgren Date: May 8 , 1991 APN: 517 -19 -071 Director Approval: Z u 6 5 5 nittridge Koad File No. DR -90 -07.9, SD -90 -009, V -90 -037; 20855 Kittridge Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 11/14/90 Application complete: 04/15/91 Notice published: 04/24/91 Mailing completed: 04/25/91 Posting completed: 04/18/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review and building site approval to construct a new 4,390 sq. ft., two -story residence within the HC -RD zone district per Chapter.14 and 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the residence to be constructed on a pad with an average slope of 85% and to allow the structure to encroach into a required front yard setback and exceed the 26 foot height limitation. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The subject parcel is located on Kittridge Road within Saratoga's southern -most hillside district. The relatively shallow lot is currently undeveloped, though covered with numerous pine, oak and eucalyptus trees. A steep west- east,72.5% slope drops abruptly from Kittridge Road to lower parcels below which access Norton Road. The height, setback and location variance requests are all based on the site's extreme topography. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing and direct staff and the applicant regarding the attached analysis. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2., Arborist Report 3. Correspondence 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" CW:ws5 \JW \perpt \dr File No. DR -90 -079, SD- 90- 009,.V -90 -037; 20855 Kittridge Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: HC -RD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.18 acres (51,400 s.f.) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 72.5% SLOPE AT BUILDING-SITE: 85% GRADING REOUIRED: Cut: 510 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 12 ft. Fill: 68 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 4 ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior finish painted off - white with rust colored mission tile roofing. LOT COVERAGE HEIGHT• PROPOSAL 14% (7,196 s.f.) 28' SIZE OF 1st Floor: 3,736 s.f. STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 654 s.f. TOTAL: 4,390 s.f. SETBACKS: Front: 10' Rear: 64' Right Side: 45' Left Side: -150' CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 25% (not to exceed 15,000 sq. ft.) 26' 4,518 s.f. Front: 30' Rear: 501/60' Right Side: 20' Left Side: 20' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review and building site approval to construct a new 4,390 sq. ft., two -story residence within the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 14 and 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the residence to be constructed on a pad with an average slope of 85% and to allow the structure to encroach into a required front yard.setback and exceed the 26 foot height limitation. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics: The applicant is proposing to construct a new, two - story, partially split level, 4,390 sq. ft. home on a site with an average slope of 72.5 %. The subject property is located along Kittridge Road in Saratoga's southern -most hillside district. The parcel is densely vegetated along the downslope property line with numerous pine, eucalyptus and oak trees. Approximately four eucalyptus trees would need to be removed to accommodate this construction. The City Arbor - ist has reviewed the proposed development and his tree preservation measures would be incorporated into any resolution to approve this application. File No. DR -90 -079, SD -90 -009, V -90 -037; 20855 Rittridge Road From the proposed building pad area, one is afforded views of the adjacent mountains to the southeast, local development below (partic- ularly the Montalvo Heights /Vickery Lane neighborhoods), and the greater Santa Clara Valley. Conversely, while this home would not be visible from' Norton Road immediately below, it would be visible from many vantage points throughout Saratoga and beyond. Design Review: The plans' now before the Planning Commission have gone through two revisions since the application was first submitted, in order to reduce the overall height of the structure and to reduce the height of the underfloor area. While both of these design related matters are a product of the site's steep topography, any reduction in either will help to reduce the home's visual prominence. As currently submitted, staff feels that the proposed residence follows the natu- ral contours very closely. This is particularly evident when viewing. the cross- sections on page 7 of Exhibit "A ". Regarding, the design of the home itself, staff finds that the gabled roofs and the stepped floor plan are appropriate for a steep hillside lot. However, given the visibility of this property and its heavily wooded setting, staff feels that the proposal should be revised to indicate relatively dark horizontal wood siding and composite roofing material. In addition, some type of stone or brick veneer should be applied to the lowest floor level to visually break up the home's "three- story" appearance when viewed from a distance. Building Site Approval:. Based on this parcel being created by deed of trust prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Map Act, the applicant was also requested to apply for building site approval to ensure that all necessary of- site improvements are provided and utilities are available. This application process is more a function of the Engineering Department than the Planning Department, and the City Engineer's only condition was that the applicant be required to submit a parcel map for recor- dation prior to the issuance of any permits. This property has gone through numerous geologic studies over the years. According to reports prepared by William Cotton's office, the City has been reviewing the geologic stability of this extremely constrained site since at least 1987. In these earlier reports the City's Geotechnical Consultant has stated that development of this property is severely constrained by: 1) precipitous slopes; 2) possible active landsliding on, and downslope from, the subject property; 3) oversteepened slopes caused by landsliding; 4) surface water runoff; 5) oversteepened cut and fill slopes showing evidence of past instability; and 6) the site's close proximity to the Berro- cal fault. However, based on JCP's (Geologists- Engineers) "Engineer- ing, Geologic and Soil and Foundation" report dated February 11, 1991, Mr. Cotton's office is now satisfied that development of this parcel is feasible and has issued a preliminary geologic clearance of the project allowing the applicant to proceed with their design review request. File No. DR -90 -079, SD -90 -009, V -90 -037; 20855 Rittridge Road Variance: The variance requests are multiple, though all are based on the site's steep topography, and include the following: 1) to encroach 20 feet into a required 30 foot front yard setback; 2) to allow interior sections of the residence to exceed the 26 foot height limit; 3) to allow the structure to sit at a pad with an average slope of 85 %; and 4) to allow 5 foot tall retaining walls within the front yard setback where fences and walls are limited to a maximum height of'3 feet. Staff finds that there are clearly extraordinary physical circum- stances related to this proposal and that the variance findings could be made to support this application. The applicant's architect has worked to step the floor plan down the site to minimize the request for the height variance. Most of the structure is in fact within the 26 foot height limitation. Cross - section #3 of Exhibit "A ", however, indicates a portion of the building directly over the hall which measures at approximately 28 feet. Conclusion: There are probably few parcels within Saratoga's jurisdiction that are as physically, topographically, or geologically as constrained as this lot. However, based on the City Geologist's preliminary clear- ance of the project, staff is obligated to proceed with the appli- cant's design review request. Likewise, given the lack of an alter- native building site location on this legal lot of record, staff also feels a responsibility to support the variance request per Section 15- 70.060 of the City Code. Of course, supporting the variance is based on the assumption that the City will allow development on this site. Barring the possibility that the City deems this lot unbuild- able and wishes to pursue condemnation proceedings, staff's analysis concludes that the Planning Commission has-the two following alterna- tives to consider: 1. Direct staff to prepare resolutions for the May 22nd public hearing to approve the application as submitted with the revised material changes discussed in the staff report. Replacement trees would be required for the removed eucalyptuses, or 2. Continue the application to allow the applicant to address any additional design and configuration changes as the Planning Commission deems appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing and direct staff and the applicant regarding the attached analysis. CITY OF SARATOG: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, May 28, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center, Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting The meeting is a study session between, applicants, interested citi- zens, staff to discuss continued applications, advance planning projects and general planning issues. The Planning Commission has a policy that no decisions will be made at these sessions. A written report will be made of the proceedings. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. DR -90 -079, SD -90 -009, V -90 -037 - CONSTANTIN, 20855 KITTRIDGE RD. The Planning Director reviewed that the purpose of this study session is to receive the report of the City Geologist and intro- duced Bill Cole, representing William Cotton & Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant. Mr. Cole responded to specific Planning Commission questions: 1. What were the primary considerations used to evaluate this site? Mr. Cole reviewed considerations listed in his memo- randum to the City Engineer. 2. The Planning Commission focused on the 1987 memorandum prepared by William Cotton and Associates which outlines the scope of work for the applicant's consultants, and asked Mr. Cole to review this document. 3. What questions were not addressed to Mr. Cole's satisfac- tion? What was the purpose of scalping the hillside? Mr. Cole responded that all considerations were addressed to enable the recommendation to the Planning Commission. The scalping was to prevent activation of landslides but is not related to the repair of the existing landslides. 4. The Planning Commission raised the statement made by the applicant's consultant that the development of the site will correct geologic conditions. Mr. Cole responded that this statement is true. Mr. Cole then referred to. the map prepared by the City's consultant. 5. The Planning Commission wanted to know the location of the Berrocal fault. Mr. Cole responded that the 1989 earthquake revealed the fault was over 50 ft. from the proposed con- struction. He reviewed the two similar considerations Regular Adjourr Feting 5/28/91 Page 2 applicable to new development; 1) Rupture; this is not a concern since the fault is away from the structure; 2) Shaking; this is a consideration regardless of setback.. 6. What is the condition of the bedrock; and what is its depth? Generally, bedrock is seven (7) feet below the surface. A structural engineer is required to review foundations prior to building permits to determine the depth of each footing. He also stated that the top 3 to 4 feet is fractured. 7. The Planning Commission asked why the supplemental geotech- nical design criteria requested on 12/21/90 are now being deferred in the 2/:28/91 letter until prior to building permits? Mr. Cole responded that the design criteria has been established but inspections are necessary to monitor construction. 8. Does Mr. Cole agree with the 5/16 letter from the appli- cant's consultant? Mr. Cole said he agreed with these findings. 9. Is scalping the site the sole beneficial act to improve this site? Mr. Cole said that factors such as drainage improve- ments are equally important. 10. What dangers exist with ground failure caused by extraordi- nary runoff and a major earthquake? Mr. Cole responded the ground water is not a major concern given the slope of the property. In addition, the drainage improvements will result in less ground water percolation than the existing condi- tions. 11. Is the City Geologist satisfied with the worst case scenario presented in the JCP report? Mr. Cole responded that he was satisfied and that the analysis is very conservative. 12. In the 3/87 memorandum from the City Geologist, it was recommended that no development should occur unless addi- tional studies are made. To what extent will William Cotton and Associates stand behind the project if it fails? Mr. Cole responded that the firm is satisfied that the project is designed on sound engineering and geologic principles. He then provided a brief history.of the firm's experience to attest to the firm's expertise. The Commission asked if staff agreed with the applicant's findings that similar slopes are present in other develop- ment. Staff stated it was not aware of other developments proposed for slopes as great as this site in the vicinity or in the entire City. The neighbor's concern that existing landslide is a produce Regular Adjourr Feting 5/28/91 2. 3. Page 3 of this site and the applicant's consultant states that the landslide is a result of grading done by downslope neigh- bors. Mr. Cole responded that landslide was the result of a number of factors and that poor grading was a contributing factor. Bob Sax representing the applicant wanted the Planning Commission to know that the applicants feel that the site is safe because they want to live here. He also feels that the .City's own consultant is satisfied with the work proposed. Mr. Phipps asked if William Cotton and Associates was finan- cially responsible for damages occurring as a result of this project? Mr. Cole responded that in 20 years, the firm has not been sued. Mr. Phipps also inquired regarding the Affect of drainage improvements on ..native vegetation? Mr. Cole responded that his expertise did not include landscape or horticultural issues. Mr. Walgren responded that the City Horticulturist reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions to preserve.the existing landscaping. The Planning Commission thanked the participants and noted that the continued hearing for this item is scheduled for July 10, 1991. DR -89 -110 = TAI, 21451 CONTINENTAL CIRCLE Staff presented the modifications to the plans which were before the Planning Commission this evening. The applicant was present to discuss the proposal and to answer the Commissioner's ques- tions. The Commissioners expressed remaining concerns regarding the height of certain architectural elements relative to this promi- nent site, the amount of grading proposed, and the overall length of the structure. The applicant agreed to stake the buildings footprint and provide height poles for the Commission's review. A revised material board was also requested for the June 12th public hearing. DR -89 -087 - SOBEY OAKS ASSOC., 14766 GYPSY HILL RD. Staff discussed the proposed revisions to this previously ap- proved design review application. The project manager was present to answer any questions in place of the applicant. The Planning Commission directed staff to approve the change with a condition requiring a landscaped arbor structure. 4. DR -91 -012 = YAN, 13566 COCCIARDI CT. Staff presented the modifications to the plans which were before the Planning Commission this evening. The applicant and his PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 8, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 7 staff provide background information regarding Ms. Jensen's comments. She. reiterated her previous comments regarding the heritage designation. Commissioner Durket agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. He suggested that questionnaires be sent out similar to the ones sent out on the General Plan. Commissioner Tucker suggested sending notices to homeowner associations because it would be costly and take a lot of time to conduct a survey. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that neighborhood meetings would be an effective way to determine how the citizens feel. Chairperson Moran said she would like to see the Commission study the issue,of classification with a full set of data before it.. Mr. Emslie reviewed the comments of the Commissioners. There was Commission consensus to focus on the feasibility of an alternative to nonvehicular traffic to major centers in the community. Mr. Emslie indicated staff would return to the Commission with a publicity plan after studying methods for communicating with the citizens. Staff would also provide information on what form an outside study would take in order for the Planning Commission to determine the scope of work on the items. Commissioner Caldwell suggested a discussion regarding policy issues concern roads at the joint meeting with the City Council. 7. DR -90 -079 Constantin, 20855 Kittridge Rd., request for design SD -90 -009 review approval and building site approval to V -90 -037 construct a new two -story 4,390 sq. ft. residence on a 1.18 acre site within the HC -RD zone district per Chapter 14 and 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the residence to be constructed on a pad with an average slope of 85% and to allow the structure to exceed the 26 ft. height.limitation. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1991. He noted receipt of two letters from Mr. and Mrs. Cheeseman, 20800 Kittridge Road, and a letter from Mr. Phipps, 15270 Norton Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 8, 1991 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The public hearing was opened at 10:34 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli and Mr. Dave Groezinger appeared for the applicant. Ms. Fanelli described the proposal in detail. She stated a meeting was held with the neighbors and most of those attending seemed satisfied that the home would not disturb the natural slope and that the trees would be preserved. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, Mr. Groezinger described the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. He felt the site was too steep and the land was unstable to build on. Mr. David Doloff addressed the Commission and described the location of the Berrocal fault. He said that engineering wise the lot could probably be built on but felt the lot is too steep and unstable. Ms. Gail Cheeseman, 20800 Kittridge Road, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal because of the instability of the property. Ms. Fanelli responded to the speakers' comments. She said there have been numerous geologic reports submitted giving clearance to allow this project to go forward. TUCKER /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING'AT 11:10 P.M. Passed 5 -0. In response to questions from Commissioners Caldwell and Durket, Ms. Faubion replied that the f irst point to keep in mind is the question of whether the lot is legally created. She indicated there is reference to a tract map; however, it is an old tract map that appears to predate the Subdivision Map Act. For purposes of discussion, she made the assumption that it is a legally created lot. Therefore, the question becomes what is done with a site that is as constrained as this site. The basic law would be that the property owner has title to some reasonable use of the property and would look to the zoning ordinance to see what use is permitted in that district. If the City fails to approve any use whatsoever for the site, there will probably be a situation of taking of the property and the City would probably have to pay for that. The amount of the payment would be established through a condemnation proceeding. Ms. Faubion felt there may be some room to discuss the issue further and noted that the size of the house is rather large and perhaps a smaller house may be more easily accommodated and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 8, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 9 more acceptable to the City. She suggested that aspect be investigated as an alternative to not allowing any development at all. Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether a discussion with the City Geologist would be helpful to the Commission in understanding the risks that the geologists contemplated and the risks built into the City Geologist's approval of the lot. Mr. Emslie recommended that the Commission meet with the City I Geologist. CALDWELL /FORBES MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -90 -079, SD -90 -009 AND V -90 -037 TO JULY 10, 1991 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON MAY 28 IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE CITY GEOLOGIST. Commissioner Durket said as the application stands he could not make the findings but did not preclude the findings on a much smaller house. He stated he would like to see plans for a smaller house. He assumed the site was buildable but with a smaller house. 4 Commissioner Tucker was agreeable to a study session and felt the house should be at a lower height. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that the design issues also be discussed at the study. Chairperson Moran replied that the Commission's analysis of the situation would not be advanced by having alternative plans and at this point the applicant has not been given enough direction. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission continued the following items to May 22, 1991. The motion carried on a 5 -0 vote. 8. DR -91 -017 Noonan, 19651 Glen Una Dr., request for design V -91 -004 review approval to construct a 921 sq. ft. one - story addition to an existing single family residence for a total of 5,312 sq. ft. on a 1.3 acre site in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow a portion of the addition to encroach 5 ft. into the 25 ft. required exterior side yard setback. -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- BARRIE D. ( 1TE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 Mr. James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Walgren: January 9, 1991 Job #11-90-404 On December 4, 1990, 1 inspected the trees at the Constantin property, 20855 Kittridge Road. A new single - family residence is planned for this lot. All of the trees in question are located well away from the foundation of the house. However, four 12" CPP culverts will be installed. Energy dissipators will also be installed on the downhill termination points of each pipe. General Comments This site is very steep, with an 85% grade. It will be very important that the trunks of trees be protected from rolling rocks. Trees #6 through 11 should, not. be adversely affected by the additional drain water which will flow past these trees. Assuming that the dissipators work correctly, these trees should actually be affected beneficially since more water would hopefully soak into the ground in their root zones. Trees #12 and 13 are located between dissipator #2 and its associated culvert, and dissipator #3 and its associated culvert. Tree #13, a Pittosporum tenuifolium, could be removed. A construction period fence should be installed 6' in all directions away from the trunk of Tree #12 , a Coast Live Oak, ercus rag ifolia . This fence can consist of wire mesh fencing attached securely to metal posts which have been driven into the ground. No construction activity should occur within this fence. This fence should be installed before any machinery enters the site, and should not be removed until final landscape grading is finished. The backhoe.which digs the trench for the 12" culvert associated. James Walgren City of Saratoga Job #11 -90 -404 pg. 2 with dissipater #2 should place itself on the south -east side of that trench during the digging process. Supplemental irrigation should be applied to this Oak once during each month in which there is less than 1" of rain. This is best accomplished by utilizing an "ooze" type soaker hose, placed at the dripline of the tree. It .should be left on overnight. A shovel or soil probe should be used to assert than the water has penetrated to a depth of 24 ". These irrigations should occur starting immediately (probably not necessary because of adequate precipitation until April, 1991), and continue until the completion of construction. Several Coast Uve Oaks which were too small to number are located immediately downhill from energy dissipator #4. These Oaks should have the same treatment as tree #12 with fencing and supplemental irrigation. Comments on SReclflc Trees Tree #1, Tasmanian Blue Gum, Eucalyptus globulus This tree has fallen over at some point in the past and is lying on the ground. Many small diameter have grown up. Given the species and the structure of this tree, it could be removed. It does - appear to be -on the neighbor's property, however. Tree #2, California Buckeye, Aesculus californica This young Buckeye is in good condition. The dramatic leaves and interesting fruit and structure of this plant make it a potentially valuable addition to the landscape. A fence should be erected around it on the north -west side, along with tree #3. This fence should be erected in a similar manner as that described under tree #1.2. A fence has been drawn in on the enclosed map to protect these two trees together. Tree #4, Monterey Pine,. Pinus radiata This over mature tree has many sites of infestation by Tulpentine Beetle at its base. It is declining in health and will drop branches as it does so. Bark Beetles, IRS . are infesting the crown of this tree as evidenced by the many yellowing and dead branches visible. This tree should not be considered a permanent feature in the landscape and S_ 0 James Walgren City of Saratoga Job #11-90-404 pg. 3 should be removed. It is, however, apparently located on the adjoining property to the south - east. Monterey Pine is not native to this area. It is indigenous to the cool fogs and poor sandy soils of the Monterey coast. When planted on the interior side of the coast range, it tends to become stressed. The condition of this over - mature tree is not untypical. Our firm does not generally recommend planting Monterey Pines this far from the coast. Tree #5,. Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia This young Oak is not in good condition at the present. It should receive supplemental irrigation monthly during 1991 as described for tree #12. Sub - surface fertilization should be performed in January with Romeo Greenbelt Fertilizer 22- 14 -14, at the rate of 4 pounds per 100 gallons of water. One- hundred gallons of this solution should be applied to this tree. The Fruit Tree Leaf Rollers should be controlled as prescribed for tree #12. Tree #6, Monterey Pine The comments made for tree #4 apply to this tree also. This tree, however, appears to be located on the Constantin property. Tree #7, Monterey Pine The comments made for tree #4 apply to this tree also: This tree is located on the Constantin property. Only one Red Turpentine Beetle infestation site was present at the base of the trunk of this tree. Tree #8 and 9, Monterey Cypress, Cupressus macrocarpa These trees are native to a similar range as Monterey Pines are. These two specimens are showing signs of drought- stress. Supplemental monthly irrigation should be applied as prescribed for tree #12. Tree #10, Monterey Cypress This tree has a very poor structure and is only in fair health. It should be removed. Tree #11, Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii James Walgren City of Saratoga Job # 11 -90 -404 pg. 4 This mature native tree is in good condition. It is mildly drought- stressed. If water is plentiful, it could be soaked 2 to 3 times next summer, deeply, as described for tree #12. Tree #12, Coast Live Oak This young tree will be affected by construction as described under the "General Comments." Temporary construction fencing should be installed around this tree as described under "General Comments ". Supplemental irrigation should be applied under "General Comments." Tree #13, Pittos orum tenuifolium This common landscape shrub is growing under and very close to the tree #12, a Coast Live Oak. It could be removed to the benefit of tree #12. Respectfully submitted, Terence Welch, Associate Barrie D. Coate & Associates TW:la Enclosures: Map Charts Chart Definitions ESS'FASEME ffs _ \ .. —. •sue`, .. .. _... :.�_. _ •A _v q�` _ _.. ... .... ...._.- r....... ... _. .. ^ ,•♦ ♦♦ �1 t, o ` ♦' •, � I bt . top I, ' J O \ \ •••1 •`. o I . 3 Cyp0' 10 pr ♦ `, top , p •• r. fir.: { ♦, Q" p ♦ (1. owl,` top \, 4 DFC( % O ` S /P. ♦ top • Z Z G�`6 ". 337 O:. ^• �♦ O i • Y, o ( top 'b . • • 13 329 3 Ph loo, 11 �.i.. 1 ,, ow ' ' *4 \� • \ .i ;s ` , !�` �, �ypra6 q top ` ` d10 p R �• ` '..v respond to charts. x ♦� `� 3 locations are \ ; mil• c ` `�\ ` COATE MATES ,mmit Rd 'n, Ca 95030 -1052 TREE ANALYSIS T THE CONSTANTIN PROPERTY 20855 KITTRIDGE ROAD PREPARED FOR:J. WALGREN ITY OF SARATOGA JOB #11-90-404 " ` ♦, • ?� •� ` \ `\ ti'.q top ",dio EUC \ ♦ . • 345' bunch. 6' oak i .to 9" trugks i a, G\ , ` 'SSA \ \ \l�•� • x� S , \� •, `�, ,` , ` oak \ 15231 Noa ton Sa,11(2,60,(,'�a, CA 9'WO /99/ Y�.Lcwti�tr lkpaAhnen t JUL `- 4 ►��' Ima-&9a Ci,-4y oA!icea 13M Fmvu fi Ave. PLn 1Y Saw-topa, CA 95)70 0 Ueat Au &w; i,.e: We a+te wri Ling .to you and Ae pGannina a"nLea.ion teams 0,R-90-079 Thi,a .Lot Zj a .dpecial AZh tim Aat .aeend #o have been hand,Led waA caste. We ate p -eased #fiat the d4 gw4 j"# =4 con - .euGted paint .& begLwang and #hat the buL&Eng depa&&e t Uw con ;meted during Qecauoe o4 ouz paoximL f* we were pa&&culaA4 .in;Iete ied .cn. the .daAety fnctote o�- Ai.a .d -&uc& e. We Aee.L aaeuzed #hat the AL, ;e and uateA eon fkol Aeri6vw o4 the pao,,eet rui,l,C 4mpwve Ae condi Lion o4 .the wwwid o4 the .Lod beside out home. AUltow;A we a&e one o� #lie cLoaeat daunkW neu; bow, we aze not appwAendLve about vt aal- .impacr ad zu.o xi a woodraz' .wx wui .vir a �- .c;;iu� .d:�:o :�•Y,� �-.,. �-�� .lov)eA pant oA the hi,l.L. The deei)n hwp #ire 4 ope and, Am wha-t we 4ma .tn .the piano, has no uraZgA,&y unden<au�ing. We do, haueve4, Amt the pwpae ed Pan 'da tt on p�an.tin p. %he .tUe woA .i d de aurab.Le ae ii- .i a now quite Ay and Aeae .i,a cvnaidenab.Le 44e hapAd We eneou/wge the appwvat og h'uA hone at ite aceeen t .dLje wi-IA •the appWp2Ca to wa.,& b di ve&4ion mea dua eo. Thy ru pt youm c^,n- �n. youae MOL and AU. F. Cp Mr. Stephen Emslie, City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitv ale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 102 Bella Vista Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 June 20, 1991 Planning Director Re: DR 90 -079 Constantin, Kittridge Road 4ylu�% Dear Mr. Emslie and Planning Commission: As the owner of a nearby lot on Kittridge Road, I have are interest in the development of the Constantin land. Let me share with you some thoughts on this project. This lot is particularly difficult and has obviously demanded quite an investment in geological studies and archi- tectural design. The,Constantins seem to have addressed the slope constraints in a manner.considerate of the guidelines of the city and the needs of the neighbors.. The roofline . poles show that the house will sit well into the hill in a position that provides optimal screening. The geological summary by JCP indicates that our hill will actually benefit by the construction providing that the runoff is engineered properly and the square footage of the home is not compromised. We feel that this would provide a safety factor for this area but we would like to have the assurance of a non - flammable exterior. Yours truly, Mr. rand `Mrs. L. Tyson GREGORY STERLING 20480 Pacifica Drive, Suite A Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252 -7660 �. June 14, 1991 Steve Emslie Planning Department Saratoga City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed home of John and Cleo Constantin File No. DR -90 -079 Dear Mr. Emslie: I own a 40 -acre plot of land virutally across Kittridge Road from the residence proposed by the Constantins. The entrance to my future home and even the view from my future home will be directly affected by the Constantin's development of their lot. After carefully reviewing thesConstantin's'architectural plans, I find them to be extremely desirable for the general area,and for their specific lot. I feel that great care has been given to design a home which conforms very well with the existing terrain; the landscaping that has been proposed also will accomplish the purpose of camouflaging the house from viewpoints on Norton Road and Kittridge. My only suggestion would be to encourage the use of a darkish, mottled roof tile material so that the surrounding foliage is tonally in concert with the Constantin's roof. Also, a neutral color for the outside of the residence would be preferable, although the specific material selection for the outside is less important. In short, I feel it is incumbent on the City of Saratoga to encourage well- designed, attractively landscaped and well - conceived homes such as the one the Constantins are proposing. Certainly from an aesthetic point of view as well as for fire prevention considerations, a carefully planned house is a very positive factor in a neighborhood such as ours. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Sincerely yours, Gregory Sterling GST /mj g ems lie.jun a L �I J T c/ ,HEESEMANS' ECOLOGY SAFARIS, IN Doug Cheeseman, Professor of Zoology - Ecology Gail Cheeseman, Naturalist - Birder 20800 Kittredge Road Saratoga, California 95070 USA (408) 867 -1371, 741 -5330 FAX (408) 741 -0358 (800) 527 -5330 Stephen Emslie, Planning Director Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie and the Saratoga Planning Commission, pG East Africa Seychelles Australia New Guinea South America Central America J" j 1 j Whale Trips Alaska India S.E. Asia June 11, 1991 Re: Second Public Hearing for the Constantin property, 20855 Kittridge Road. Does the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission plan to find out how much the city of Saratoga would have to pay for the Constantin lot before you decide whether to grant the variances that the Constantins have requested? It seems to us that the amount that the city would have to pay would make a big difference in deciding the outcome of this, simply because decisions are often based on the amount of dollars involved. The record shows that the Constantins paid $1200 for the property. When the property was last up for sale, they were asking $550,000 for this lot. Is that really a fair market value considering the 85% slope of the land? A for sale sign had been up for many years and it never sold. What would the city have to pay if the city does not grant the variances that they are requesting? The city is caught between making a decision to let them build on an 85% slope, an unprecedented request and clearly not allowed in the city building code, and the law on the other hand that says the Constantins must be allowed to do something reasonable with their lot. Having a good background in ecology, we are very concerned with the scalping technique of rendering a lot more stable to build on. The city geologist's solution to building on steep, unstable slopes such as the Constantins' lot is to scalp the property, scraping off all the vegetation and top soil. A geologist's solution is an ecologist's nightmare. On the Garza's property on Norton Rd. the scalping included removing a huge oak that protected a natural spring. The property is certainly an eyesore now. With today's technology houses can be built on anything, certainly on an 85% slope. Do the citizens of Saratoga want this unprecedented kind of building on the Saratoga hillsides? We hope that you will not grant the variances.' We hope that you will include this letter in the Hearing Record. We are sorry that the hearing, which should have been held this month, was postponed. We certainly understand, however, that it was postponed to allow Mrs. Fanelli who is away right now, to return to represent the Constantins. However we will not be able to attend the second hearing as we will be away on that date. Sincerely yours, Gail and Doug Cheeseman PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER 15270 Norton Rd. Saratoga, CA. 95070. 8th May 1991. To: The Saratoga Planning Commission Ref: DR -90 -079, SD- 90-009, V-90 -037- Constantin, 20855 Kittridge Rd, APN: 517 -14 -071. I believe that the proposed dwelling would be in conflict with the principles of the General Plan for development of the HC -RD, and that approval should not be granted. The reasons for this belief include the high density considering the area of 1.19 acre and a slope of 1,08 , ?.5% compared with that practiced by other owners in the vicinity, the conflict with the scenic character of the area, and the scale of the interventions with the environment in this fragile geology. Some details are given below to define these points more clearly. Density. The 4390 sq. ft. house on a/•Z acre site with a slope exceeding 490% is in conflict with the guidelines which led to the Hillside Conservation Residence District, which requires a 10 acre site if the slope is 50 %. Factors permitting orderly and regulated development are outlined in the City Code 15- 13.010. Special mention is made of; (a) preservation of,natural landscaping and open space, (b) preservation of slope conservation areas shown on the General Plan, (c) density criteria based on steepness of slope, etc. (d) minimum disturbance of the natural terrain, (e) the balance of land use with its ability to support development, (f) minimizing hazards. These are matters of judgement, but I believe that the proposed site is in conflict with the general trend of these considerations. Geology. The site is very close to the Berrocal fault, maybe within 100 ft. It is designated Ms, and Pd, on the Geologic Stability map of the City plan, that is it is an area of unstable ground with shallow landslides, and potentially unstable ground with deep slides. Corrective grading to minimize the geologic hazards will irrevocably damage the City's scenic resources. Removal of surface colluvium makes vegetation more susceptible to drought, and reduces the natural reserve before the ground is saturated in heavy rain. Not protecting against these hazards is equally unacceptable. Consistency. The building site approval probably precedes the current zoning regulations, but I suggest that approving this site and these variances constitutes special privilege with respect to the height, density, slope, and environmental effects, and this is inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity. These limitations were self regulated but they have tended to keep the residencies hidden from view, even if trees die, and they have allowed the scenic character of the Saratoga mountain to be preserved. For these reasons I contend.that this site approval with these variances would not be harmonious hillside conservation. A,�- 20800 Kittridge Road Saratoga, CA 95070 6 May, 1991 Stephen Emslie, Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie, Re: Hearing request by Constantin, 20855 Kittridge Road for.design review approval and building site approval. Please include this letter in public hearing record. The hill under consideration has an 85% grade of steepness. They can put a huge retaining wall up and lots of underpinings, but that is not proof that in the next year similar to the rainfall here in 1982 the road banks won't turn to mud again and slide down the steeps. The steepness of this hill is excessive and it is. exactly in a straight line below our house and the road up to our house. It could undermine the stability of Kittridege Road which is in frightful shape anyway and of the ground that we sit on. There are cracks in the road there between our property and the lot in question. The eucalyptis along the edge are leaning down the hill, especially one, that shows how unstable the road is on this steep hill. Just around the corner from us, there have been terrible slides on Kittridge Road and in 1982 the road slid right above this property. This whole hillside is notorious for its instability. If you grant a variance, you might as well throw the code for building on the steeps out the window. 85% grade is just too steep. A variance in this case is very much out of line and should not be granted. For many years the Constantin have had a "for sale" sign on this property and no one has bought it from them for very good reason, the steepness of the hill and the instability of the road above. It is not fair to the residents who live above and below this property to subject us to the risks involved. We hope that you will not vote to allow a questionable residence to be built on this steep hill. It is clearly illegal under the city code. . We received a letter today from Mr. and Mrs. Conntantin thanking us for giving them the opportunity last Tuesday to show us the plans for their proposed home on Kittridge. We were not able to be there. But out neighbors the Seiberts and Farrars were there. They both told us that they told Virginia Fanelli that they thought it was crazy to build on such a steep site. We do not understand how Mr. and Mrs. Constantin can feel a sense of genuine encouragement as they stated in the letter to us. Our neighbors told them that they were making a crazy decision to want to build a house here. We are also upset that the Constantins have hired Virginia Fanelli who is a former mayor of Saratoga to help them get this variance. It does not look good. It is too obvious that they are seeking Virginia's potential influence. We hope that you will not let this influence your decision. We hope that you will understand why we are challenging this application. We cannot afford to challenge this application in court, so we are relying on our city to make a wise decision. Sincerely yours, Gail and Doug Cheeseman M 20800 Kittridege Road Saratoga, CA 95070 3 May, 1991 Stephen Emslie Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie, i 4a4i Thank you very much for your notice of the hearing for 8 May regarding the request at 20855 Kittridge for design review approval and building site approval to construct a two -story 4,390 sq. ft. residence within the RC -RD zone district. We very much obect to this request. If you take a look at the steepness of the hill under consideration and then grant a variance, you might as well throw your code for building on the steeps out the window. A variance in this case is very much out of line and should not be granted. The steepness of this hill is excessive. Also it is exactly below our house and the road up to our house. Working on that steep hill could undermine the stability of Kittridege Road which is in frightful shape anyway and of the ground that we sit on. Just around the corner from us, there have been terrible slides on Kittridge Road. This hillside is notorious for its instability: It is not fair to the residents who have lived here for more than 20 years to allow a questionable residents to be built on a steep hill that is clearly unlegal under the city code. We hope that you will understand why we are challenging this application. If you follow the city code, we should not have to challenge this application in court. It should be rejected now by the City Council. Sincerely yours, Gail and Doug Cheeseman Mr. Stephen Emslie, Planning Director City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 15291 Norton Road Saratoga, CA 95070 APN: 517 -14 -082 April 27, 1991 Ref: Notice of Hearing DR -90 -079, SD -90 -009, V -90 -037 CONSTATIN, 20855 Kittridge Road, APN: 517 -14 -071 Request for variance approval Dear Mr. Emslie: ° My wife and I live directly below the property in question and strongly object to granting a variance approval to allow a 4,390 sq. ft. home to. be constructed on this very steep slope. Prior to the drought a large portion of the property in question experienced a landslide that brought .down 100 foot tall trees along with mud and rock close to our home. This property is also very close to the earthquake fault discovered after the 1989 earthquake. Building on this property will endanger our house and the Saratoga Planning Commission should reject this application for variance approval on this unwise choice of building sites. Sincerely, David Arnold To: The Saratoga Planning Commission Ref: DR -94 -031, SD-94 -012, V -94 -031 Constantin, 20855 Kittredge Rd. APN: 517 -14 -043. We believe that the proposed dwelling conflicts with the principles of the General Plan for development of the Hillside Conservation Residence District and that variances should not be granted. The reasons for this belief include the large size of the house for a site area of 1.18 acre on a slope of 85 %; the proximity to the Berrocal Fault; the scale of interventions with the environment in this fragile geology; and the conflict with the existing homes and scenic character of the neighborhood. Some details are given below to clarify these points. We have attempted to achieve some objectivity by referring these points to the Saratoga City General Plan. Density: The 4390 sq. ft. house, on a 1.18 acre site with a slope of 85°o is in conflict with the guidelines which led to the Hillside Conservation Residence District zoning regulations. These require a 10 acre site if the slope of a site is 50%. Factors permitting orderly and regulated development are outlined in the City Code 15- 13.010. Special mention is made of: (a) preservation of natural landscaping and open space, (b) preservation of slope conservation areas shown on the General Plan, (c) density criteria based on steepness of slope, etc. (d) minimum disturbance of the natural terrain, (e) the balance of land use with its ability to support development, (f) minimizing hazards. We believe that the proposed site is in conflict with the trend of these factors. Geology and Ecology: The site is within 100 feet of the Berrocal Fault. This site, and the adjoining site, which is owned by the same party, are designated Ms, and PD, on the Geologic Stability map of the City Plan. These are, respectively, areas of unstable ground with shallow landslides, and potentially unstable ground with deep slides. Corrective grading to minimize the geologic hazards will irrevocably damage the City's scenic resources. The geotechnic engineering solution to stabilize the site is to scrape off the loose earth leaving bedrock exposed. It is clear that the tendency for earthslides is reduced if the earth is removed, but is this disturbance of the natural terrain consistent with the goals of hillside conservation? Removal of surface colluvium makes vegetation more susceptible to drought, and reduces the natural reserve before the ground is saturated in heavy rain. No doubt irrigation could mitigate the effects of drought, and drainage the effects of runoff changes. It is common experience that vegetation is damaged by grading even where the earth is thicker than the scant 3 to 5 feet on this site. We must expect that some of the trees will die as a result of building. Geologically and ecologically, this is a very unfavorable site for a dwelling. Consistency: We believe that the site in question was purchased before the city was incorporated, and so, building approval is a matter of implication. We suggest that approving this site and these variances constitutes special privilege with respect to the height, density, slope, and environmental effects, and would be inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity. These limitations may have been self - regulated, but they have tended to keep established residences integrated into the landscape and unobtrusive, and they have allowed the scenic character of the Saratoga mountain to be preserved. It is difficult to believe that a 4390 sq. ft. house, whose principal feature is its commanding view, would be so screened by vegetation that it would not be visible. Although low visibility has been emphasized as a feature of the design, this would be true only for the Kittredge Road approach. To observers on Norton Road and the valley, a 4390 sq. ft. house with an exceptionally large frontage on three levels is much more conspicuous than the existing homes. To approve this residence, contrary to the expressed choices of the citizens and many neighbors, and contrary to the General Plan, would be to grant special privilege. Of course, it is possible to engineer very difficult sites. The financial cost is exclusively the concern of the owner. It takes a large house to justify the cost of the engineering. The topography forces the house to be linear, and multi - leveled. Both of these effects cause the frontal area of the house to be large for a given living space. The hazards to the neighbors are not minor and the detriments to the scenic nature of the backdrop to the City are also serious. It is difficult to see that this development is consistent with the preservation of hillsides, which is a high priority of the citizens of Saratoga and the Bay Area in general. An engineer answers the question of whether it is possible to build on a cliff. The Planning Department has the more difficult position of representing the citizens individually and collectively on the question of whether it'is desirable. It must be expected that most citizens would disallow this site on the basis of scenery, or on the basis of today's HC -RD codes, in the interest of harmonious development. The rights of the individual are a very high priority, but so are the rights of the citizens affected by site approval. The proposed residence is onelof extremes. It is a very large house for a minimum size lot. It has a very large frontage visible from the valley. The site has a very fragile geology and a very, very great slope. Is this site approval a precedent which citizens wish to set for the hillsides and the valley? - We believe that this one acre lot is a very unsuitable site for a dwelling of 4390 sq. ft. with the appearance of a three story frontage. The question of whether the early parcel sale legally allows building which is precluded by current regulations is a technical legality on which we are not expert. It is clear that it does not force the granting of variances which are, in effect, inconsistent with the limitations applied by other owners in the vicinity. The hazards of developing a site with an 85% slope,close to a fault line, and the detrimental effects to the natural terrain and the scenic character of this Saratoga mountain are unusually large. For these reasons we contend that approval of this site and the requested variances should not be granted. _ P. 6, P. 1.11�A 1116�,►qqs S-240 N JU c as® 70 - 1a . J'aa.• lggs,• ToA4M (14. 6r7- 14 -Oa 3. Ofd - 44-031; V °q4° DVXj . — -- � all 40-01 114 Aq4 e#,01 ov OV ., . J ape X%.o sta4) vxae� 4JLk4 vomd) t4 C/ u.,��d -lp� o, ."tj4. Ua� olpt A ll�� Caj�, P, 8. P. N I Matteoni Saxe Nan L A W Y E R S December 20, 1994 Ms. Betsy Cory City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 f)L -c 2 'A 1994, Re: Constantin Appeal (DR -94 -031, V -94 -012, LL -94 -008) Dear Ms. Cory: Kodak Center 1740 Technology Drive Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 408 441 -7800 FAX 408 441 -7302 Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda Peggy M. O'Laughlin Debra L.Cauble Judy C. Tsai Bradley M. Matteoni I represent Mr. and Mrs. John Constantin in connec- tion with their appeal from denial of subject applications at a hearing before the Planning Commission on December 14, 1994. On December 16, 1994, Mrs. Cleo Constantin filed the attached Appeal Application with your office. The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the appeal is as to all three denials, namely, the variance, the lot line adjustment, and design review. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, ALLAN R. SAXE ARS:md enc. cc: Mr. and Mrs. John Constantin Ms. Virginia Fanelli An Ass,Kiatiun Including a Nfessiorml Carp. 1 Date Received: ;A, h Hearing Date: Fee:' Receipt No. :��6 3 0 APPEAL APPLICATION . 1 lyJd Name of Appellant: JCHN PO (.DNS -IANT7 N Address: (r�3:�r��s�� SAN ..�oS� fS 12�� Telephone: Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: Decision Being Appealed: A7 '63-tp/A. L�— `1Y'C� Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): Y- ii U 6, -, 0, % l,) /1,Zn. * Appellan 's Signatur *Please do not sign until application is presented at.City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal,,please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE; SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. - 0 File No. ,U)?- / -a3 V- 9 -air Z -�4 -oo, AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, && &/ L;i' t2 , as appellant on the above file, hereby auth -6rize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the above file. Date: %Z- /5 -%�� Signature:. FC I Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning / Property Management / Real Estate Broker City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Burger and Councilmembers: January 5, 1995 RE: Appeal Constantin - Dr 94 -031, V 94 -016 and LL 94 -012 Please forgive the length of this letter and the volume of information in the packet. As you will find in reading this information, this is a very complicated application. The project which is the subject of the appeal has been evolving over the last 24 years. Many issues were raised, studied and resolved by Mr. and Mrs. Constantin, the city staff and technical specialists prior to submitting the current applications for approval. However, as in the past, totally new issues and procedural conditions were raised at the Planning Commission hearings which resulted in the denial of the applications by the Commission. in our opinion, the reasons given for denial as stated in the resolutions are totally without basis, and the procedure for voting was flawed. To assist you in your review, we have compiled the following chronology of events. 970 - The property was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Constantin. 1972 - Began investigating the feasibility of bringing a sewer line to the property. At first this involved just their own property, but as other development occurred in the area and surrounding septic systems failed, they agreed to add other homes to the plan. 1982 - The sewer line was laid to serve both Kittridge and Norton Roads at a cost to the Constantins of nearly $50,000, four times the cost of bringing a line only to their home. 1987 - Bill Cotton gave a preliminary geological review of the site prior to any plans being drawn. 1988 - JGP Geologists- Engineers performed a site - specific geotechnical investigation. Mr. and Mrs. Constantin and I met with Planning Director Yucheck Hsia and staff prior to beginning design work to discuss the issues of slope and front setback. The planners stated that they could support the variance for the front setback based on the overriding considerations of safety and minimizing the disruption to the lot and the variance for slope based on Section 14 -35 of the 10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B - Cupertino, CA 95014 - (408) 996 -8188 - Fax (408) 996 -8261 5A FC I Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning / Property Management / Real Estate Broker February 1, 1995 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Burger and Councilmembers: We are requesting that you reopen the pubic hearing on this evening's Agenda items 5 A (1), (2)1& (3) to allow us to present new information we believe will provide substantial reasons for the granting of the appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Constantin which was heard by the Council on January 18th. The Agenda states that these items are not open for public discussion as the final decision was made at your previous meeting. In conformance with the City's Ordinance 2- 05.020 the decision of the City Council becomes "effective and final on the date a decisions is rendered." However, as Kathleen Faubion points out in her memo of February 22, 1991, in conjunction with the Gault application, the decision to approve (or deny) plus the required findings equal "the decision ". Since no findings were incorporated in the motions by the City Council on January 18th, the decision is not final. However, we are not here become involved in a legal discussion. We are requesting the reopening of these hearings based on the City of Saratoga's long history of accepting all testimony and information from the public concerning .a project in an effort to make the best, most informed decisions possible. Why was this information not presented at the prior hearing? Because it was not available. The day after the hearing on January 18th, I met with the Director of Community Development to express my great frustration with the process. Mr.Curtis' response was "Why didn't your clients ever consider a different building location on the parcel and a different house design ?" And my answer was "Nobody asked." 10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 996 -8188 • Fax (408) 996 -8261 The staff and technical advisors had supported this proposal for six years until the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1994. From then on, including the appeal to the City Council, everyone seemed to rush headlong to deny the applications. The Constantins were never afforded the usual courtesy to applicants of time to investigate possible alternatives. We have now taken the only time available to us, the two weeks from the January 18th hearing, to look at the alternatives. We have met with the civil engineer, the architect and Bill Cole of Cotton and Associates. And together, we have developed what they agree is a workable solution, a solution which we hope you will also find satisfies your concerns about development of this parcel. You see a newly defined building envelope on the attached lot line adjustment map. The specifics of the envelope are: 1. The average slope is 58 %, 27% flatter than the previous site. 2. It is located downslope between 85' and 200' below the road. The previous house averaged 45, below the road. 4. Because of the reduced slope, the home can be more compact in design, rather than the elongated design, and can include some single story elements. 5. The visibility of a structure from the valley and neighboring lots will be negligible because of the reduced elevation of the building site and the distance between neighboring residences. 6. The site will access from Kittridge and will accommodate a fire truck turn around and off street parking. 7. The only trees required for removal would be the eucalyptus for the driveway and the repair area. 8. The geologic studies done on the site show that this building envelope is outside of any potential hazard areas. 9. Construction disturbance and equipment will be confined for the most part to the building envelope area and will eliminate neighbors concerns about heavy equipment sitting on the edge of Kittridge Rd. to construct the house. The Constantins have stipulated on the face of the lot line adjustment map that all structures built on this site must be within the shown building envelope. We understand your concerns about the prior building site of 85% and the elongated visible house even though the experts supported that site and design. We firmly believe this new site eliminates those concerns. This building site closly conforms to the slope of other building sites (prior to site grading) in the area and meets the intent of the General Plan and the hillside plan by protecting the natural environment with limited density development. The findings for the Variance can be made as they were for Tyson's building site with 46% slope, or the Council can use Section 15- 13.040, c(2) and grant an exception to the slope as allowed in Section 14- 35.020 of the City Code. We are requesting that the Council reverse their prior stated intention to deny the appeal. We request an approval of a Variance for a building site of 58% slope and the Lot Line Adjustment map incorporating the building envelope as' proposed. We will then return to the Planning Commission with a revised design for the residence. Mr. and Mrs. Constantin purchased this lot and the adjoining lot when their daughter was an infant with the intent of building on this lot and giving their daughter the adjacent lot when she married. Their daughter was married this past August. We believe that the proposal we have put forth in this letter provides a winning solution for all parties. Very truly yours, Virg' is L. Fanelli CC: Mr. and Mrs. Constantin Robert Saxe, Attorney l ti �c 1' TO: Planning Commission FROXt Michael S. Riback, City Attorney By: Kathleen Faubion R1t Gault Project DATat February 22, 1991 PAGSf 4 involve an appeal to the City Council, this section nevertheless provides some guidance on the procedures which are in question. The provision requires that the decision of a City Council on an appeal shall be "effective and final on the date such decision is rendered." That decision may thereafter be recorded by adopting a resolution which describes the nature of the appeal, the decision_ rendered by the Council thereon and the_findinam nr the time the decigjon was made. (Emphasis added.) The provision goes on to say that the action of adopting the resolution does not extend the effective date of the decision nor the statute of limitations. This provision makes it clear that, at least for appeals to the Council, the decision to approve plus the required findings equal "the decision." Approving a resolution simply records the decision already made. wiwvrawi While the specific language in the formal motion on January 9, 1991 was to "approval' the request, other comments make the intent of the Commission somewhat equivocal. The Commission had earlier expressed concern about the validity of their action if the equestrian easement condition were invalid. There was also reference to "leaving open ". the item for two weeks. Even assuming that final approval was intended, the approval did not include the required findings. Throughout the discussion on the item, various Commissioners put forward their thoughts on the merits of the project. While these comments may reflect the Commissioners, views on the project, these observations are not the same as formal findings. pacific Corporation y, city o! Camarillo (1983) 196 Cal.Rptr. 670, 677- 78. As we advised at the February 13, 1991 hearing, the required findings need not necessarily be written. However, as the City's own rules for appeals to the City Council reflect, the findings must accompany and be part of the decision. To the extant that oral decision and findings are rendered, a decision may be valid. 3�c� wo-fc '. ryJL� 1KaL4 I) ELCVA''a.l DATJM; CITY aF SAfLATOLA ( 5 1 1� I �� ' z) TAPOEnIIAPNY TAKEIJ FrtOM TDPD MAPS 1 1 I 4 q 127' CIVIL- 4 COIJLT. CO1J3.- LAR27 PALM S 3' U �'3 g / A D006C 4 AtSOGInTCci �GD L THIS Ca—Pll,En Mao IS rOa TPnlin7 / ✓C 1 MAP NI.POSEt OALY, HOT FOL DES161J Orl o 3o bo• ao / O �� I CDnISTA.JC_TIOJ 1�00.aC• r �wP'S tit i I / I ��► 4 ° 5q. r P6A 4 py 1 A% o °\ ^�� m < I I �h° �P vPP? �,IM1PSti,By ryl� �1=.30 lob 1 ` m V I` � � - -� 1 ,� SE ?P5 " Q� e -ice to SEC la \�0`- \\ Y VI. / Q0 VICINITY MAP SCALID �• \ 1`', mac. L UTI L IT 1 ES \ \\ \\ 1 \ ,� (. \ , ` 1 \ i i I ( 1` \\ \ •i,.. 5E%JA6C Cn&WIEc_7 OlSf6W.. SAr3. trWEll LWE of AartT0 rJ 20. Gal e ELEr t. Pb 1 E 1 ' I WATETL SArZAToGA HTS. t� \` I MJT. MaATb2 CD. n)J&LLSE - `KA CA -)r ;ilt co use- f1J4�[ Fw�s 1 Q P S '00 �� 1 I' \ G�V Y �1 Honcr E�EV. oArJN P S.C.Ce. O' °r , 4,,, � 1 \ P �ksl3 0 �1 11 1 _ ,`• ��DO 4 -+ q 'i i �Q�� ` 2"�0y 3 g•= I r `•` N ,t . - '�FOOrPa�.IT1 51+.r111'S ` • . PA OFascn T, AE 0JL`i (� I ` 91p 1 AREA Foe OJILOIJv fTl cofS�LJcr1oJ. (D F to IL AVERAGE SLOPE COMPOTATIDP(S c / J PAIZCEt_ Qf4E PARCEL T*XI PP�e�EaS O f c047oJ(L LEA)&TH _A_gdGrH OuJ ER: • I / 1_10 IDLO 1,13L Fr?A1,IC1SCAW COURT 10 / % 1070 210 460 28 0 U,kU S•L \\ SAo SoSE CA 9SIi0 1060 263 9:0 44o I 111 3 5V �\ l o 50 310 11,1113 yr 408 35[c O na '01 % / 1040 SS2 rt 30 Iccp LOG" 11 DODGE \` i 10,10 3A0 A 7L, 114- yJ L 11 r / IoLO S10 910 19fa 1 //� F///'� I / 1 1010 3q0 TOO 2®B 3[p, 121 91 ' / t APW. 51"1-14 -71481 990 9•lE E9D zW. °t 's q80 315 �` T E I� TAT I �/ E MAP I / I 1 AFL 9rao re0 4�SD 101; OF L -ArJDJ or j I 590 Ib No> /` u LIC ,0 ate° '' \' 9iD 1QDi 4J.FT. JDNK I CLED COKSTANTV 3 Zrq 7 L..�. Fr. 6 op' 1p ro %0 q I ' , ,i a�0 °Ap 10 10 C eD.0o i19 •�o•l9of S' O•�1.0+1 0•1147 ICITT1210CaE ROAD 1 riO12TOIJ ROAD. SARATObAfCw, p9 I.'. I 10-20 -1493 96° S= 73A7. S= 45.4"7° PA r*Ei,lr o90 DODGE & ASSOCIATES, SURVEYING 2341 MONTEZUMA DR. CAMPBELL, CA 95009 ll' •fraolu..wti Acr,il I -11A[ 1LeVMt.eL04.11,1 408-379-3476 II Id ARA& PA. .11, t•V91_ irJ e� -Aoe patA W SARATOGA CITY .COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z s3 (O " MEETING DATE: January 18, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager W/V' AGENDA ITEM A;&�;7 CITY MGR. Subject: Management Salaries for Fiscal Year 94/95 Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 85 -9._ Setting Management Salary Ranges for fiscal year 94/95. Report Summary: At the July 6, 1994, Council meeting, the Council postponed taking action on adoption of the management salary ranges until after a consultant conducted a compensation survey. The compensation survey has now been.completed and accepted by Council. The attached resolution setting management salary ranges is based on an annual job market survey performed by staff last May, and the guidelines set forth in the revised management compensation system which Council adopted in 1993. As in previous years, adjustment to the management salary ranges does not result in any automatic movement of employees. Annual salary increases for management employees are based on a merit increase pool consisting of a percentage of total management salaries. Council will be requested to set the pool amount at the February 1 Council meeting. Fiscal Impacts: There,is no fiscal impact from setting management salary ranges. Attachments: Resolution No. 85 -9. Memo .to :Council:;from_i.Asst. to City Manager dated 6/23/94 Management Salary Survey dated 6/23/94 r June 23, 1994 To: City Council From: Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Management Salary Range Adjustment for 1994 -95 I have completed the annual salary survey for the management salary range adjustment. According to the management compensation plan adopted by Council last year, the salary scale is based on the mean of the tops of the ranges of benchmark positions in a four county area. Adjustment to the ranges does not result in any automatic movement of employees. The proposed ranges are keyed on the mean top of the range for the Public Works Director position. Other ranges are adjusted to fall within the internal relationships set forth in the salary plan for management positions. City Manager: The City Managers' salaries from the survey are actual salary, not top of range. Since the internal relationship sets a salary differential of 15% between the City Manager and the Public Works Director, the top of the range for City Manager is set at 15% above the mean top of range for the Public Works Director. The top of range for the City Manager then becomes $8,272, an increase of $305 per.month. Department Heads: The top of the range for the Public Works Director is set at the survey mean of $7,193 per month, an increase of $265 per month. The Community Development Director is set at 20% below the range of the City Manager as determined by the internal relationship which results in a top of range of $6,893, $135 above the survey mean and an increase of $254 a month. The Finance Director is set at 250 below the range of the City Manager as determined by the internal relationship which results in a top of-range of $6,617 per month, $152 below the survey mean, and an increase of $243 per month. The Assistant to the City Manager is set at 8% below the survey mean for Assistant City Manager, and 36% below the City Manager range. This is within the internal relationship range of 30 -40 %, resulting in a top of range of $6,069 per month, a reduction of $59 per month. The Recreation Director is set at 8% below the survey mean for Recreation Director, as most positions surveyed include responsibility for parks. It is 40% below the City Manager which is within the internal relationship range of 40 -50 %, resulting in a top of range of $5,908 a month,, and an increase of $217 per month. Middle Management: The City Codes Administrator is set at 20% below the range of the Community Development Director as determined by the internal relationships. This results in a top salary of $5,741'a month, a decrease of $32 per month. The Parks and Buildings Superintendent and the Street Superintendent positions are set at 35% below the Public Works Director as determined by the internal relationship which results in a top salary of $5,328 per month, an increase of $176. Attached to 'this memo are a copy of the management compensation plan adopted by the Council last year, the management salary survey, and a separate salary survey of city managers. 94/95 Management Salary Survey curr. curr. curr. proposed proposed 23- Jun -94 salary salary range range salary range asst. dev. *city finance pub.wks. recreation POP. city _ manager director manager director director director -40,263 Cupertino $7,001 $9,271 $7,001 $7,831 $6,713 36,048 Campbell range $6,615 $7,750 $6,615 $7,373 $6,615 31,808 Martinez $7,169 $8,475 pubwks dir $6,688 $6,468 31,585 San Bruno $5,871 $6,901 cm /pwd $6,796 $7,414• $6,654 31,585 Pleasant Hill $6,639 $7,600 $10,106 $7,550 $7,925 20% '31,487 Gilroy fin dir $6,624 $8,153 $6,624 $7,237 $6,624. 28,176 Foster City $7,143 $6,946 $8,244 $6,286 $7,152 $6,098 28,061 Saratoga $6,069 $6,639 $7,430 $6,374 $6,928 $5,691 - 28,040 Menlo Park $6,183 $6,833 $7,715 cm /rd 40% $5,971 27,357 Los Gatos $5,726 $5,967 $7,890 $4,784 $5,741 cdd /cca 26,801 Burlingame 15 to 25 $7,128 $8,465 $7,190 $7,687 $6,339 26,303 Los Altos pwd /ps $6,793 $7,416 $6,793 $6,793 $6,793 - 26,167 San Carlos $6,548 $5,328 $8,250 35% $7,252 $6,541 :24,127 Belmont $6,346 $7,667 $6,768 $5,954 23,928 Morgan Hill $6,458 $6,667 $6,458 $6,458 mean $6,554 $6,758 $8,107 $6,769 $7,193 $6,372 notes: all salaries at top of range except all city manager's are actual all salaries adjusted for employer payment of 7% PIERS the following cities also have PIERS 2% @ 55: Cupertino, Los Gatos,Martinez, Foster City most Recreation Director positions also have parks position curr. curr. curr. proposed proposed salary salary salary range range salary range range differ. differ. difference bottom top bottom top comp. percent percentage actual range cty mgr $6,374 $7,967 $7,430 $6,893 $8,272 pubwks dir $5,542 $6,928 $6,458 $5,871 $7,193 cm /pwd 15% 15 to 25 com dev dir $5,311 $6,639 $5,953 $5,744 $6,893 cm /cdd 20% 20 to 30 fin dir $5,099 $6,374. $6,123 $5,514 $6,617 cm /fd 25% 25 to 35 asst to cm $4,902 $6,128 $5,818 $5,058 $6,069 cm /attcm 36% 30 to 40 rec dir $4,553 $5,691 $5,342 $4,923 $5,908 cm /rd 40% 40 to 50 city codes adm $4,618 $5,773 $5,460 $4,784 $5,741 cdd /cca 20% 15 to 25 parks supt $4,106 $5,132 $4,757 $4,440 $5,328 pwd /ps 35% 35 to 45 streets supt $4,106 $5,132 $4,757 $4,440 $5,328 pwd /ss 35% 35 to 45 *actual salary as cities do not have a salary range for the City Manager. 9 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 7-53-S AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 18, 1995 CITY MGR. / ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager e6t- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: 94/95 Sheriff's Plan of Service, Budget Appropriation, and Booking Fee Proposal ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motions: 1. Approve 94/95 Plan of Service and Authorize City Manager to Sign 2. Approve Proposed Agreement between the Cities and Santa Clara County for Booking Fees for FY 94/95 through FY 96/97 3. Approve Resolution No. Appropriating an Additional $66,828 for Law Enforcement Services Report Summary: The Sheriff has submitted the attached annual Plan of Service for f.y. 94/95 and City Council is requested to approve the Plan and authorize the City Manager to sign it. The Plan of Service includes Appendix A, which is the computation of law enforcement rates for 94/95. Computations in Appendix A assume a 3% increase in salary costs. Negotiations with the Deputy Sheriff's Association are currently at impasse, and it is possible that the actual cost for 94/95 will be less. A comparison of the adopted budget figures and the Appendix A figures for 94/95 law enforcement cost is also attached. In this year's Plan, the cost of traffic investigation has been included in the overhead, rather than listed separately, and is charged as a percentage of general law enforcement hours. The booking fees are reduced to $138 per booking, in accordance with the new proposed agreement. Fiscal Impact• Cost of law enforcement services will be approximately $2,077,270 rather than the $2,010,442 which was budgeted. Attachments: 1. Comparison of Budget and Appendix A Costs 2. Sheriff's Plan of Service 3. Booking Fee Proposed Agreement 4. Resolution No. Appropriating $66,828 to Program 1011, Police Protection PROPOSED APPENDIX A BUDGET COMPARISON Budget Category Patrol Day Traffic PM Traffic Detectives Traffic Inv. Reserves Rent SRO Booking Fees Communications 'CAL ID TOTAL Appendix A DIFFERENCE Hours Rate Total Hours Rate Total 19170 65.22 1,250, 267 19620 69.15 1-,356,723 106,456 2060 64.01 131,861 1897 68.07 129,129 (2,732) .1240 65.49 81,208 1245 69.15 86,092 4,884 1.808 64.98 117,484 1809 66.37 120,063 . 2, 579 827 58.42 48,313 0 0- 0 (48, 313) 360 23.12 8,323 504 23.54 11,864 3,541 20,334 19,590 (744) 1440 58.42 84,125 1440 63.54 91,498 7,373 128 174.44 22,328- 124 138 17,112 (5,216)- 230,000 229,000 (1,000) 16,199 16,199 0 2,010,442 2,077,270 66,828 County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff 1005 Timothy Drive San Jose, California 95133 (408) 299 -2101 Charles P. Gillingham Sheriff EL-1, t` J 1 ` 4..1 iJ i i rJCG; V U 199 L CITY ry Ini H N iA:i ' G i9 LE '�.. �w,(j3 MEMORANDUM To: Harry Peacoc City Manager, City of Saratoga From: Captain R. Wil Date: December 20, 1994 Subject: Plan of Service and Appendix A I have attached for your review both a Service Plan and the latest cost figures. Normally, we would supply these after completion of negotiations with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association. At this time there is no resolution in the labor contract. We have included a 3% raise in the cost figures. We have no idea when negotiations will resume, or if any resolution will occur before the end of the budget year. I have also attached a packet of information I received from the Sheriff. This is the proposed `Booking Fee' agreement. The Sheriff is requesting that I work with each of you in bringing this agreement before your council. Please review all of the attachments. If I can answer questions or if you need to meet with me, please advise. I have enclosed an original Plan of Execution for your signatures. If you concur with the plan, please sign and notify my secretary, Kathy, at 867 -1129. We will pick up the document from your office. REW:kg cc: Sheriff Gillingham A/S Diaz Lt. Huber Attachments: Plan of Service Appendix A Proposed Booking Fees PLAN OF EXECUTION "LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT" CITY OF SARATOGA FISCAL YEAR 1995 (JULY 19 1994 - JUNE 309 1995) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF FIELD OPERATIONS BUREAU PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY Part I, Section A.3 of the Law Enforcement Contract between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga provides that the Sheriff shall develop a Plan of Service which shall be reviewed and mutually agreed upon by the City and the Sheriff. Under Park II, Section 1.13 of the Contract, the Service Plan shall specify the maximum charges for service to be paid by the City. This Law Enforcement Services Plan is developed to satisfy these provisions of the Law Enforcement Contract. Under the Contract, it is the responsibility of the Sheriff to provide serv- ices to the City, in accordance with this plan. The Sheriff is solely responsible for the administration and supervision of all such services provided under the Contract. As provided in the California Government Code (Sections 36501, et seq.), the City may designate the Sheriff or the Sheriff's designee as its Chief of Police. During the term of this agreement, the City agrees not to contract with or purchase from any other entity, public or private, for law enforcement serv- ices without the express consent of the Sheriff. Service Levels Service levels referred to herein are determined by the amount of hours reported to be provided and charged to the City under the terms of the Contract in each of the service categories of General Law Enforcement, Investigative Services and Supplemental Services. General Law Enforcement includes the patrol of established beats and response to emergency calls and other calls for service. Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 2 City of Saratoga The patrol established beats will be provided for by the assignment to specific geographical areas of the City by Sheriff's patrol units. Beat responsibility maps will be provided to the City as updating occurs. Based on the current Deputy Sheriff's Association Contract, the Sheriff's Field Operations Division, patrol Section, employs a ten hour workday for its sworn personnel. In Fiscal year 1994 - 1995, the City of Saratoga and adjacent unincor- porated areas will be served by the following Sheriff's units when assigned: Watch I 6151 6155 61W1 Watch II 7151 7155 7451 71W8 71M1 71141 Watch III 8151 8155 81141 81M1 8452 2230 hours - 0830 hours 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit 0700 hours - 1700 hours 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit (T- W -T -F) 1530 hours - 0130 hours 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person unit 1 person Traffic (T- W -T -F) Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 3 City of Saratoga ii . i MIA One Deputy to work 8 hours a day while school is in session to perform duties as mutually agreed upon. 'WY11017TWOMY71 i Experience to date indicates that the current patrol unit assignment in the City of Saratoga provides for an overall average response time from when the deputy receives a call for service until they arrive to all "calls for service" of 6 minutes. The new C.A.D. computer will be able to report accurate response times, from when the call is received by dispatch until when the deputy first arrives at the call, for different levels of priority to calls for service. Priority 1: A life endangering situation or major felony that requires immediate Sheriff's Office response to preserve life or apprehend the re- sponsible and /or that, due to its nature, requires the widest possible search for recommended units or requires that all channel dispatchers be made aware of the incident. Priority 2: Any crime against a person that doesn't require a priority 1 and is either occurring or has occurred within the past 15 minutes or less or any prop- erty crime that occurred within the last 10 minutes or less, or any non -crime situation where delayed response leads to a potential danger /hazard to the public. Priority 3: Any crime which exceeds the time limits of priority 2 (more than 15 minutes for crimes against persons or more than 10 minutes for crimes against property) or other situations which requires the response of a Deputy Sheriff in a timely manner. Priority : Any call for service that does not require a timely response by a Deputy Sheriff. Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 4 City of Saratoga FY 1994 - 1995 will be used to establish the base line for the four different "call for Service Priority" categories. As data is received on the average re- sponse times in each category, the information will be provided to the City. Average response time has some value in weighing the issue of the num- ber of patrol units assigned to an area. The average response time is affected by several factors: 1. The elapsed time from when the call is received by County Communi- cations until it is dispatched to a patrol unit. 2. Need for an immediate response based on initial reported information. 3. Unit availability during peak time periods. 4. Call stacking by priority /nature of reported information. Investigative Services. The initial case investigative responsibility for all reported crimes, mis- demeanor and felony, is with the responding patrol officer. The length and /or depth of his initial investigation depends on the time availability of the patrol officer. Cases requiring extensive follow -up investigation are routed to the De- tective Section or assigned to appropriate beat units. Investigative services to the City of Saratoga will be provided by the Technical Services Bureau, Investigative Services Division. The Investigative Services Division, organized by investigative case specialization, investigates most felony and certain serious misdemeanor crime reported to the Sheriff's Department on a weighted case management basis. The Patrol Section conducts follow -up into misdemeanor and traffic investigations by case assignment to appropriate beat units. Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 5 City of Saratoga All reported felony and certain serious misdemeanor cases are assigned to an investigator for control purposes. Those cases showing no solvable case characteristics are case controlled and monitored by an assigned investigator, assisted by appropriate beat units. Every reported felony or serious misdemeanor case cannot be successfully investigated to a conclusion. Those cases which indicate appropriate character- istics are focused upon so as to maximize the use of investigative time and cost. �i I A2 Traffic investigations shall be handled by the two investigators assigned to the Westside Station. These charges are now included in the Westside Station overhead and shared by the four contract cities and the unincorporated areas based on percentage of total general enforcement hours. The Patrol Section, in fulfilling its responsibilities, provides other services to the City as needed to meet its commitments. Specialized services available to the City include: Hostage Negotiations Unit Sheriff's Emergency Response Team Underwater Recovery Unit Search and Rescue Unit Narcotics Unit Criminal Intelligence Unit Canine Unit (including a narcotics dog) Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 6 City of Saratoga Coordinating agency and provide logistics for Auto Theft Task Force Sexual Predators Task Force Although such units are not routine used, their existence enhances the capabilities of the Patrol Section in its delivery of services. Special events which are mutually identified by the Sheriff and the City shall be charged at the actual cost of the event. Limitation of Charges -for 1994 -1995 Budgetary and fiscal constraints upon the City make it necessary to estab- lish a limit on the total charges to be billed, according to the amount of services anticipated to be required or provided by the Sheriff. This Service Delivery Plan acknowledges these constraints by capping the total obligation of the City for police services, booking fees, and county communications costs. Cost recovery of unanticipated special events requiring significant increases in service provided to the City, shall be negotiated by the Sheriff with the City Manager. By contract with the County of Santa Clara, the City agrees to pay up to a capped amount for each fiscal year towards `booking fees'. Any amount over the agreed capped amount will be paid from the Sheriff's Contract; thereby impacting future service level. Actual costs figures will be included in the yearly Appendix A. For fiscal year 1994 - 1995, the amount of service (chargeable hours) anticipated by category is shown in Appendix A. The 1994 - 1995 hourly rate shall remain in effect until July 1, 1995. Hourly *rates will be provided in Appendix A. The new Appendix A shall be Rates subject to change if DSA contract dispute is resolved. Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 7 City of Saratoga delivered to the City in accordance with section II, A.b of the Law Enforcement Master Contract. For the provisions of service during the 1994 - 1995 fiscal year, the fol- lowing priorities and objectives are established. Sheriff and City agree to follow these priorities and pursue the objectives. 1. Maintenance of Average Response Time Maintain the annualized average response time for "called for" services at or below 7 minutes. 2. Monitor Serious Crime The Sheriff shall monitor the incidence of serious crime within the City by reporting districts and will: a. Focus additional patrol in areas of significantly higher activity in an effort to reduce such incidence level; and b. Report to the City such developments, including recommendations on measures to reduce these levels. 3. Response to Major Disasters In the event of a major disaster that necessitates the activation of an Emergency Operations Center in the City of Saratoga, a Sheriff's rep- resentative shall immediately be dispatched and report to the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager). Initial response by a Deputy may be the nearest Patrol Unit or able - bodied Officer available. A pre- designated Sheriff's E.O.C. Liaison Officer shall be notified as soon as possible to respond to the E.O.C. and coordinate Law Enforcement responsibilities. The pre- designated E.O.C. Liaison Officers maintained on the active call out list shall be available to the Director of Emergency Services. Plan of Service Delivery -- Page 8 City of Saratoga Responsibility for personal instruction and any specialized training in the E.O.C. process shall be provided Liaison Personnel by the City of their Assignment. 4. Review of Priorities and Objectives Review, on a quarterly basis, or as otherwise desired, priorities and objectives with the City or its representative. 5. Coordination of the Community Service Officer Program The Sheriff shall continue to assist the City in supervising the CSO program with the intent of achieving following goals: a. The CSO's will expend approximately 1/3 of their activity time as- sisting or relieving the Sheriff from certain traffic enforcement and control functions, report taking and other relevant duties. b. The CSO's will expend 1/2 of their activity time enforcing City Municipal code violations. The above Plan of Service for 1994 - 1995 is hereby approved. It is the intent of the Sheriff to provide services according to this Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Law Enforcement Contract. It is the intent of the City to render full cooperation and assistance to the Sheriff in providing the services called for and in meeting the priorities and objectives set forth herein. by Charles P. Gillingham Sheriff Date Date Harry Peacock City Manager ASSUMPTIONS USED IN COMPUTATION OF 1994 -95 LAW ENFORCEMENT RATES 1. The "Ten Plan" (ten hour day, four day week) will continue to apply to the Patrol Division though 1994 -95 2. Scheduling of patrol cars will be as follows: Shift Car Staffing Shifts Countywide % Shifts Westside Only % Day 1 Deputy 10,244 35.6 4,212 40.7 Day 2 Deputies 0 0.0 0 0.0 Swing 1 Deputy 11,952 41.6 4,160 40.2 Swing 2 Deputies 110 0.4 110 1.1 Nights 1 Deputy 6,448 22.4 1,872 18.1 Nights 2 Deputies 0 0.0 0 0.0 $39.90 $48.00 28,754 100.0 10,354 100.0 3. In accordance with past practice, the rates charged to contract cities will not include costs for: a. Radio dispatching b. County general overhead 4. The Salary ranges for badge and non -badge personnel are documented in the Salary Ordinance. 5. On the average, deputy sheriffs in the Patrol Division are in step 5 of the salary range and receive 5% career incentive pay. Hourly overtime rates are computed as follows: Deputy Sheriff Bi- weekly salary, Operational O.T. Holiday O.T. 5% career incentive pay $1,982.87 $247.86 Fringe $144.95 $72.15 Total $2,127.82 $320.01 Divided by hours per pay period 80 10 Hourly Rate $26.60 $32.00 Overtime Rate Factor 1.5 1.5 Overtime Hourly Rate $39.90 $48.00 Basic Holiday Shift Basic Holiday Shift O.T. Rate O.T.Rate Differential Total Total Day $39.90 $48.00 $0.00 $39.90 $48.00 Swing $39.90 $48.00 $1.15 $41.05 $49.15 Nights $39.90 $48.00 $1.15 $41.05 $49.15 6. Average holiday hours and overtime requirements for deputy sheriffs in the Westside substation are completed as follows: A -2 1411 1,1 y Holiday Hours: Total Actual Holiday Hours for 1993 -94 3,078.00 Divided by average holiday staffing factor for 1993 -94 56 Average Annual Holiday OT per deputy 54.96 Operational Overtime: Total projected operational OT for 1993 -94 2,971.70 Divided by average working strength of patrol for 1993 -94 56 Average annual operational OT per deputy 53.07 Court Overtime: Total annual court overtime for 1993 -94 1,351.00 Divided by average working strength of patrol for 1993 -94 56 Average annual court OT per deputy 24.13 Comp. Time: Total annual compensatory time for 1993 -94 0 7. Salary fringe benefit costs are as follows: a. Retirement (Sworn) - 21.7990% of salary plus career incentive night shift differential and holiday pay. b. Retirement (Non Sworn) - 14.6890% of salary plus night shift differential and holiday pay. c. Health Insurance - $6,304 per year each employee. d. Workers' Compensation - 7.1400% of salary, career incentive, night shift differential, holiday pay, and overtime e. F.I.C.A. - 6.2000% of the first $60,600 of salary of non -badge employees for 1994 -95 f. Unemployment Insurance - 0.1700% of salary, career incentive, night shift differential, holiday pay, and overtime g. Uniform Allowance - $700 per year each badge personnel (Lieutenant, Sergeant, Deputy) 1994 -95 h. Medicare Tax - 1.4500% of salary of non -badge employees and badge personnel hired after 3/31/87. 8. On the average, a deputy sheriff in the Westside Substation will work 1777.20 hours per year for station. A -3 Number of days available per year Days not worked: 3 days per week x 52 Sick Leave Vacation Military Leave Training time Jury Duty, Bereavement Total days not worked Number of days worked Hours per year worked (10 hours per shift) Less average annual Comp. Time per deputy 9. On the average, an investigator in the Detective Division will work shown below: Number of days available per year Days not worked: 3 days per week x 52 Sick leave Vacation Military leave Training time Jury Duty, Bereavement Total days not worked Number of days worked 174.08 Days x 10 hours per shift Less average annual Comp. Time per detective Hours per year worked Total Westside 365.00 156.00 9.12 19.46 0.61 1.96 0.13 187.28 177.72 1,777.20 0.00 1,777.20 1,703.30 hours per year as 365.00 156.00 4.68 31.78 0.00 2.21 0.00 194.67 170.33 1,703.30 hours /year 0.00 1,703.30 10. Effective under the new memorandum of understanding for DSA swing and night have the same night differential. A -4 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS 1994 -95 i ESTIMATED SALARIES & BENEFITS NO. OF WORKERS' RETIREMENT UNEMPLOY. UNIFORM MEDICARE ANNUAL PAY ANNUAL COMP. BADGE NON -BADGE FICA INS/YR INSURANCE ALLOW. TAX SUB POSITION POSITION STEP CIP DIFF PERIODS SALARY 7.1400% 21.7990% 14.689% 6.20% $6,304 0.17000% $700.00 1.4500% TOTAL TOTAL CAPTAIN- PATROL 7 26.1 76,511 5,463 16,679 6,311 130 105,094 105,094 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CAPTAIN -PERS & TRN 7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CAPTAIN- DETECTVE 7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LIEUTENANT 5 7.5 4.2 11,377 812 2,480 1,016 19 113 15,817 100,589 21.9 61,103 4,363 13,320 5,295 104 587 84,772 SERGEANT 5 7.5 4.2 9,637 688 2,101 1,016 16 113 13,571 86,279 21.9 51,759 3,696 11,283 5,295 88 587 72,708 DEPUTY SHERIFF 5 5 4.2 8,124 580 1,771 1,016 14 113 11,618 73,829 /PATROL 21.9 43,629 3,115 9,511 5,295 74 587 62,211 DEPUTY SHERIFF 5 5 7.5 4.2 8,733 624 1,904 1,016 15 113 12,405 78,842 /DETECTIVE 21.9 46,902 3,349 10,224 5,295 80 587 66,437 DEPUTY SHERIFF 5 4.2 7,737 552 1,687 1,016 13 113 11,118 70,648 /PATROL 21.9 41,552 2,967 9,058 5,295 71 587 59,530 DEPUTY SHERIFF 5 7.5 4.2 8,317 594 1,813 1,016 14 113 11,867 75,419 /DETECTIVE 21.9 44,668 3,189 9,737 5,295 76 587 63,552 CLERKTYPIST 5 9.2 9,132 652 1,341 566 2,222 16 132 14,061 40,388 16.8 17,177 1,226 2,523 1,065 4,058 29 249 26,327 ADV. CLK TYPIST 5 9.2 9,719 694 1,428 603 2,222 17 141 14,824 42,581 16.8 18,280 1,305 2,685 1,133 4,058 31 265 27,757 PERS. SVC. CLK 5 9.2 10,880 777 1,598 675 2,222 18 158 16,328 46,917 16.8 20,463 1,461 3,006 1,269 4,058 35 297 30,589 SR. ACCOUNTANT 5 26.1 57,082 4,076 8,385 3,441 6,304 97 828 80,213 80,213 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCOUNTANT ASSISTANT 5 9.2 10,928 780 1,605 678 2,222 19 158 16,390 47,096 16.8 20,554 1,468 3,019 1,274 4,058 35 298 30,706 ACCOUNT CLERK II 5 9.2 9,995 714 1,468 620 2,222 17 145 15,181 43,612 16.8 18,799 1,342 2,761 1,166 4,058 32 273 28,431 A -5 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS 1994 -95 ESTIMATED SALARIES & BENEFITS NO. OF WORKERS' RETIREMENT UNEMPLOY. UNIFORM MEDICARE ANNUAL PAY ANNUAL COMP. BADGE NON -BADGE FICA INS/YR INSURANCE ALLOW. TAX SUB POSITION POSITION STEP CIP DIFF. PERIODS SALARY 7.1400% 21.7990% 14.689% 6.20% $6,304 0.17000% $700.00 1.4500% TOTAL TOTAL LAW ENF. REC. SUPV. 5 26.1 46,278 3,304 6,798 2,869 6,304 79 671 66,303 66,303 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAW ENF.REC.SPEC. 5 9.2 12,416 887 1,824 770 2,222 21 180 18,320 52,654 16.8 23,352 1,667 3,430 1,448 4,058 40 339 34,334 LAW ENF.REC.TECHN. 5 9.2 11,296 807 1,659 700 2,222 19 164 16,867 48,471 16.8 21,247 1,517 3,121 1,317 4,058 36 308 31,604 LAW ENF. REC. CLK 5 9.2 9,898 707 1,454 614 2,222 17 144 15,056 43,252 (aftemateTechnician) 16.8 18,618 1,329 2,735 1,154 4,058 32 270 28,196 STOREKEEPER 5 9.2 9,578 684 1,407 594 2,222 16 139 14,640 42,055 16.8 18,016 1,286 2,646 1,117 4,058 31 261 27,415 STOCK CLERK 5 9.2 9,132 652 1,341 566 2,222 16 132 14,061 40,388 16.8 17,177 1,226 2,523 1,065 4,058 29 249 26,327 DATA ENTRY 5 9.2 9,578 684 1,407 594 2,222 16 139 14,640 42,055 OPERATOR 16.8 18,016 1,286 2,646 1,117 4,058 31 261 27,415 RECORDS MANAGER 5 9.2 20,121 1,437 2,956 3,322 2,222 34 292 30,384 80,332 16.8 36,742 2,623 5,397 533 4,058 62 533 49,948 RANGEMASTER II 4 9.2 15,226 1,087 2,237 944 2,222 26 221 21,963 62,069 16.8 27,805 1,985 4,084 1,724 4,058 47 403 40,106 RANGEMASTER I 5 9.2 12,811 915 1,882 794 2,222 22 186 18,832 53,219 16.8 23,394 1,670 3,436 1,450 4,058 40 339 34,387 LIEUTENANT 5 4.2 10,583 756 2,307 1,016 18 113 14,793 94,061 21.9 56,840 4,058 12,391 5,295 97 587 79,268 SERGEANT 5 4.2 8,965 640 1,954 1,016 15 113 12,703 80,748 21.9 48,147 3,438 10,496 5,295 82 587 68,045 DEPUTY SHERIFF 5 4.2 7,737 552 1,687 1,016 13 113 11,118 70,648 /PATROL 21.9 41,552 2,967 9,058 5,295 71 587 59,530 DEPUTY SHERIFF 5 7.5 4.2 8,317 594 1,813 1,016 14 113 11,867 75,419 /DETECTIVE 21.9 44,668 3,189 9,737 5,295 76 587 63,552 FINGPRT SUPERVISOR 5 26.1 55,457 3,960 8,146 3,322 6,304 94 804 78,087 78,067 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A -6 A -7 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS 1994 -95 ESTIMATED SALARIES & BENEFITS 1 NO. OF WORKERS' RETIREMENT UNEMPLOY. UNIFORM MEDICARE ANNUAL PAY ANNUAL COMP. BADGE NON -BADGE FICA INS/YR INSURANCE ALLOW. TAX SUB POSITION POSITION STEP CIP DIFF. PERIODS SALARY 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.000% 0.00% $0 0.00000% $0.00 0.0000% TOTAL TOTAL LATENT FGPRT EXAMM 5 9.2 16,281 1,162 2,392 1,009 2,222 28 236 23,330 66,154 16.8 29,900 2,135 4,392 1,854 4,058 51 434 42,824 LATENT FGPRT EXAM 1 5 9.2 13,263 947 1,948 822 2.222 23 192 19,417 55,217 16.8 24,483 1,748 3,596 1,518 4,058 42 355 35,800 SECRETARY II 5 9.2 10,979 784 1,613 681 2,222 19 159 16,457 47,286 16.8 20,650 1,474 3,033 1,280 4,058 35 299 30,829 A -7 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 1. Salaries and Benefits (A -9) 2. Patrol Car (A -10) 3. Patrol Division Overhead (A -11 to A -12) 4. Personnel and Training Division Overhead (A -13 to A -14) 5. Fiscal Division Overhead (A -15 to A -16) 6. Records Section Overhead (A -17 to A -19) Hourly Rate for General Law Enforcement A -8 $42.62 $4.53 $14.84 $2.66 $0.79 m.. n . $69.15 PROJECTED 1994 -95 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS ANNUAL NO. ANNUAL NO. SALARIES AND BENEFITS SHIFT STAFFING PATROL DEPUTY OF CAR HRS OF DEP.HRS DEPUTY HR TOTAL Day DAY SWING NIGHTS 1. Salary at Step 5 incl. 7.5% CIP $41.69 $51,753 $51,753 $51,753 2. Shift Differential/Hour $1.15 0 2,044 2,044 3. Court Overtime (Hours per Year) 24.13 897 897 897 4. Workers'Comp. -Items 1 -3 7.1400% 3,759 3,905 3,905 5. Retirement -Items 1 -2 21.7990% 11,282 11,727 11,727 6. Medicare Tax -Items 1 -3 1.4500% 0 0 0 7. Health Insurance -Year $6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 8. Unemployment Ins -Item 1 -3 0.1700% 90 93 93 9. Uniform allowance -Year $700 700 700 700 Total Annual Salaries and Benefits for one Deputy Sheriff $74,085 $76,723 $76,723 Hourly Cost(Annual Hours 1777.20 ) $41.69 $43.17 $43.17 Average cost of Salaries and Benefits per Patrol Car Hour: $4,836,594 / 113,480 = $42.62 A -9 ANNUAL NO. ANNUAL NO. ANNUAL NO. COST PER SHIFT STAFFING OF PATROLS OF CAR HRS OF DEP.HRS DEPUTY HR TOTAL Day 1 Deputy 4,212 42,120 42,120 $41.69 $1,755,983 Swing 1 Deputy 4,160 41,600 41,600 $43.17 $1,795,872 Swing 2 Deputy 110 1,104 11,040 $43.17 $476,597 Night 1 Deputy 1,872 18,720 18,720 $43.17 $808,142 Total 10,354 103,544 113,480 4,836,594 Average cost of Salaries and Benefits per Patrol Car Hour: $4,836,594 / 113,480 = $42.62 A -9 COMMUNICATIONS No charge. Radio maintenance, installation, and removal included in vehicle costs. A -10 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 PATROL CAR AND COMMUNICATIONS PATROL CAR: EST. TOTAL WESTSIDE AVG.MILES GSA RATE HOURLY PATROL UNITS PER HOUR PER MILE COSTS Regular Patrol 8.26 $0.548 $4.53 Supplemental Patrol 8.26 $0.548 $4.53 Reserve units 8.26 $0.548 $4.53 COMMUNICATIONS No charge. Radio maintenance, installation, and removal included in vehicle costs. A -10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 WESTSIDE PATROL OVERHEAD COSTS INDEX CODE 3907 16.47 1,199,525 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: No. of Cost Per Total Positions Positions Position Costs I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS: Overtime Meals 0 Captain 1.00 105,094 105,094 Lieutenant 0.75 100,589 75,442 Sergeant 6.00 86,279 517,674 Deputy Sheriff 3.72 73,829 274,644 Law Enforcement Records Clerk 0.00 43,252 0 Law Enforcement Technician 2.00 48,471 96,942 Secretary II 1.00 47,286 47,286 Data Entry Operator 1.00 42,055 42,055 Clerk Typist 1.00 40,388 40,388 16.47 1,199,525 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 Overtime Meals 0 0 0 Professional & Specialized Services 17,763 17,886 17,886 Data Processing 42,344 80,882 80,882 Telephone & Communication Services 31,434 39,199 39,199 Maintenance of Equipment 2,124 1,527 1,527 Office Expenses 6,021 6,417 6,417 Operating expenses 5,891 6,365 6,365 Rents and Leases - Equipment 6,821 6,700 6,700 Small Tools and Equipment 10,219 7,189 7,189 Education Expenses 1,323 4,786 4,786 Membership Dues 0 30 30 Printing 7,041 4,566 4,566 Transportation and Travel 0 712 712 Books 4,745 4,645 4,645 Services and Supplies 8,551 10,477 10,477 Med, Dental & Lab Supplies 585 115 115 PC Hardware & Software 3,093 9,365 9,365 Miscellaneous Expenses 255 585 585 Total Services and Supplies 148,210 201,446 201,446 III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES A -11 1,400,971 IV. PERSONNEL AND TRAINING OVERHEAD COSTS: Personnel and Training Costs Per Code Number of Administrative Codes Total Personnel and Training Costs to be Allocated V. TOTAL PATROL DIVISION OVERHEAD TO BE ALLOCATED ALLOCATION OF PATROL DIVISION OVERHEAD Amount Chargeable Number of Patrol Deputy Sheriffs Cost Per Patrol Deputy Sheriff Per Year Number of Hours Per Year 4,732 16 $75,712 $1,476,683 $1,476,683 56.0 $26,369 1,777.20 Overhead Cost Per Hour - Patrol Deputy Sheriff $14.84 Supplemental Daylight Patrol: The preceding calculation is the amount of Patrol Division overhead chargeable to one deputy sheriff for each hour worked. Since daylight patrols have one person per car, overhead cost for supplemental daylight patrol per hour is $14.84 A -12 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 PERSONNEL & TRAINING OVERHEAD COSTS II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: Overtime Insurance Clothing and Personal Supplies Telephone & Communication Services Maintenance - Structure Office Expenses Operating Expenses Rents and Leases - Equipment Small Tools and Equipment Education Expenses Maintenance - Equipment Printing Transportation and Travel Garage Automobile Services Books & Membership dues Professional & Special services Services and Supplies Postage PC Hardware & Software Total Services and Supplies ACTUAL No. of Cost Per Total Positions Positions Position Costs 0 I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS: 1,155,921 1,611,853 1,611,853 Lieutenant 0.75 100,589 75,442 Sergeant 1 86,279 86,279 Deputy Sheriff 4 73,829 295,316 Personnel Services Clerk 2 46,917 93,834 RangeMaster I 0 53,219 0 RangeMaster II 1 62,069 62,069 4,322 572 8 3,040 612,940 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: Overtime Insurance Clothing and Personal Supplies Telephone & Communication Services Maintenance - Structure Office Expenses Operating Expenses Rents and Leases - Equipment Small Tools and Equipment Education Expenses Maintenance - Equipment Printing Transportation and Travel Garage Automobile Services Books & Membership dues Professional & Special services Services and Supplies Postage PC Hardware & Software Total Services and Supplies ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 0 0 0 1,155,921 1,611,853 1,611,853 20,899 0 0 9,675 7,198 7,198 4,697 2,927 2,927 5,789 4,698 4,698 4,252 900 900 4,217 3,340 3,340 14,684 14,304 14,304 54,821 12,539 12,539 4,322 572 572 3,040 14,253 14,253 0 474 474 42,238 49,855 49,855 104 399 399 17,717 11,091 11,091 6,071 132,230 132,230 132 0 0 1,226 9,506 9,506 1,349,805 1,876,139 1,876,139 III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 2,489,079 A -13 IV. FISCAL DIVISION OVERHEAD: Net Sheriffs Department Annual Budget Personnel and Training Budget FY 93 -94 Percentage Allocated to P & T ($2,925,194/$45,582,719) Amount Chargeable Annual Costs Chargeable to P & T V. TOTAL COSTS - PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ( 505,183 * 6.60%) VI. ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING OVERHEAD COSTS: Total Costs - Personnel and Training Number of Authorized Codes Annual Cost Per Authorized Coded Position Number of Hours Worked Per Year (Page A-4) Personnel & Training Overhead Cost Per Hour A -14 44,288,024 2,925,194 6.60% 505,183 33,342 2,522,421 2,522,421 533 4,732 $2.66 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 FISCAL DIVISION OVERHEAD COSTS A -15 No. of Cost Per Total Position Positions Position Costs I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS: Senior Accountant 1 80,213 80,213 Accountant Assistant 1 47,096 47,096 Clerk Typist 1 40,388 40,388 Account Clerk II 5 43,612 218,060 Storekeeper 0 42,055 0 Stock Clerk 1 40,388 40,388 Total Salaries and Benefits 9 426,145 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 Professional and Special Services 2,074 20,106 20,106 Premium Pay 0 0 0 Maintenance of Equipment 0 1,861 1,861 Office Expenses 2,019 3,054 3,054 Operating expense 0 0 0 Rents and Leases - Equipment 1,558 1,500 1,500 Small Tools and Equipment 18,114 3,006 3,006 Education Expenses 461 295 295 Printing 812 0 0 Garage Automobile Services 4,804 3,691 3,691 Transportation & Travel 0 0 0 Books and Periodicals 185 212 212 PC Hardware and Software 540 0 0 Postage 33 39 39 Telephone and Communication 3,107 2,686 2,686 Total Services and Supplies 33,707 36,450 36,450 III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 462,595 A -15 IV. OVERHEAD COSTS: Pers & Trning Cost Per Authorized Coded Position Number of Administrative Codes Allocated Personnel & Training Overhead Costs to Fiscal Division V. TOTAL COSTS - FISCAL DIVISION COSTS VI. ALLOCATION OF FISCAL DIVISION OVERHEAD COSTS: Total Annual Sheriff Budget FY 94 -95 Less Fiscal Division's Annual Budget FY 94 -95 Net Sheriffs Department Annual Budget Westside Patrol Annual Budget FY 94 -95 Percentage Allocated to Patrol Amount Chargeable Annual Costs Chargeable to Patrol Number of Patrol Deputy Sheriff Cost per Patrol Deputy Sheriff Number of Hours Per Year Overhead Cost Per Patrol Deputy Hour ( 6,883,646 / 44,288,024 ) ( 505,183 * 15.54% ) A- 16 4,732 9.0 42,588 505,183 44,991,464 703,440 44,288,024 6,883,646 15.54% 505,183 78,505 56.0 1,402 1,777.20 $0.79 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 RECORDS SECTION OVERHEAD INDEX 3909 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: No. of Cost Per Total Positions Positions Position Costs Holiday Overtime I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS: 28,125 28,125 Overtime Meals Records Manager 1 80,332 80,332 Law Enforcement Records Supervisor 5 66,303 331,515 Law Enforcement Records Specialist 9 52,654 473,886 Law Enforcement Records Clerk 22 43,252 951,544 Law Enforcement Records Technician 12 48,471 581,652 Fingerprint & ID Supervisor 0.75 78,087 43,924 Latent Fingerprint Examiner II 0.75 66,154 37,212 Latent Fingerprint Examiner I 0.75 55,217 31,060 1,521 Total Salaries and Benefits 51 Education Expenses $2,531,124 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES A -17 2,851,917 ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 Holiday Overtime 27,958 28,125 28,125 Overtime Meals 1,395 5,196 5,196 Premium Pay 60,761 62,029 62,029 Professional & Specialized Services 116,019 115,805 115,805 Data Processing 50,844 50,004 50,004 Maintenance of Equipment 2,263 643 643 Maintenance of Bldg and Grd 4,265 0 0 Office Expenses 15,926 12,653 12,653 Rents and Leases - Equipment 8,412 11,297 11,297 Small Tools and Equipment 1,521 2,360 2,360 Education Expenses 2,206 1,066 1,066 Telephone and Communications Services 7,928 11,123 11,123 Printing 2,269 4,713 4,713 Transportation and Travel 276 1,097 1,097 Books and Membership dues 524 990 990 Automobile services 6,694 5,332 5,332 Operating Expenses 6,578 4,345 4,345 PC Hardware & Software 0 3,994 3,994 Postage 66 21- 21 Total Services and Supplies 315,905 320,793 320,793 III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES A -17 2,851,917 IV. PERSONNEL AND TRAINING OVERHEAD COSTS: Personnel and Training Costs Per Code Number of Administrative Codes Total Personnel and Training Costs to be Allocated V. FISCAL DIVISION OVERHEAD Net Sheriffs Department Annual Budget Records Annual Budget FY 94 -95 Percentage Allocated to Records ($3,173,159/ 44,991,464) Amount Chargeable( See P.A -15) Annual Costs Chargeable to Records ( 505,183 X VI. TOTAL RECORDS SECTION OVERHEAD TO BE ALLOCATED ALLOCATION OF RECORDS SECTION OVERHEAD Amount Chargeable Percentage to be charged to Contract Cities based on time spent by records personnel (See Pg. A -19) Allocated Overhead - Records Sections to Contract Cities Average Deputies Assigned to Contract Cities Cost per Patrol Deputy Sheriff Assigned to Contract Cities Number of Hours Per Year (See Pg. A -4) Hourly Cost - Records Sections Overhead A -18 $4,732 51 $242,515 $44,288,024 $3,173,159 7.16% $505,183 7.16 %) $36,171 $3,130,603 $3,130,603 11.81% $369,724 56.0 $6,602 1,777.20 $3.71 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 # of Codes Days Positions % Contract 1 LERC 4 1 100 1 LERC 5 1 45 1 LER SPEC. 7 1 45 2 LER SPEC. 7 3 45 1 SPVR 5 1 45 5 LERC 7 7 25 3 LER SPEC. 7 4 25 PERCENTAGE CHARGEABLE TO CONTRACT CITIES (255/2160) 1.40 HOURS WORK WEEK X 51 AUTHORIZED STAFF = TOTAL HOURS = 2. DAYS PER WEEK x 8 HOURS x PERCENT = TIME PER SHIFT CHARGEABLE TO CONTRACT CITIES. A- 19 Weekly Hours 32 18 25 50 18 70 42 255 11.81% 2,160 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION OFFICERS SALARIES AND BENEFITS: I . Deputy Sheriff - Step 5, 7.5% CIP $51,753 2. Workers' Compensation 7.1400% 3,695 3. Retirement 21.7990% 11,282 4. Health Insurance 6,304 6,304 5. Unemployment Insurance 0.1700% 88 6. Uniform Allowance 700 700 7. Medicare Tax 1.4500% 0 Annual Salaries and Benefits $73,822 Hourly Cost ($76,215/Hours Worked 1777.20 ) $41.54 HOURLY COST - TRAFFIC INVESTIGATORS: 1. Salaries and Benefits 2. Patrol Division Overhead (Page A -11 to A -12) 3. Personnel & Training Division Overhead (Page A -13 to A -14) 4. Fiscal Division Overhead (Page A -15 to A -16) 5. Records Section Overhead (Page A -17 to A -19) Total Hourly Cost Traffic Investigator TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 1777.20 X 2 OFFICERS $63.54 EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 1993 -1994 COSTS ARE INCLUDED AS OVERHEAD A -20 $41.54 $14.84 $2.66 $0.79 $63.54 $225,847 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FO 1994 -95 SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL (ONE DEPUTY) SALARIES AND BENEFITS: SWING NIGHTS $41.54 $43.02 $43.02 DAY SWING NIGHTS 1. Deputy Sheriff - Step 5, 5% CIP $14.84 $51,753 $51,753 $51,753 2. Shift Differential 1.15 0 2,044 2,044 3. Workers' Compensation 7.1400% 3,695 3,841 3,841 4. Retirement 21.7990% 11,282 11,727 11,727 5. Health Insurance $6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6. Unemployment Insurance 0.1700% 88 91 91 7. Uniform Allowance $700 700 700 700 8. Medicare Tax 1.4500% 0 0 0 Annual Salaries and Benefits $73,822 $76,460 $76,460 Hourly Cost (Ann. Sal.& Ben./Hours Per Year 1777.20 $41.54 $43.02 $43.02 1. Salaries and Benefits 2. Patrol Car (Page A -10) 3. Patrol Division Overhead (Page A -11 to A -12) 4. Pers & Trning Div. Overhead (Page A -13 to A -14) 5. Fiscal Division Overhead(Page A -15 to A -16) 6. Records Section Overhead (Page A -17 to A -19) Total Hourly Cost Supplemental Patrol CUPERTINO MOTORCYCLE UNITS Annual Costs of Motorcycle Units $21,690 Total Supplemental Patrol Hours Cupertino 6,393 Per Hour $3.39 Total Hourly Cost Supplemental Motor Unit S.R.O. Hourly Rate A -21 DAY SWING NIGHTS $41.54 $43.02 $43.02 $4.53 $4.53 $4.53 $14.84 $14.84 $14.84 $2.66 $2.66 $2.66 $0.79 $0.79 $0.79 $3.71 $3.71 $3.71 $68.07 $69.55 $69.55 $66.93 $68.41 $68.41 mwmn-ww� $63.54 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL (ONE DEPUTY)- OVERTIME SALARIES AND BENEFITS: 1. Deputy Sheriff - Step 5, 5% CIP, 1.5 OT 2. Shift Differential 3. Workers' Compensation 4. Health Insurance 5. Unemployment Insurance 6. Uniform Allowance 7. Medicare Tax Annual Salaries and Benefits Hourly Cost (Ann. Sal.& Ben./Hours Per Year) CUPERTINO MOTORCYCLE UNITS Annual Costs of Motorcycle Units Total Supplemental Patrol Hours Cupertino Per Hours Total Hourly Cost Supplemental Motor Unit $21,690 6,393 $3.39 A -22 $76.21 $77.36 $77.36 DAY SWING NIGHTS 1. Salaries and Benefits $77,630 $77,630 $77,630 1.15 0 1,913 1,913 7.1400% 5,543 5,679 5,679 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 0.1700% 132 135 135 700 700 700 700 1.4500% 0 0 0 $90,309 $92,361 $92,361 1777.20 $50.82 $51.97 $51.97 CUPERTINO MOTORCYCLE UNITS Annual Costs of Motorcycle Units Total Supplemental Patrol Hours Cupertino Per Hours Total Hourly Cost Supplemental Motor Unit $21,690 6,393 $3.39 A -22 $76.21 $77.36 $77.36 DAY SWING NIGHTS 1. Salaries and Benefits $50.82 $51.97 $51.97 2. Patrol Car (Page A -10) $4.53 $4.53 $4.53 3. Patrol Division Overhead (Page A -I I to A -12) $14.84 $14.84 $14.84 4. Pers & Trng Div. Overhead (Page A -13 to A -14) $2.66 $2.66 $2.66 5. Fiscal Division Overhead (Page A -15 to A -16) $0.79 $0.79 $0.79 6. Records Section Overhead (Page A -17 to A -19) $3.71 $3.71 $3.71 Total Hourly Cost Supplemental Patrol $77.35 $78.50 $78.50 CUPERTINO MOTORCYCLE UNITS Annual Costs of Motorcycle Units Total Supplemental Patrol Hours Cupertino Per Hours Total Hourly Cost Supplemental Motor Unit $21,690 6,393 $3.39 A -22 $76.21 $77.36 $77.36 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 PARK PATROL /PRISONER TRANSPORTATION HOURLY 1. Salaries (See Note 1) $4.29 2. Patrol Car (Page A -10) 4.53 3. Reserve Section Overhead (Below) 7.56 4. Pers. & Training Overhead (Page A -13 to A -14) 2.66 5. Fiscal Division Overhead (Page A -15 to A -16) 0.79 6. Records Section Overhead (Page A -17 to A -19) 3.71 $23.54 Note 1: Reserve deputy sheriffs receive $2.00 an hour for each ten (10) hour shift worked. All reserve units are two persons. Workers' Compensation benefits is provided to reserves at a rate of. 7.1400% RESERVE SECTION OVERHEAD SALARIES AND BENEFITS NO. OF COST PER POSITIONS POSITION TOTAL Lieutenant 0.10 $100,589 $10,059 Sergeant 1.00 $86,279 $86,279 Deputy Sheriff 1.00 $73,829 $73,829 Advanced Clerk Typist 1.00 $42,581 $42,581 $212,748 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $19,891 Total Salaries , Services and Supplies $232,639 OVERHEAD COST PER RESERVE HOUR Estimated Annual Reserve Hours for FY 1990 -91 1994 -95 30,773 $7.56 A -23 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DETECTIVE COSTS FOR 1994 -95' 1. Salaries and Benefits (Page A -25) $48.67 2. Detective Car (Page A -25) 3. Detective Section Overhead (Page A -28) $5.97 $8.02 4. Personnel and Training Division Overhead ( Page A -29) $2.79 5. Fiscal Division Overhead ( Page A -30) Hourly Rate for Detective Services A -24 $0.92 $66.37 DETECTIVE COSTS FOR 1994 -95 SALARIES AND BENEFITS A -25 ANNUAL COST 1. Average Salary ( Page A -25) $58,719 2. Court Overtime - Hours per Year 1.79 75 3. Workers' Compensation -Items 1 -2 7.1400% 4,198 4. Retirement - Item 1 21.7990% 12,800 5. Health Insurance 6,304 6,304 6. Unemployment Insurance - Item 1 -2 0.1700% 100 7. Uniform Allowance 700 700 8. Medicare Tax 1.4500% 0 Annual Salaries and Benefits $82,896 Hourly Cost (Ann Sal.& Ben./hours p /yr, P.A -4) 1703.30 48.67 DETECTIVE CAR 1993 -94 TOTAL WESTSIDE AVERAGE MILES GSA RATE HOURLY UNITS PER HOUR PER MILE COSTS Detective Cars 8.9 0.6742 $5.97 A -25 Biweekly Salary - Average ( Divided by hours per pay period Hourly Rate Overtime Rate Factor Overtime Hourly Rate $58,719 / 26.1) A -26 $2,250 hours 80 $28.13 1.5 $42.20 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE COSTS FOR 1994 -95 AVERAGE SALARIES No. of Cost Per Total Positions Positions Position Costs Sergeant 14 61,396 859,544 Deputy Sheriff 12 55,635 676,179 Total 26 1,535,723 Average Salar ( 1,535,723 / 26 ) 58,719 OVERTIME RATE - AVERAGE Biweekly Salary - Average ( Divided by hours per pay period Hourly Rate Overtime Rate Factor Overtime Hourly Rate $58,719 / 26.1) A -26 $2,250 hours 80 $28.13 1.5 $42.20 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ACTUAL ESTIMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1994 -95 1994 -95 DETECTIVE OVERHEAD COSTS 31,639 31,639 12,977 INDEX CODE 3903 9,715 3,035 862 No. of Cost Per Total Positions Positions Position Costs I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS: 5,477 5,477 5,572 Captain 1 0 0 Lieutenant 1 100,589 100,589 Advance Clerk Typist 2 42,581 85,162 Law Enforcement Records Tech 0 48,471 0 Storekeeper 1 42,055 42,055 Total Salaries and Benefits 5 3,780 227,806 II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: Medical Exams of Victims Premium Pay Prof. & Spec. Services Transportation and Travel Maintenance of Equipment Rents and leases - Equipment Office Expenses Small Tools and Equipment Education Expenses Membership Dues Printing Telephone & Communications Books and Laboratory Services and Supplies Operating expenses PC Hardware & Software Total Services and Supplies ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATED 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 17,111 31,639 31,639 12,977 9,715 9,715 3,035 862 862 1,937 47 47 974 3,463 3,463 3,037 5,477 5,477 5,572 5,933 5,933 6,017 2,936 2,936 3,459 4,860 4,860 159 99 99 496 728 728 17,923 15,862 15,862 7,136 1,088 1,088 7,386 3,780 3,780 6,557 6,159 6,159 2,567 13,237 13,237 96,343 105,885 105,885 III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES - DETECTIVE A -27 333,691 IV. PERSONNEL AND TRAINING OVERHEAD COSTS: Personnel and Training Costs Per Code Number of Administrative Codes Total Personnel and Training Costs to be Allocated V. TOTAL PATROL DIVISION OVERHEAD TO BE ALLOCATED ALLOCATION OF DETECTIVE SECTION OVERHEAD Amount Chargeable Number of Detective Deputy Sheriffs Cost Per Detective Deputy Sheriff Per Year Number of Hours Per Year Overhead Cost Per Hour - Detective Deputy Sheriff A -28 $4,732 5 $23,660 $357,351 $357,351 26 $13,663 1,703.30 $ 8.02 DETECTIVE COSTS FOR PERSONNEL AND TRAINING OVERHEAD 1994 -95 ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING OVERHEAD Amount Chargeable (See Page A -13 and A -14) Number of Authorized Codes Personnel & Training Costs Per Code $2,522,421 531 $4,750 Divided by Number of Hours Worked Per Year (Page A -5) 1,703.30 Overhead Costs Per Hour - Personnel & Training A -29 $2.79 DETECTIVE COSTS FOR 1994 -95 FISCAL DIVISION OVERHEAD INDEX CODE 3901 ALLOCATION OF FISCAL DIVISION OVERHEAD See Page A -15 to A -16 Total Annual Sheriff Budget FY 93 -94 Less Fiscal Division's Annual Budget FY 93 -94 Net Sheriffs Department Annual Budget Detective Annual Budget FY 93 -94 Percentage Allocated to Detectives Amount Chargeable (See Page A -15) Annual Costs chargeable to Detective Number of Detectives Fiscal Administrative Costs per Detective Divided by Number of Hours Worked Per Year (Page A -5) Overhead Costs per Detective Hour A -30 44,991,464 703,440 44,288,024 3,605,976 8.14% 505,183 41,133 26 1,573 1,703.30 0.92 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS OF THE WESTSIDE SUBSTATION (PER SECTION X OF CONTRACT) Monthly Costs ($74,160 Annually) $6,180.00 Costs will be allocated on actual billable hours each month (a -d /e) based on COPANA reports. Format for calculation is as follows: Actual * Billiable Weighted Net Contract Cities Hours Percentage Costs Cupertino (a) x,xxx.x .xxxx 6,180.00 Actual Chargeable x,xxx.xx Los Altos Hills (b) x,xxx.x xxxx 6,180.00 x,xxx.xx Monte Sereno (c) x,xxx.x xxxx 6,180.00 x,xxx.xx Saratoga (d) x,xxx.x xxxx 6,180.00 x,xxx.xx Unincorporated (e) x,xxx.x xxxx 6,180.00 x,xxx.xx Total (f) x,xxx.x 1.0000 $6,180.00 * Includes Supplemental Hours 0 =II COSTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS 1993 -1994 AND 1994 -1995 LOS ALTOS MONTE UNINCORP. RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SERENO SARATOGA CITIES GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FY 93 -94: Actual Hours - Activity . 19,517.6 2,663.1 1,023.5 10,517.9 6,786.7 Actual Hours - Patrol 8,3423 3,254.7 188.6 7,318.6 6,188.7 900 Codes (10% of Above Hours) 2,786.0 591.8 121.2 1,783.7 1,297.5 Total Hours 30,645.9 6,509.6 1,333.3 19,620.2 14,2729 Proj Costs FY 93 -94 ® 6,03% 565.22 1,998,726 424,556 86,958 1,279,629 930,879 Proj Costs FY94 -95® $69.15 2,119,164 450,139 92,198 1,356,737 986,971 Difference 120,438 25,583 5,240 77,108 56,092 SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL -DAYS: Actual Hours 4,614.7 11.9 681.5 1,896.5 0.0 Proj Casts FY 93 -94 ® $64.01 762 43,623 121,395 0 Cnpertirto @ / 3� 0J J $6253 288,557 Proj Costs FY 94-95 ® !D , �0 $68.07 810 46,390 129,095 0 Cupertino ® 566.93 308,862 Difference 20,305 48 2,767 7,700 0 SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL - NIGHTS: Actual Hours 1,246.9 28 748.7 47.1 0.0 Act Costs FY 93-94 ® $65.49 179 47,924 3,085 0 Cupertino ® / / 1 C4 L $64.01 79,814 Proj Costa FY 94-95 ® $69.55 195 52,072 3,276 0 Cupertino ® $68.41 85,300 Difference 5,486 16 4,148 191 0 INVESTIGATIVE HOURS: Actual Hours 6,879.3 640.0 130.3 2,175.7 Detective Investigation: Average of last 6 ys(Cup.& Sar.) 6,183.7 306.8 1,808.8 0.0 Prof Costs FY 93 -94 ® Q-j L� $64.98 401,817 19,936 8,467 117,536 0 , Proj Costs FY 94 -95 ® 566.37 410,412 20,362 8,648 120,050 0 Differerice 8,595 426 181 2,514 0 A- 32 Lj 7(y Y, . COSTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS 1993 -1994 AND 1994 -1995 LAS ALTOS MONTE UNINCORP. CUPERTINO HILLS SERENO SARATOGA CITIES TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION: Estimated Hours 93 -94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (mctuded in Ombead) Proj Costs FY 93 -94 ® g,710% $58.42 0 0 0 0 0 Proj Costs FY 94-95 ® $63.54 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 p 0 0 RESERVES ACTIVITY HOURS: Actual Hours 1,203.3 24.5 11.5 504.1 200.0 $23.12 Proj Costs FY 93 -94 ® p 13,910 283 133 5,827 2,312 Proj Casts FY 9495 ® d Z "- 573.54 28,326 577 271 11,867 4,708 Difference 14,416 294 138 6,040 2,396 OPERATING COSTS OF WESTSIDE SUBSTATION: (See Note) FY 9495 Costs on FY 94-95 Hrs. 36,508 6,524 2,764 21,564 14,273 44.7221% 7.9919% 3.3859% 26.4158% 17.4844% Percentage Proj Costs FY 93 -94 ® $74,160 33,166 5,927 2,511 19,590 12,966 Proj Costs FY 9495 33,166 5,927 2,511 19,590 12,966 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL COSTS Proj Costa FY 93 -94 ® 2,815,990 450,702 189,616 1,547,062 946,157 Proj Costa FY 9495 2,985,230 477,005 202,090 1,640,615 1,004,645 Difference 169,240 26,303 12,474 93,553 58,488 Percent Increase 6.01% 5.84% 6.58% 6.05% 6.18% Note : Costs for operating the Westside Substation varies each month dependent upon General Law Enforcement hours and Supplemental Hours. A -33 COSTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS 1993 -1994 AND 1994 -1995 LOS ALTOS MONTE UNINCORP. CUPERTINO HILLS SERENO SARATOGA CITIES DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 450,702 Act Costs FY 93 -94 @ $62.47 (contracted hours Cw.3487) 3,219,552 Proj Costs FY 9495 ® $66.93 (actual hour: Cupertino= 3,501 Saratop 0 Increase 187,099 SCHOOLS RESOURCES OFFICER Act Costs FY 93-94 ® d p7 558.36 Proj Costs FY 94 b d 95 ® d (� $63.54 Increase ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CAR Hours Proj. Costs Fy 94-95 $69.15 TOTAL SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS Prof Costs FY 93-94 Proj Costs FY 9495 Diffc=ce Percent Increase COMMUNICATIONS COSTS Prof Costs FY 93 -94 Prof Costs FY 9495 218,707 234,322 15,615 0 0 0 0 84,038 91,498 0 0 0 7,460 0 1,245 86,086 3,034,697 450,702 189,616 1,631,100 946,157 3,219,552 477,005 202,090 1,818,199 1,004,645 184,855 26,303 12,474 187,099 58,488 6.091% 5.836% 6.579% 11.471% 6.182% 517,800 59,000 28,000 229,000 0 517,100 58,600 27,600 229,000 0 Difference (700) (400) (400) 0 0 Perccnt Increase -0.135% -0.678% - 1.429% 0.000% 0.000% BOOKING FEES Proj Costs FY 93-94 117,040 1,672 1,672 18,544 0 Proj Cost FY 9495 150,500 860 1,720 24,940 0 Diffcrcncc 33,460 (812) 48 6,396 0 Pemmtlncrcasc 28.589% - 48.565% 2.871% 34.491% 0.000% A -34- COSTS COMPARISON BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS 1993 -1994 AND 1994 -1995 LOS ALTOS MONTE UNINCORP. CUPERTTNO HILLS SERENO SARATOGA CITIES TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS Composition of Total Casts: LES Communic. Booking Proj Costs FY 93 -94 3,669,537 511,374 219,288 1,878,644 946,157 Proj Costs FY 94-95 3,887,152 536,465 231,410 2,072,139 1,004,645 Los Altos Difference 217,615 25,091 12,122 193,495 58,488 138,928 (914 bookings ®5152) Percent increase 5.930% 4.907% 5.528% 10.300% 6.182% 229,000 TOTAL COSTS COMPARISON M.Screno 202,090 27,600 1,720 (8 bookings ®5215) Los Altos 477,005 CONTRACT UNINCORP 5,717,117 832,300 178,020 (828 bookings ®5215) (371TES AREA Jan.- Mar.94 Quarter when the new law applied. PROJECTED COSTS FY 93 -94 6,278,843 946,157 PROJECTED COSTS FY 94-95 6,727,166 1,004,645 NET INCREASE 448,323 58,488 PERCENT INCREASE 7.140% 6.182% COMPOSITION OF COSTS TO CONTRACT CITIES Composition of Total Casts: LES Communic. Booking FY 93-94: 56,250,015 Cupertino 3,072,132 517,800 117,040 (770 bookings ®S152) Saratoga 1,600,073 229,000 18,544 (122 bookings @$152) M.Sereno 164,239 28,000 1,672 (11 bookings ®$152) Los Altos 440,843 59,000 1,672 (11 bookings ®5152) 5,277,287 833,800 138,928 (914 bookings ®5152) FY 94-95: $6,730,972 Cupertino 3,219,552 517,100 150,500 (700 bookings ®5215) Saratoga 1,818,470 229,000 24,940 (116 bookings ®5215) M.Screno 202,090 27,600 1,720 (8 bookings ®5215) Los Altos 477,005 58,600 860 (4 bookings @S215) 5,717,117 832,300 178,020 (828 bookings ®5215) Estimate number of bookings for 94 -95 is 4 times the number in Jan.- Mar.94 Quarter when the new law applied. A -35 SUMMARY OF THE COUNTY'S BOOKING FEE PROPOSAL Attached is Exhibit A, a proposed agreement between the cities of Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara County regarding booking fees. The term of the agreement is three years, FY94 -95 through FY96 -97. Payment is due each January 1st. Retroactivity (from January 1, 1994) conceptually agreed to during FY94 will be waived to cities and the new flat fee will be effective for FY94 -95 (which began 7/1/94). A flat fee payment by each jurisdiction would be set to capture $4.5 million to reimburse the county for booking costs. The flat fee is based.upon 32,500 total billable bookings FY 93 -94. Exhibit B identifies the charge to each jurisdiction based upon their total billable booking FY 93 -94. Exhibit C is a breakdown booking fee reductions. Classification, mental health fees are mitigated to our satisfaction. Pro -rated reduction at Elmwood Facility is also to our satisfaction. The only line item we were unable to successfully mitigate was in OR (own recognizance) fees. Exhibit D is the original FY .93 -94 summary of booking costs which was attached to the original advisement letter from the county in February 1994. Exhibit E is the FY94 -95 Summary of booking costs provided by the county using the same formula, but removing North-County Facility charges and reducing Mental Health charges. The new proposal from the County is based on a completely different formula for the next three years. Total billable bookings FY 93 -94 (32,500) X $138.46 per booking= 4.5 million revenues. During the term of this agreement, for every percentage reduction in number of bookings by cities from the base year FY 93 -94 measured on June 30, 1994, the County will reduce the 4.5 million in base year billable booking charges by a like percentage, up to a maximum of 15% for the succeeding three years. If the contrary occurs, the percentage increase from FY93 -94 base year would be added to the 4.5 million. The booking charge will be adjusted by the annual inflation factor, not to exceed 4% per year. The inflation factor will be calculated on the base charge after it has been adjusted for the reduction in the number of bookings. Nothing in the agreement precluded the adoption of alternative booking fees that reflect future changes in the booking process due to technological improvements, procedural changes or changes in the law. The advantages to this proposal are the following: Santa Clara County cities will have a financial incentive to reduce bookings. The County will have a financial incentive to improve t h e efficiency of their booking and jail operations. Both the County and cities will have an added sense of certainty in their budgeting process. The County and.cities willnot have to annually spend staff time calculating, analyzing, defending, or debating booking fees for at least three years. The disadvantages to this proposal: County could effect Elmwood closure within the first year at increased savings over what they have pro -rated for us. Based on this proposal the reduction in County revenues from FY 92- 93 is $1,785.921. The reduction in County revenues from FY93 -94 is $1,133.656. The reduction in projected County revenues FY94 -95 is 2,309.000. Summary of Booking Fee Negotiations In February 1994, the County advised us that they were recommending to the Board of Supervisors an increase in the booking fees from $152 to $187. This mid -year adjustment was due to statute revisions, which became effective January 1, 1994. These revisions narrowed the definition of billable bookings and excluded various arrest categories such as bench warrants. The county projected this change in legislation would cause a $740,656.00 revenue loss for the second half of FY94. In order to make up for this loss of projected revenue, the county recommended the inclusion of a classification fee, for the very first time in the booking fee calculation. The $187 fee for the last six months of FY94 was projected to yield the originally estimated booking fee revenue of $6,747.000. The County calculated the . new classification fee (somewhat artificially) to make up exactly the amount that was necessary to meet the $6,747.000 revenue estimation.. On February 18,1994, City of Milpitas Finance Director, Larry Sabo arranged a meeting with the County to discuss their intention of increasing the booking fees. Representatives from a number of city finance and police departments were in attendance. At that meeting we learned from Gary Graves, County Budget Director, the county had been overcharging cities for the first six months of FY93 -94 and the $152 fee should have been $149. He advised the County would credit cities for overpayment. The proposed $187 fee would now be changed to $184. However, we also learned that the County might increase the fees to as much as $215 in September, 1994 for the 1994 -95 fiscal year. As a result of that meeting we (the city representatives) took on a number of assignments which included an audit of current booking fee charges for compliance with SB2557 and AB2286, operational issues and costs associated with the jail, the impact on booking fees following San Jose's plan to reduce their bookings and alternatives to the current situation, eg. closing North County Jail, city or private booking facilities. Additionally, an effort to sponsor new legislation to cap fees was pursued. We met again on March 11, 1994 and this meeting resulted in the county agreeing to recommend the booking fee stay at $149 for the period January 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994. This recommendation was based on the commitment that any future fee adjustments developed from the booking process analysis currently being pursued by county and city staff be made retroactive to January 1, 1994. The County agreed to hire a consultant to perform a comparative analysis on bookings fees throughout the State. The County hired the Harvey Rose accounting firm to perform this analysis while San Jose City Auditor, Jerry Silva, offered to assist in the collection of data. For the most part, Mr. Silva and his staff did the majority of work on this study. Independent of the Harvey Rose study, the representatives, now reduced to a smaller working group sought to find a way to change the yo -yo effect of the County's formula in which decreased bookings brought about higher booking fees. Since this was the first time that any city was afforded the opportunity to provide input into the booking fee process, the group focused on the possibility of changing the formula. Additionally, both sides, the county and the cities needed to focus their efforts collaboratively on reducing these costs. For cities, aggressive cite and release policies needed to be fully implemented and alternative alcohol centers needed to be researched and evaluated. For the county, they needed to reduce their costs, streamline the booking process and evaluate the merits of a single booking center for both male and female. While the Harvey Rose study was being completed, a number of issues relating to booking fees came to surface. In May of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal from the county to replace psychiatric nurses and technicians in the jail's mental health program with lower paid clinical nurses. This was immediately brought to Mr. Graves attention. The argument was made that if the county could reduce the jail's internal mental health staff with lower paid personnel, they could surely do the same with the mental health staff in the booking process. Cities were currently being charged $220,701 or $6.28 per booking for mental health services. This argument was well taken as the cost dropped to $17,208 or $0.47 per booking in the final booking fee calculation. In June of 1994, the Department of Corrections recommended that North County Jail be reduced from a seven day a week, twenty -four hours a day operation to a ten hour a day, Monday- Friday operation. The North County cities affected by this proposal (Mountain View, Palo Alto and Los Altos) at first rejected this proposal, however with the support of Supervisor Diane McKenna, North County Cities made a counter - proposal which recommended the complete closure of booking operations at North County and requested all savings from that closure be passed on to cities in the form of reduced booking fees. The Board of Supervisors accepted this counter proposal which resulted in a $14.58 reduction in the booking fees. This reduction was not immediately passed on to cities as negotiations to review the entire booking fee issue were in progress. During this period of time, the California Police Chief's Association began working with Assemblyman Kurt Pringle to draft clean up legislation on the booking fee statue. In October of 1994, the Harvey Rose Study was completed. To summarize, the analysis showed that Santa Clara County had the lowest booking cost ($107) in the eleven most populous counties in FY90 -91 and the highest booking cost ($191) FY 93 -94. This increase was due to the fact that the county was proposing to charge $36.51 per booking for the classification function which was seven times more than what other counties our size was charging. Additionally, the county was using the All Inclusive Method which includes the cost of extraordinary bookings to capture booking fees rather than the Specific Method which relies on the time expended for the average or ideal booking. The study also stated that the cost effectiveness of the Department of Correction booking function could be increased by establishing a central prisoner intake facility. We definitely agree with this point. Jerry Silva responded to some points in the study making some very viable arguments and the consultant firm responded as well. We resumed our negotiations with county again looking at areas in the booking fee which we felt could be mitigated. This included the classification fee, the OR (own recognizance) fee, and central booking at Main Jail for all. We had already been successful in mitigating the mental health fee and North County was closed for booking prisoners. The county proposed that we look at the possibility of freezing the number of bookings at FY 93 -94 level for a defined period of time to act as an incentive for cities to reduce bookings while the county pursued the closure of Elmwood booking facility and centralized all bookings at Main jail. We all felt there was possibility in this proposal. In our December meeting the county proposed to set the booking fee for three years at a flat rate based on each city's FY93 -94 actual booking count. This flat fee would afford the County time to look at a centralized booking facility and produce a more efficient booking process. It also provided some cities the time to adopt and implement aggressive cite and release polices and look at alternative booking center for alcohol offenses. The County originally proposed a base line budget of 4.9 million per year in revenues from cities based on the total billable bookings of 36,010 for the FY 93 -94. This calculation was in error, as the county had included the first six months of bench warrants in their total billable bookings for FY93 -94. We argued that bench warrants were no longer legally billable to cities and therefore should not be included in any future calculations. The County agreed and reset the base line revenues to 4.5 million dollars per year based on 32,500 total billable bookings. In addition, the County provided us with an itemized list of booking fee reductions (see attached) which were consistent with those areas we felt could be mitigated. The classification and mental health fees were reduced as well as giving cities credit for a pro -rated share of savings from the intended closure of the Elmwood Booking facility. The only issue we were not successful in mitigating was the Own Recognizance (OR) fee. We considered this to be a concession on our behalf based upon the other reductions we were able to successfully mitigate. Based on this new proposed formula, the county would capture 4.5 millions dollars in revenue each year for the next three years. Cities would be charged a flat fixed rate based on their FY93 -94 bookings which averaged out to $138 per booking. The incentive for both sides to reduce overall bookings and tie those reductions to a lower booking fee appears to be a viable and acceptable solution. SUMMARY OF BOOKING FEES AND BOOKING STATISTICS BOOKING FEE AMOUNTS Since its implementation in FY90 -91, the county booking fee has increased annually. One reason for the increase is the steady rise in county fringe benefit rates. Another reason is the shrinking pretrial database. With fewer bookings to spread the cost over, the higher the per booking fee. FY90 -91 $107 FY91 -92 $127 FY92 -93 $141 FY93 -94 $151 %change 19% increase 11% increase 8% increase 1/1/94- $187 23% increase 7/1/94 Proposed adjustment mid -year to offset projected loss of revenue with change in law on bench warrants. County took out bench warrants and put in classification fee. FY94 -95 $215 15% increase Proposed fee with all classification costs included. BOOKING STATISTICS Since its implementation, the pretrial booking statistics have decreased annually. One reason for the decrease is the change in the cite and release policies being made by some of our local law enforcement agencies. billable pretrial bookings change ------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Cal 89 57,202 FY90 -91 49,708 -15% FY91 -92 46,024 - 8% FY92 -93 44,377 - 4% FY93 -94 36,010 -23% (this number includes the first six months of bench warrants as the law did not change until 1/1/94. Without bench warrants included for the first six months the total billable bookings FY 93 -94 dropped to 32,500. f SUMMARY OF BOOKING FEES AND BOOKING STATISTICS BOOKING FEE AMOUNTS Since its implementation in FY90 -91, the county booking fee has increased annually. One reason for the increase is the steady rise in county fringe benefit rates. Another reason is the shrinking pretrial database. With fewer bookings to spread the cost over, the higher the per booking fee. FY90 -91 $107 FY91 -92 $127 FY92 -93 $141 FY93 -94 $151 %change 19% increase 11% increase 8% increase 1/1/94- $187 23% increase 7/1/94 Proposed adjustment mid -year to offset projected loss of revenue with change in law on bench warrants. County took out bench warrants and put in classification fee. FY94 -95 $215 15% increase Proposed fee with all classification costs included. BOOKING STATISTICS Since its implementation, the pretrial booking statistics have decreased annually. One reason for the decrease is the change in the cite and release policies being made by some of our local law enforcement agencies. billable pretrial bookings change ------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Cal 89 57,202 FY90 -91 49,708 -15% FY91 -92 46,024 - 8% FY92 -93 44,377 - 4% FY93 -94 36,010 -23% (this number includes the first six months of bench warrants as the law did not change until 1/1/94. Without bench warrants included for the first six months the total billable bookings FY 93 -94 dropped to 32,500. EXHIBIT A` AGRF.SMnNT BVMEN ME CITIES OF &AtYTA CIJM COUNTY AND SANTA CI.ARA COUNTY RZGARDING 500RING FEES RAVXSED DECFOMBN 5, 1994 I. A flat fare booking payment for each billable jurisdiction in the County to be in effeCt from FY 1995 . (July 1; 1994) through FY 1997 (June 30, 1997). 2_ In order to sixupl,ify the process Lhe issue of retroactivity conceptually agreed to during FY 1994 will be waived and the new process will be effective July - >1, 1994 as described above. 3. The flat fee payment from each jurisdiction would be set to Capture $4.5 million to reimburse boo)cing costs in the - Department of Correction and other supporting agencies in each of the above mentioned three years. Exhibit B ideatifies the charge that would be allocated to each , Juriediction on an annual basics. 4. The payment would be due on January 1 of each of the three fiscal years identified (FY 1995, FY 1995 dnd VY 1997) . -- 5. For every percentage reduction in the number of bookings by cities from the base year FT 1993/1994 measured on June 30, 1997, the County will reduce the S4r500,00v in base year billable - booking charges by alike percentage, ; un to a maximum of 15* for the succeeding three years: TRe base year number of bookings is set at 32,508_ rf the contrary occurs, the percentage increase from the FY 1,993/1994 base year would be added to the:S4,500,000. 6. The booking charge will be adjusted by at annual inflation factor fused on the San FrasnC sco /Oakland consumer Price Inde2 or increases in octual county personnel costs whichever is lower and will not exceed 4% per year (a maximum of 12% over the life of the agreement). The inflation factor will be calculated oa the base charge -after it -hag been adjusted for the reduction in the number of book:insgs as described above. 7. The recalculated base year billable booking charges will be the basis for the County booking fees for fiscal year* 1998 through 2000 (July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000) 8. Nothing in this agrec=ent from the effective date of July 1, 1994 recludes the adoption of alternative booking tees that ref ect futurd changes in the booking process due to technological i.mnrovements, procedural changes or changes In law. r • , BOOKING SUMMARY BY JURISDIC-flON MilPAT9 FY 1993 FY 1444 f Y 1995 1 y 1995 PROPOSED YMSaICnON ACWAI_ ACTUAL HUDGt`T CALCULATION SCENARIO Campbell 5!52,985 5!19.624 $144,581 $140356 $95,553 cuptrolao 5135,7&4 $17-4,576 5144,358 $144,992 $A708 clerp7 '530.793 $79,192 $95,114 592.916 563.256 Los Altos 562,.422 W.208 553AO S54,216 SM.9(N Los Alcoa H1ls $3.948 $2,736. $3.307 $3.210 $1.185 L,,os C=(Cs $107,442 $109,744 513 $178.763 587.660 M U35 $260.850 $?52,169 $304.778 5295.570 ..:5201,424 Monte Sereao $2,256 S1.SlA 51,837 $1.783 $1,214 Mocpu Hal $29.469. $33.366 SSW w S39,LS1 57-6300 MouaWa view $256.056 $"9304 $257,471 $7-45.518 5167.186 Palo Aho S272,976 W6.M 5197.429 $2",T36. • 51961568 Sin iosc K142"s 533,74T,712 $029" W97 ,211 $x.993,703 Szabo pats 5437,100 $37!.!84 5448.670 S445.512 ' ` fL96„491 SAMWp $33A40 $21.432 S25903 525,145 517.119 S=qv*k $278,757 5249280 SV 1,287 5'29Z.482 i199.117 O1hn ($drools) $28,764 S20 368 524,617 SC3)898 '' 516 69 • San lose Airport sw $ 152 S184 S 17E• ' S 138 Total City ;6,285,921 SS,633,656 56,8091000 $6,610.000 $ oo m *Actual Collections for Attachments 13 and C Vary Due to Adiustrneuts Based as City Input 'WMYAxJ3Vt�t V�' r�Vic'iJ,CU tflR!!�.[ivti rc,a WITH CALCULATION BASED ON THE EX19C'ING CALCULATION EXHIBIT: C LAYRRE23T PROPOSED COMPONENT COMPONENT �bMPOi�IFSI'r .- .,--- z- :- •�__ -�— -- ��L.,�- DtIFF.RET1(�, �. --�-� Mains Booking Farah $62.78 562.78 50.00 CorrcctiftW Comer for Woalrn $33.33 $13.03 $2018 Adu snMmdve Booking Activity $1.46 $1.46 $OAO tiba s. ;zoo $uno $20.40 Deptmscnt Ovorkead 512.71 S 12.71 SO 00 Cori rf� Ovccad 38.63 3843 $0. MCCHW St*d $14.07 $14.07 $0.00 52.31 S2.3I SQAO Meabl HeaMSuff S0.40 S0,a0 $000 , Ow dread So.o7 $OD7 $0.00 Own Rbco Staff $9.43 $9.43 $0.00 overbod rn $153 r - IWAL $179.14 $138.46 $40.63 COUNTY Uf SAN I'A CLARA 600 KING F=[::CS FOR FY 94 EXHIBIT- D GY93 -94 SUMMARY OF BOOKING COSTS – INCLUDING CLASSIFICATION. WITHOUT CAPITAL COSTS ' SCC FACILITY DESCRIPTION SUPERVISORY OFFICERS CORRECTION OFFICERS CUSTODY SUPP ASSIST MAIN JAIL. CCW 3ii0,107 433.915 2,4:31,183 1,074.235 563,917 204,518 TOTAL S BASE: T 3,3TS,207 ADMIN 8001QNG ACTIVITY ($3.53 per hatred Prisoner estimated 25.134 --CLASSIFICATION -- -- Risk Assessment(Intake effort OngaingfRa –Eval Process ClassXc atton Subtotal DEPARTMENT OVERHEAD 7.59% x Obj mt I COUNTY OVERHEAD (without CAPITAIJ 6.97% xObject 1 3TAL OEPAFTTME NTOF CORRECTION COST: ADO MEDICAL STAFF NURSE s 481,216 OVEAHE-4D TOTAL MMCAL ADD MENTAL. HEALTH STAFF NURSE 325,E OVEFOJE AD TOTAL MENTAL HEALTH ADD OWN FtEOOGNI2ANCE STAFF. PRE -TRIAL Ras SPED a 377'.072 OVERHEAD TOTAL OWN RECOGNIZANCF. 1.7 f 2748 296.639 C 152.207 N. COUNTY 207.522 537.117 0 744,639 0 I 16.324 TOTAL ESTIMAUD (3001QNG COSTS FOCI FY 1993 -94 (INCLUDING CiASSRC.AMON) `�` eoOKLivG sT "AnsiTCS suMi�saAY�' `` �� (Estimates Based On FY 93 Actuals Per CJIC Database) TOTAL $1.021.624 4.042,535 766.435 5,632.594 89,717 2.197.129 0 2.197.129 �t6.190 726,224. 9.462,854 777.855 128,813 906,668 325.x02 53,670 379,172 545,603 90,352 635,955 S11,364,848 COST PER BOOt(ING $16.93 67.01 12.74 96.68 1.47 36.42 36.42 10.21 12.07 156.85 12.89 214 15.03 5.39 0.69 b.zs 9.04 1.50 10.54 5189 MISOF.MEAN FELONY TOTAL . PercenUge TOTAL130019NGS 39.215 ~ -_ - -_ 21.116 Billable _._ 60.331 SUABLE BOOIQNGS . �•� 35.0% 59.8916 36.010 PERCENT HOUSED (estimate) 19.0% 90.0% [�R2— TOTAL HOUSED _ 7.451 19,00.4 enue FY 94 S6,e0S.890 COST PER BOOt(ING $16.93 67.01 12.74 96.68 1.47 36.42 36.42 10.21 12.07 156.85 12.89 214 15.03 5.39 0.69 b.zs 9.04 1.50 10.54 5189 e EXHIBIT- — 81LLABf EBOOKINGS JAN. 'ys, EKG L. NO. CNp; 1NCL CLASSIFIC, INCL RF-ORQ MNTL HLTH /BOOKCNRI'ty" FY94.95 SUMMARY OF BOOKING COSTS - REFLECTING JAN.'94 CHANGES TO STATIiTES BY SCC FACILITY DESCRIPTION MAIN JAIL. CCyy N. COUNTY TOTAL BILLABLE INDIV SUPERVISORY OFFICERS 416.826.00 509,126.00 (TOTALx %) COSTS SUMMAF CORRECTION OFFICERS 2.594.320.00 0-00 5925,852.00 $603,311 $16.34 CUSTODYSUPPASSI5T 1,181,746.00 0.00 $3.776.066.00 $2,460,923 566.63 547,24x,00 197,899.00 0.00 $74S,142.00 5485,603 513.15 TOTAL S BASE: S. s'..8.3asi.00 1,888.171.00 - __ �..___ 0.00 $5,447,160.00 a- ADMIN BOOKING ACTIVITY 53.549 ,136 (96.11 ($3.34 Pox' hdUSed P63- WC3limaled 24,808) Sa2t159.00 553,887 51.46 —CLASSIFICATION --- Risk AssewmentlIntake atlon Ongohv Evaluation 51,836,150.00 57,198.3$7 532.40 b. Class7fieafion Subtotal $0.00 SO $0.00 DEPARTMENT OVERHEAD S1.836,1ti0.00 51.196.357 $32.40 c 9.76% x Objoct 1 COUNTY OVERHEAD (without CAPITAL) 5720,411.33 5499,389 $12,71 d. 6.64% x Objacl 1 SUBTOTAL (a+b.c+d) ........ 5489,113.62 5318,685 58,63 _• ................ _ ADD ....-.. .._---.__._......_............. _._ .. 58,575,693.85 55.587.554 5151.31 $151.31 e. MEDICAL STAFF: NURSE 493,220.00 OVERHEAD 304,292.o0 0.00 :797,51200 5519,625 L ADO $130.951.47 585.322 514.07 5231 MENTAL HEALTH STAFF: RS %W8.463.47 s804,9a7 $16 38 5167.70 OV 22.686 00 0 00 0.00 522.886.00 $14,781 0.40 $ $0.07 g- ADO 13.725.04 52,427 OWN RECOGNIZANCE sw-F. PRE -TRIAL RELS SPEC It - 528.411.04 $17208 SO.a7 Sts6 16 ;181,247,00 OVERHEAD 153,1JO,0p 0.00 $534,377.00 587,744.70 $348,177 $57,171 53.43 $1.55 TOTAL (subtotal . a F f 4 9) ..................... 5522.121.70 5405.348 510.es $179.14 ....... ....... _.._ 1 510, _._......_..„.._.,_.._., 62.690.76 $6,615,057.60 BOOKING STATISTIC SUMMARY (Estmatea Based On FY93 -04 Artuels: CJIC database) % BILLABLE: 85.1676 ` —LESS BENCH WARRANTS -- BILLABLE BOOKINGS TOTAL MISD6WIEAN FELONY 36.971, 65.00% 35.00% TOTAL BOOKINGS 50,675 36,839 PERCENT HOUSED (estima(e) t � 836 TOTAL HOUSED 19.0076 CLOM _ 6.998 1 10-Nov-94