Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1988 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. l).- MEETING DATE: 3 -16 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. AGENDA ITEM 4 !' CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: APPROVE AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE SARATOGA AVENUE UNDER USE PERMIT FOR CYPRESS PROPERTIES, INC. (Property in City of San Jose) Saratoga Avenue Recommended Motion: Approve agreement to improve Sararoga Avenue under use permit for Cypress Properties, Inc. Report Summary: Cypress Properties, Inc. is building a shopping center along Saratoga Avenue; major portion of property is in San Jose but developer has used 0.25 acre of land for parking which is in the City of Saratoga. Developer to modify and landscape existing median along Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive including a left turn lane. Landscaping in the median is designed per master plan and approved by Park Commission. City of Saratoga will maintain landscaping. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: 1. Schedule of Fees. 2. Approved Resolution No. UP -87 -001. 3. Location Map. 4. Improvement Agreement. SUMMARY OF FEES AND BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Subject: Shopping Center Along Saratoga Avenue 1. Storm Drain Fees $ 1,148.00 2. Plan Check and Inspection Fees $ 6,860.00 3. Bond 'for Construction $ 62.,000.00 C RESOLUTION NO.UP -87 -001 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval of Cypress properties, to construct a parking lot to serve the adjacent commercial property located at the. NW corner of Saratoga Ave. & Lawrence Expressway, WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his sai.d application, WHEREA The Planning Commission finds: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objecties of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connec- tion with this matter, the application of Cypress Properties, Inc.. for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City o.f Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22 ,day of April, 1987 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harris, Guch,, Tucker, Callans NOES ABSENT: Burger, Siegfried Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: A . I' ► /� Secr o4ry, Planning Commission 2 I_IP- R7 -OIQ 1 MW corner of Saraioga .Ave. & Laurence F,xpre.s.swa,y EXHIBIT A 1. The applicant .shall .sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this Resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. The final development plans (including landscaping plans & sign program) as approved by the City of San Jose shall be submitted to the Saratoga Planning Department f'or review and approval to ensure substantial compliance with those approved by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1987, Major material changes in development plans shall be approved by the Planning G.ommission prior to construction, 3. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall construct a new U- turn lane at Saratoga Ave. and Kosich Dr, as approved by the City Engineer. No other U -turn lane along Saratoga Ave, shall be constructed. 4. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall landscape the median island from Ko ich Dr. to Lawrence Expressway as approved by the City Engineer. S. No use on the site shall be open for business between the hours of 10:00 p.m, and 7 :00 a.m. G. Trash pick: -up and parking lot clean -up shall not occur earlier _ than 7:00 a.m-. 7. All landscaped areas .shall be irrigated and permanently maintained by the property owner. 8. The final building pad elevations shall not exceed the pad elevations of `the homes located along the rear property lines, 9. The applicant /shall provide a total of 108 parking spaces. 10. A use permit from the City of Saratoga shall be required for any proposed restaurant on the site. 3 C � UP-87-001, NW corner of Saratoga Ave. & Lawrence Expressway 11. No -signs shall be permitted along the rear elevations (adjacent'to _ residential) of Buildings 2. Four (4) inch nonilluminated letters are allowed at the rear of building #1. 12. Any violation of these conditions shall constitute grounds for the revocationof the Use Permit per City Code Section 15- 55.110 13. Record use permit with county recorder. 14. The project as approved by the Planning Commission will not be modified altered or expanded or uses changed without prior approval.by the Planning Commission. Applicant shall execute and record an agreement to this effect. The ego egoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signatu e Applicant Qa' e 4 1 � 0 Lo CAT Io N t MAP { L- a y c �pBF 7` l -F Fo ,�, � �'n PP, NCr <f E-Al o k. J q O' 1, s� 4v C O CS O Cv 0 r o b 6 I.D. DUCK14ALL PASCO TI[K.IA c �pBF 7` l -F Fo ,�, � �'n PP, NCr <f E-Al CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF - 5A- 1?A-7-n4A -A-V1t'7 AGREEMENT., made and entered into this day of 19 , by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation of t State of California,, hereinafter called "City ", and G �/�RL -',SC _f oPERTI E� tv subdivider and Owner, herei collectively called Subd-iviger: W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that certain tract of ' land known and designated as PiPO/�ERT situated.in the City of Saratoga, County of Clara, State of California; and WHEREAS, a final -map of vSE &IIA?rrhas been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the Council for its apps which map is hereby referred to and by said reference incorporated herein: WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has requested approval of said final m: prior to the completion of improvements of all streets, highways or public ways and sewer facilities which are a part of or appurtenant to the abover tioned subdivision, including, but without limiting the foregoing, the nec .sary paving, catch basins, pipes, cuc.verts, storm drains, sanitary sewers where required, street trees and street,signs where required, and incluaii water system and fire hydrants acceptable to the San Jose Water Works and - City of Saratoga, all in accordance with and as required by the plans and fications for all of said improvements in or appurtenant to said subdivis which plans and specifications were` prepared by KIER 5 WRIGHT Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer and now o in the'offices of the Clerk of said. City and /or the City Engineer's Offic said City, and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the day of , 19 , adopt a Resolution approving said Final rejecting certain dedicatia s therein offered which rejection did not and does not, however,, revok che-offers of dedication therein contained -and p quiring as a condition precedent to the future acceptance of said offers of r -2- dedication that the Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon shown in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, of the City of Saratoga and in.accord with th,: improvement plan's and specificatiot on file as hereinabove referred to, and requiring as a condition precedent to the release of said final ma.p for recordation that the'subdivider agree in writing -to so improve said streets and easements in accord with this ag: ment, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and in consideration of the City accepting all of•said dedications after the hereinafter agreed to covenants, on the part -of the Owner and Subdivider have.been complied with in accord with Government Code Section 66462(a) of the State of California it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Subdivider at his cost and expense shall construct all of the im- provements and do all of the work hereinafter mentioned, all in accordance with and to the extent and as provided in the above mentioned plans and sp fications on file in the office of said City, for the construction of said. improvements, in, for, or appurter c to said subdivision, and all in com- pliance with Ordinance No. 60 as nded and the laws of the State of Cali nia, and shall complete the same .:_thin one year from date hereof and shal maintain the same for a period of at least one year after the satisfactory completion of the same. 2. Subdivider shall; before the release of said final map by City ar as condition precedent to recordation thereof, furnish to the City and fi: the City Clerk,a good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negot: bonds,, in form. to be approved by the City Attorney,, securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of all work and the construction of all improver herein in this Agreement mention iithin time specified, and securing th faithful performance by Subdiv. .r of the maintenance of said improvement for a period of at.least one •• L: after completion of the same, and for s, additional period of time 6 may be necessary in order that Subdivider ma, cure and correct all deL.ciencies of construction to the satisfaction of t City Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in all events at least $ 6,000.00 -3- 'Six Thousand of said bond to be in cash., with the right of City to use the same in its discretion for emergency maintenance and re - a pairs in addition to any other rights of use') the total amount of said bon( to be in the sum of S. Fifty Six Thousand and 00/100 and also a good and sufficient surety bond in form to be approved by the C_ Attorney securing the payment by subdivider of all bills for labor and ma- terials incurred in the construction of any and all of said improvements, t the doing of all other work herein agreed to be done by the said Subdivide; the amount of said bond to be Sixty Two Thousand and 00 /100 Dollars ($ 62.000.00 ). ✓ 3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify and hold harm the City and in their capacity as such, its councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and its employees, from any and all loss or damage, and from a and all liability for any and all loss or damage, and from any and all sui actions, damages, or claims filed or brought by any and all person or pers because of or resulting from the doing by Subdivider or any and all things quired of Subdivider by this contract, or because of or arising or,resulti from the failure or omissign by Subdivider to do any and all things necess to and required by this contract or,4y law, or arising or resulting from t negligent doing by Subdivider, his agents, employees or subcontractors of and all things required to be done by this contract, or arising or resulti from any dangerous or defective condition arising or resulting from any of above said acts or omissions of subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or. employees. Subdivider having heretofore certified, by the certificate upo the abovementioned subdivision map, that he can convey clear title to the within said subdivision, and City having relied upon said certificate and representation contained therein, the foregoing provisions of this paragra are specifically made to apply to any destruction or damage to or removal utilities, water lines or pipe lines of any kinds, and any other improveme whether said destruction, damage or removal is required or caused by the F or specifications or by direction "of�an officer, agent or employee of the 4. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the Cit as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, furnish to the City file with the City Clerk'certimficates or policies of public liability and "R, .;. -4- pro.perty damage insurance in form satisfactory to the City Attorney, and Sub- divider shall at all times during the entire term of this agreement maintain the same in full force and .effect., which policies shall insure the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and employees against loss or liability fq'r bodily injury and property damages arising or resulting from subdivider -'s operations and activities in the construction of any and ai c improvements mentioned in this agreement and the doing of any and all work mentioned in this agreement, within or outside the abovementioned subdivisior and /or arising or resulting from the doing or failure of subdivider to do al: things required to be done pursuant to this agreement. Said policies of in- surance shall cover bodily injury and property damage on both an accident an( occurrence basis, with completed operations coverage for one (1) year after* completion and•acceptance of improvements, and shall be in amounts of not le: than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1',000,000.00)' for each person,. ONE MILLION DOLLAR: ($110001000.00) ~for each accident or occurrence and property.damage coverage of ONE- HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100.,000.00) 'for- each accident or occurrence. Said policies of insurance shall in addition contain the follow, endorsement: "Other insurance - the iverage afforded by this insurance sha be primary coverage to the full limi.- of liability stated in the declaratio If the assured has other insuranc, ..gainst the loss covered by this policy, that other insurance shall be .ess insurance only, after the entire face value of this policy shall have been exhausted by payment." S. In consideration of City allowing Subdivider.to connect said sub- division to certain existing or proposed out -of -tract storm sewer lines, and in consideration of City relieving Subdivider of any obligation which City might legally impose on Subdivider to acquire any right -of -way for, and /or `to construct, any out -of -tract storm sewer drainage pipe lines and appurtena which might reasonably be necessary to Z•' in said subdivision and carry stor waters from said subdivision to nature. drains, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by Qity and as a condition precedent to the record tion thereof, pay the City the sum of NONE dollars ($ N... ) i -5- 6. In consideration. of City agreeing to accept, in accord with this agreement, the in -tract storm drain lines and facilities constructed or to constructed by Subdivider within or outside of said subdivision in accord with the plans.•gnd,•specificati,ons now o n file with the City offices, includ the streets and other casements in or beneath which said facilities, lie, Su divider shall, before lthe� release of said final map by City and as a condit precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City the sum of one Thousand One 'Hundred Forty Eight Dollars ($ 1..148.00 7. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the Cit% and as a cpndition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay to the City.tl sum of .six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Dollars ($ 6,860.00 to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be incurred by City fo: engineering and inspection services to be performed by the City in connect with said subdivision. 8. Upon Subdivider completing in accord with this agreement all of t improvements to be made and done by said Subdivider as hereinabove set for and as shown on the plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referr• to, and upon Subdivider having properly, maintained the same for a period c, at least one year after the complexion of said improvements as hereinabove specified, and upon the Subdivider complying with all covenants and condit on his or its part to be done and performed in accord with the within afire ment, then and in that event, City agrees to rescind its rejection of the offers of dedication of streets and storm drain easements contained on the aforesaid final map, and at that time accept said offers of dedication. 9. Should the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to not be t same person„ firm or corporation, then this agreement shall only be effec upon both the subdivider and the Owner separately executing the same, and wherever the term Subdivider is used, I :the same shall include Owner and wh the term Owner is used, the same shall include Subdivider. 10. This agreement shall -be binding upon the heirs, personal repres.e; tative.s and assigns of Subdivider and Owner, and time is of the essence her am -6- save and except that the City Council of the City of Saratoga may, but need not, extend any time or times for the doing or performing of any acts as required under the terms of this agreement by resolution, if in the opinion of the City Council any sugh 491,1y .1s without fault on the part of the Sub- divider and Owner. • Execution of the within agreement by the Owner or Subdivider shall constitute an irrevocable authorization to City to insert the date of passa. of the Council resolution approving the final map, and to insert the date o this agreement as of the date of such resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year first above written. CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corpora By: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By :Mir Subdivider By: Owner, f different from Subdivi' A LM - °. E SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 3 -16 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: REVISION OF CIVIC CENTER LANDSCAPING "NOTICE OF COMPLETION" AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: The work on the subject has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recom- mendation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion" filed. Report Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on January 6, 1988 award the contract for above project to A.A.S., Inc. The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Fiscal Impacts: Total construction cost $26,654. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Progress Payment. Motion and Vote: /j � MPROJECT; REVISION OF CIVIO CENTER LANDSCAPING DATE :. 2 -5 -88 EST. NO. 2 FROM: 2 -6 =8a TO: 3 -4 -88 VKUGk, :SS PAY ESTIMATE CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. - SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Sheet 1 of t CONTRACTOR: A .4 - S_L r "c. ADDRESS: � S,26 Jose C TOTAL I 17,418.60 I Approved :Cit nganeer .f BID ITEM QUA�V`nTY UNIT PRICE. TOTAL WRFC. DONE PREVIOUS EST. WRK. DONE THIS EST, TOTAL WRK.DONE UNIT. :` PRICE DUE 4 404.00 7.WORK DONEK REMAR 1 Remove and Replace Concrete Curb. 367.0 12.00 4,404.0 367.0 0 367.0 12.00 _ } 3 Excavation L.S. 10,000.00 10,000.00 L.S. 10 000.00 10,000.00 10 000..00 4,000.0' too 79.936 Place Top Soil 278 18.0 5,004.0 222.222 0 222.222 1 18.00 4 Install Irrigation System L.S 2.,500.0 2,500.0 90.0% 10.0 %, 100.00% 2.500.00 2,500.00 100 5 Install 4" Steel Pole l 750.0 750.0 0.0 1 1 750.0d 750.00 100 6 • Construct City Sign . 1 5,000.0 D. O. ?# 5,000.0 442 -1 0.0 1 _ - -1 - 00.00' 0 100 RG 90•l � .. ACC `I S I O ROJ O'i 3 RECORD 'OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS DATE E RECE!'JO 3 - 1— _ TOTAL DUE 26,654.00 DEPT. H , °PPO�J�1L '} LESS 10 %-RETENTION_ 2,665. ,'1� �1 — TOTAL PAYMENT - 23:988.60 2 -17 -88 17;418.60 - Made By: LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 17,418.60 Checked PAYMENT DUE THIS EST.._ 6.570_nn —. TOTAL I 17,418.60 I Approved :Cit nganeer .f /qO coo SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 4/- I A4 MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: Building SUBJECT: Technical Amendments to Building and Plumbing Codes and Adoption of 1987 National Electrical Code Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: This ordinance is for the purpose of making various technical changes to the Building and Plumbing Codes, as requested by the City's Building Department and described in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. The ordinance will also constitute the adoption by the City of the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote: Ow } None. (a) Memorandum from City Attorney; (b) Proposed ordinance. TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Technical Amendments to Building and Plumbing Codes and Adoption of 1987 Edition of National Electrical Code DATE: February 29, 1988 J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1962) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) The City routinely adopts the latest editions of the Uniform Building Codes, in some cases with modifications to adapt the Uniform Codes to our own local conditions. This process usually occurs on a three -year cycle, as new editions of the Uniform Codes are published. The most recent activity in this regard was Ordinance No 71.8 enacted by the City on November 5, 1986, which adopted the 1985 Editions of the Uniform Administrative Code, Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Housing Code and Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. The National Electrical Code is revised on a different yearly cycle, and the latest version is the 1987 Edition which has recently been published. The proposed ordinance either repeals or changes some of the local modifications we have made to the Uniform Codes, but does not modify the Codes themselves. These changes are as follows: SECTION 1: This section will repeal Section 16- 15.070 of the City Code concerning the preparation of building sites. A copy of this section is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "A." Our local modification has been the addition of the third paragraph requiring that underfloor area be graded to a central location and provided with a three -inch conduit for drainage. The Building Department has advised that this requirement has not actually been imposed since other provisions of the Building Code adequately address the subject of drainage. Moreover, drainage plans must be included as part of the construction drawings which are subject to review and approval by the City. SECTION 2: The City has always required an underfloor clearance area of not less than 18 inches, as a local modification to the Uniform Building Code. This section is intended to clarify this requirement by eliminating an error in the language as presently set forth in Section 16- 15.080, a copy of which is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "B." The second paragraph concerning an 18" x 24" access -1- ATKINSON • FAFASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET ERIC L. FARASYN P.O. BOX 279 LEONARD J. SIEGAL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. (415) 967 -6941 STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Technical Amendments to Building and Plumbing Codes and Adoption of 1987 Edition of National Electrical Code DATE: February 29, 1988 J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1962) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) The City routinely adopts the latest editions of the Uniform Building Codes, in some cases with modifications to adapt the Uniform Codes to our own local conditions. This process usually occurs on a three -year cycle, as new editions of the Uniform Codes are published. The most recent activity in this regard was Ordinance No 71.8 enacted by the City on November 5, 1986, which adopted the 1985 Editions of the Uniform Administrative Code, Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Housing Code and Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. The National Electrical Code is revised on a different yearly cycle, and the latest version is the 1987 Edition which has recently been published. The proposed ordinance either repeals or changes some of the local modifications we have made to the Uniform Codes, but does not modify the Codes themselves. These changes are as follows: SECTION 1: This section will repeal Section 16- 15.070 of the City Code concerning the preparation of building sites. A copy of this section is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "A." Our local modification has been the addition of the third paragraph requiring that underfloor area be graded to a central location and provided with a three -inch conduit for drainage. The Building Department has advised that this requirement has not actually been imposed since other provisions of the Building Code adequately address the subject of drainage. Moreover, drainage plans must be included as part of the construction drawings which are subject to review and approval by the City. SECTION 2: The City has always required an underfloor clearance area of not less than 18 inches, as a local modification to the Uniform Building Code. This section is intended to clarify this requirement by eliminating an error in the language as presently set forth in Section 16- 15.080, a copy of which is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "B." The second paragraph concerning an 18" x 24" access -1- crawl hole has also been eliminated, since this requirement is now contained elsewhere in the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. SECTION 3: This section will repeal Section 16- 25.040, which is a local modification of the Uniform Plumbing Code. A copy of this section is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "C." The modification is being eliminated since other provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code adequately address the size of piping required for receiving the discharge from bathroom fixtures. SECTIONS 4 and 5: Section 4 constitutes the adoption by the City of the 1987 Edition of the National Electrical Code. No local modifications to this edition are being made. Section 5 will repeal the local modifications now contained in the City Code which related to the 1984 Edition of the National Electrical Code. A copy of the same is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "D." Since the provisions modified in the 1984 Electrical Code are not contained in the 1987 Edition, the modifications are no longer necessary. arol 1 Saratoga City Attorney -2- EXV; i+ (To be rePeale,C 516- 15.070 Section 2516(b) amended concerning preparation of building site Section 2516(b) of the Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Preparation of Building Site. All stumps and roots shall be removed from the soil to a depth of at least 12 inches ,..., below the surface of the ground in the area to be occupied by the building. All wood forms which have been used in placing concrete, if within the ground or between foundation sills and the ground, shall be removed before a building is occupied or used for any purpose. Before completion, loose or casual wood shall be removed from direct contact with the ground under the building. All underfloor grade or subgrade shall be graded to a central location and shall be provided with not less than a three inch �Ocal conduit through the foundation to an accessible location. All 11 underfloor grade or subgrade shall have not less than one MOdILIC2L+;1O 1, percent incline to a permanent drainage outlet. It is the owner's responsibility to verify all grades. An approved ejector pump may be used as an alternate. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1.985 Edition, is required because of the expansive soils, high ground water levels, and high soils moisture retention levels existing in the City, thereby necessitating additional site drainage requirements. S16- 15.080 Section 2516(c)(2) amended concerning underfloor clearance Section 2516(c)(2) of the Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Underfloor clearance. Unless otherwise approved by th e building official, the minimum underfloor clearances between the bottom of the floor joists, and /or girders, shall Re wOrd 1 not be less than 18 inches to exposed ground in crawl spaces, le excavated or unexcavated areas located within the periphery of the building foundation, the floor assembly, including posts, girders, joists, and subfloor, or building footprint area. Accessible underfloor areas shall be provided with an 18 inch �P,e +e by 24 inch access crawl hole. Pipes, ducts, and other nonstructural construction stall not interfere with the accessibility to or within underfloor areas. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because the combination of the high summer time air, temperatures which occur in the City, and the large square footage of the buildings and structures constructed in the City, necessitates the use of larger air conditioning ducting to be installed in the underfloor clearance area. (`('a he. hePealel S16- 25.040 Section 403(a) amended concerning size of drainage pipe Section 403(x) of the Plumbing Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) The minimum sizes of vertical and /or horizontal drainage piping shall be determined from the total of all fixture units connected thereto, and additionally, in the case of vertical drainage pipes, in accordance with their length. 10Ca However, the minimum size of horizontal drainage piping 1closets, below the first floor, receiving the discharge of water shall be not less than four inches in diameter. This amendment is required because the large lots and setback requirements which exist in the City create the need for larger and longer gravity fed drainage pipes. ARTICLE 16 -35 ELECTRICAL CODE Sections: 16- 35.010 Adoption of National Electrical Code 16- 35.020 Additions, deletions and amendments 16- 35.030 Chapters 2 and 3 deleted; administration governed by Administrative Code sss 516- 35.010 Adoption of National. Electrical Code Th 1984 tion of the National Electrical Code, as compiled and published by the Nationa ire Protection Association, hereinafter referred to as the "Electrical Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereb referred to and[xcept as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part' hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Electrical Code of the City. 1 516- 35.020 Additions, deletions and amendments The additions, deletions and amendments set forth in this Article are hereby made to the Electrical Code as adopted by reference in Section 16- 35.010. 516- 35.030 Chapters 2 and 3 deleted; administration governed by \ Administrative Code eat, Chapters 2 and 3 of the Electrical Code are hereby deleted. All administration of the Electrical Code shall be governed by -the Administrative Code as adopted in Article 16 -10 of this Chapter. G�71 �t;`lK�ilhl Part-Time Temporary SPORTS LEAGUE SPEC I'M.I5T ";it . I I N 0 1 P THE POSITION: Under direction, supervises the City`s sports league EXAMPLE OF DUTIES: Oversees the sports program which will_ include the scheduling of games, hiring, scheduling and supervising th.e officials, keeping current league standings and statistics, ordering equipment, scheduling and. leading a manager's meeting, interpreting policies and procedures to the participants, resolving di.sputes, field supervision. at park, site, perform related work as assig -ned. Q ALIFICATIONS Good knowledge of principles and practices of sports; some knowledge of public relations techniques, ability to supervise other recreation personnel; ability to establish and. maintain effective working relationships with oth.er employees, program participants and the public. Education and Experience Arty-combination equivalent to two years of college and one year of experience in recreation /sports programs including or supplemented, by courses or experience in the specialized field._ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM (0-8— MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Regulation of Skateboards in Parks; Violation of Park Regulations as Infraction Offenses Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: This ordinance accomplishes two changes. First, it will prohibit the use of skateboards upon any driveway, roadway, parking area or tennis court within any public park. Second, the ordinance will designate the violation of park regulations as constituting an infraction offense. Under the existing Code, all such violations are designated as misdemeanors, which is unrealistic and inappropriate for the nature of the violation. This change should also facilitate enforcement of regulations pertaining to the leashing of dogs and removal of dog excrement. The maximum penalty for an infraction offense, as specified in Section 3- 05.010(c) of the City Code is a fine of $100 for a; first- 'conviction, $200 for a second conviction within a period of one year and $500 for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one year. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote: None. (a) Proposed ordinance. t a C, '2,O /O SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 00 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment to Regulations Concerning Alarm Systems Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: Section 6- 10.060 of the City Code, concerning alarm systems that emit a siren or other sound which can be heard from the exterior of the building where the system is installed, requires the posting of a notice containing the name and telephone number of a person to be called in the event the system is activated. In the case of an alarm system which is not being serviced or monitored by a commercial alarm business, the Code would require the posting of the name and address of the alarm owner. Some owners have expressed concern that the disclosure of such information could facilitate a scheme to circumvent the system or, at the least, may constitute an invasion of their own privacy. The amendment will therefore modify this requirement to provide for the posting of notice only where the alarm system is being monitored by' an alarm business. This change should not present an insurmountable problem with respect to proprietor alarms (i.e., those systems which are not serviced or monitored by an alarm business), since the ordinance now requires a permit to be issued for every alarm system. A copy of the permit is kept on file at the Sheriff's Office, which includes the name and telephone number of the alarm owner. Thus, if there is a need to contact the owner, the Sheriff's Office would be able to do so. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services AGENDA ITEM �t l CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Revision of Permit for 10K Montalvo Foot Race on April 23, 1988 Recommended Motion: Approve modified route as proposed subject to the race organizer obtaining an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans; and authorize the Community Services Director to issue the revised Special Events Permit once all conditions have been satisfied. Report Summary: On January 20, 1988, Council approved a request from Brad Martin to hold a 10K run in the Montalvo area on April 23, 1988. Mr. Martin complied with all conditions of the City's Ordinance, and a Special Events Permit was issued on February 16, 1988 for that portion of the race which would be held on City streets. Although the County Dept. of Parks and Recreation had indicated their initial support of the race, they subsequently changed their position concerning the specific trails Mr. Martin had proposed using within the park, and Mr. Martin was required to modify the route of the race. Staff recommends approval of the revised route subject to the condition outlined above. The race is still scheduled for April 23, 1988. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Motion and Vote: «r y11 Revised route of proposed foot race. _ Letter received on March 8 from Mr. Martin to City. Letter dated March 7 from Villa Montalvo to Mr. Martin approving race. Letter dated March 3 from County to Mr. Martin expressing intent to approve revised route of race. Permisssion from private property owners to Mr. Martin for foot race. Letter dated February 25 from Mr. Martin to City indicating revised route. Original Special Events Permit issued by City on February 16. Report to Council and race route as originally proposed. 6TM S0 Ila4brU \vrrY�de ,5+. moo" �ti 0 I,,/- 4. i„ ll'rl1 ;ate 6.2 fl-47'06A Ave 7h e V;114 vaii vo Rurl r- o J� r p h�end�eS o i V 1100,714 0 I.-T6 F n h Po�,'C C (z) 'r r %ATP no Cones Tla- uriN Kof �e fi6�oaa/ or o�.ef air /ky�, 6e 7:30 _ f- moje.T �Hr'rG�2f�3a[� v e I� 4 K . FcPPEr 4 START /f /�v�s�1 : PARKING Lof A Y.. ��i ed n,P i f Pea.�4 14n+e .-4 to rK Sfarx --> Sme Ave -3p, ®bill Non76 Iva /Poi --3 ®bonnie ave [c, . �7 ✓ eof ttiCt'/ ©V c kel'y 410 4q ._..� 1C 0►M i nc{ -� OL (� K Sf . -� 6 ri, S� ; -� S c h,leS, d Gri K Si�r�e f ® ,caved faAwtiy to E 1,eva4-cJ pawed �a�i�•+ay near Ova lkJj d rQ�i�w 4/o Ast —7 d Zorm fct ---a S/Ya ;,94f ?�v V %ckcry ----o fas f 10471er ra., Ic --> ©AY.0461vo -� ® /uoK%aIv& Rot --p FMIA i�% fa /Kiki Lo ##c/. Orthopedic Physical Therapy Specialists of Saratoga -lazed gA7CI-o i 1Qac'c� 3,8/8q ,yeti d' fo ve 61� In a-,, �a Joe 7� ca 6t-0 Ice ral 18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 • Saratoga, CA 95070 • (408) 866 -1070 V rHE v MOntAlvo As5QClalion w rwr,prt,lrl aorlxrrml . ,, Exccutivu Direct c;rudinf +r li Mccaul, . Board of Truett: Presidr,nl Phillip R E3op, Vo.,A vine P(C;nyicluul Ray fC, Parris Il Second Vice Presltleril Ivtr;;. Gerhercll 0. GUIdbHai'r Secreinry Mr3. 1Nn118C@ L Schmidl 'treasurer Sheldon G. SI John ,lybil Aliuer_hl Lionai M. All.,n Christine Backhou, : Lynn M. Ralt,nbcrq V Mary Bch , n. Hoal A. Cabllnon D. John Cal - .� James A. Compwri (Alvin (- Willltun J Oul U; rb) Albnrl A„ EisHnsi. t Dr. Jrtry A. Hans, ri Warren B. H--] Sharon D U-111dr u- r; I IA(lln, Raloh M tvlet.au USN (re l ) Jamas J U'Rurrt," €3111101) W. SHI mt,•r Stephan C. SUtlnn.11 Bernard Sit'"; Dr. Myron R. Skilrn, i 1)r. Phillip p.•War(wr Fmerl' rr Mu.htael fl. Amv,.,: t mis Morrio. Doylo Mr, I_Pimlim I�Ycl .'r Jnhil S, UM9,.All uavid s. Meer :t Wdllnm C nt1rn:-11 Mrs Evans 13. SI, . r llonol. �y Y01'uidl Me. III ,, I. 15400 monitlivo Raid PA, Box ih8 Saratoga, GA 0507.1 0 358 (408) 741 -0.121 L L A B A)' A n r: A' S March f, 1988 U M O N T A L V O ht ISTOR IC GARDErd FOR . T Ir G AR rS Mr, Bradford f. Martin 18fi05 Cox Avenue, Suite. 130 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dea i- Brad; 1 ant writing to follow up on your letter cif February-25 and our discussion last week regarding your revised proposal for using Montalvo for a 10k footrace on April 23, 1988. Your revised proposal is sa.tisfactoiy to Montalvo and has our approval, with the understanding that necessary approvals be cibudned front the City of Saratoga, Country Park Department and State Highway Departments; that Montalvo Association be named as coinsured on your liability policy .with $1 million /runner; that deputy sheriffs be hired to supervise traffic control. 1 understznd the starting time to be 8.00 ain and that the park will need to be closed to vehicle traffic until 111:10 am. We will need a final ,chedule in writing with late revisions and names of key contact people in your. group by April 15.. Cin behalf (if the board of trustees of Monta.lvo Association 1 would like to express appreciation for your offer to donate proceeds !'ram this race to Montalvo. We appreciate the kind of community interest and support you have exhibited. 1 will look forward to heiring from you soon on final developments of your plans. Sincerely yours, i - -- ardiner R, McCauley '- Executive Director e.c: Mr. Douglas Gaynor, Director Turks & Recreation Department. County of Santa Clara County of Santa Clara California March 3, 1988 Mr. Bradford Martin 18805' Cox Avenue-Suite 130 Saratoga, CA ••95070 Dear Mr. Martin Public Sarvlcas Agency Parks and necrwallon 298 Garden Hili Drive Los Gatos. CslilornEa 95030 (408) 358 -3741, Reservations 858 -3751 pG�RA C S$,REG��P This communication is to advise you that the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department will issue you a special permit allowing a 1.OK Run at Villa Montalvo Park on April 23, 1988 when all conditions to be established have been met. It is my understanding that all proceeds of the event will go to the Montalvo Association and Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. Please let me know if you have any further questions or if I can be of assistance in any way. Sincerely, W. J. Ventura Recreation Services Manager. ® An Equal Opportunity Employer Orthopedic Ph `'-iU Therapy Specialists of Saratoga I have been given a �etter about t e \/i1la Montalvo Run and agree to have the runners pass over t�e road on Apri1 23, 1986 buring t The rurners are not allowed to pass oyer this ' read again at�any ' future date without prior approval. ' � - � . � ' � � ^ 18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 1.30 -' Saratoga,-CA 95070 - (468)866-1070 Orthopedic Physical ~ - Therapy Specialists of Saratoga Feb 25, 1986 Todd Argow Community Services Director City Of saratoga Dear Mr. Argow: Encloseo is a map of the proposed course. 1 nave sent away toe application along with photos to CalTrans for encroachment permit to use the paved walkways near Saratoga Los Gatos koao. I contacted all of the home owners on the private portion of Vickery. lhere are a total of 10 home owners. I of the 10 hao no Objections and approveo of the run passing over tnat portion of Vickery. Mr. Montgomery dio not feel he could approve this. He expressed that the runners would continue to use tne route at a later date. I informed him that I will be expressing to the runners that this roao is to be used only for the race day and that the residents do not athorize use of the roau except for the race. This road is owned by all of the home owners. l am not certain, out I oo believe that in the light of 9 residents approving the run, tnis would be a majority. l will be sending you a signed form from eacn home owner expressing their approval. I have been in contact with Ms. Dianne McKenna and Sophia Raoay concerning the use of the road and parking lot at Montalvo for the start/finish location. Ms. Raday spoke with Dill Ventura at the county parks Dept. Although ne has not given me written approval as of yet, he expressed to Ms. Raday that tnis soundeo reasonable. They will be in contact with me. I will let you no what they determine. I contacted Mr. Garoner McCauley of the Montalvo association. 1 informed nim that I tried t o me et with him in 5 9X ano t na� I was told he would not see me. Today after speaking with Mr. McCauley he informeo me that the association oid not have an objection to naving the start/finisn in the park or have the runners pass through the driveway. 1 I am to send a plan to Mr. McCauley ana will be meeting with him next Tuesoay. When I have written permission I will inform you. I will be delivering a plan to him today. The Villa Montalvo Association and The State Of California It's Officers and Agents are to be named on the insurance policy. l have sent the required fee off along with the application today. I should nave the updated policy in about two weeks. If you have any questions or suggestions please call. Sincerely: � mr/ 48805 Cox Avenue, SUQe430 p Saratoga, CAg5070 9 (4�08) 866'4070 N A sa.R� CITY Rom • 5 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA• CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: - February 16, 1988 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Bradford Martin Joyce Hlava David Moyles 18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 Donald Peterson Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Martin: This letter constitutes your permit to hold the Montalvo 10K Running Race pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined below. Please be aware that this permit applies only to the publicly owned streets within the City's jurisdiction and which are under the City's authority to grant such a permit. Privately owned streets, walkways, paths, and trails, together with those under jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara are expressly excluded from the scope, authority, and application of this permit. Please make sure that any volunteers or assistants helping you with this activity carry with them on their person a copy of this letter during the day of the event. This permit is valid on Saturday, April 23, 1988, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. It is understood that this permit is granted for conducting a "10V footrace. It is also understood that this footrace will be held in the Montalvo area west of Highway 9 and shall, at no time, include any part of Highway 9 in its course. The race shall be limited to 100 participants. Traffic control will be required at the exit of the Montalvo driveway; at the corner of Piedmont and Mendelsohn; at the corner of Mendelsohn, Bonnie Brae, and Hilll Street; at Hill Street and Montalvo Avenue; at Montalvo Heights Court; and at both ends of Bonnie Brae and Mendelsohn; in addition to any other locations determined appropriate by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. Questions concerning this activity should be directed to the undersigned. Very truly yours, Todd W. 'A4wZ--- Community Services Director jm CC: Harry Peacock, City Manager Capt. Thomas, Sheriff's Office Chief Sporleder, Central Fire District Cathy Carpenter, County Dept. of Parks and Recreation SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM•-.[. MEETING DATE: January 20, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE 10K MCNI'ALVO FOOT RACE ON SATURDAY, APRIL 23, 19 8 8 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve in concept the holding of a foot race as proposed on April 23, 1988, conditioned on compliance with all requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval includes authorization for the Community Services Director to issue a Special Events Permit when he determines that all conditions have been satisfied. REPORT SUMMARY: Bradford Martin, a physical therapist who lives and works in Saratoga, is requesting authorization to hold a 10K run in the Montalvo area on Saturday, April 2 1988, from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The race would be limited to 100 participants, and profits from the race would be used for the maintenance of hiking trails behind Montalvo. The race route; in addition to-public roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the jurisdiction of the County Parks Department. Therefore, the City's approval of the race would be for only that portion of the route which is within the City's jurisdiction. A map outlining the route is attached. The requirements for a Special Events Permit include the following: a) Payment of a $50.00 non - refundable filing fee. b) Payment of a $250.00 fully- refundable clean-up deposit. c) Mr. Martin assume financial responsibility for law enforcement personnel which may be required by the Comm=ity Services Director.. c) Mr. Martin obtain a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as additionally insured for at least $300,000 in liability coverage.. FISCAL IMPACTS: None are anticipated ATTACHMENTS: a) Map showing route of foot race. b) Correspondence from Mr. Martin outlining details of event. c) Correspondence from Mr. Argow, dated December 2, 1987, outlining conditions....... of the City. d) Response from Mr. Martin dated January 5, 1988 e) Copy of letter Mr. Martin sent to Montalvo residents living along the privately -owned portions of the route. f) Confirmation from the Sheriff's Office that two reserve officers will be scheduled on April 23, 1988, as verbally recommended by Mr. Argow. MOTION AND VOTE: r s ri /l Ave a vv /,4 -#eei h d v), ru" t'" {0 l� llo w as rOLA), 6e co/ lt / rncra�Sy u;�iicG 44ve .Aini , 7l e q,icwAe -j / f cull/ be d dicgfi 9 11w rti2[.,: color .ey w;ll Le {,llowA+ Lac W;II It f-,ttk Q4 tItiiul, GIi' OLLS ave cofo-S pn. - - _ —C3 ,. /Sr f'5$ 6,t eolor - Y p -z 3'�Trwhsi�io., - r _ I 1 , - (,Uafcr 5fq-ljb,�s P-3 1. I Reis 4fi °n�SfW / i F,.OA `T�QITIt �TTd� 6.2,-,) les orF,ce fet � 'tD Alsv.,,Iq loo Y . x ';Ii'/eN de Bon., :r �lr� l,•71 I . . VA hie" trt�.•,i -n,. /�. fir!. P./ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I q /6 MEETING DATE: 3 -9 -88 (3- 16 -88) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM 4 K CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT • FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR TRACT 8100 THREE OAKS, WOOLWORTH CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. (7 Lots) Recommended Motion: Approve Resolution No. SD 87- 016 -02 attached, approving Final Map of Tract 8100. Report Summary: 1. Tract 8100 is ready for Final. 2. All requirements for the City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution SD 87- 016 -02. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Mni -inn and Vnta- RESOLUTION NO. 'SD 87- 016 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 8100 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 8100 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California,. and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and.all'rulings. made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said" final map (except such.easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby reject._d pursuant and subject to Section #66477_1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of th, -1- estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of chap. 14; Municipal Code as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by-subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR uA.. / t RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -016 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Woolworth Construction Co. APN# 397 -18 -044 and 086 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the-City of Saratoga, for tentative, map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions -of 7 lots,' all as more, particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -016 of this City,•.and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed• subdivision, together with the provisions for its design,,and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans - relating thereto, and the proposed - subdivision and land.use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated October 28_ 1987 being hereby .made for further particulars, and. WHEREAS, this body has heretofor.received and considered the - Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the. currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the-tentative map for the hereinafter.described subdivision, which map is dated the 11th day of. October, 1987 and is marked Exhibit C in the hereinabovereferred to ,file, be -and the- same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit -A and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and -ado pted-• by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of October, 1987, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch., Burger, Kolstad, .Clay- & Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Chair H.anris, Commissioner Siegfried by: ./06/14a Sedrietary, Planning Commission ADVISORY AGENCY - Chairman, Plannin Commission REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: October 28, 1987 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -016; 14770 Three Oaks Way APPLICANT: Woolworth Construction Co. APN: 397 -18 -044 & 086 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections 14- 20.070 and 15- 12.070, the applicant is requesting tentative map approval for a 7 -lot subdivision of a 8.07 acre parcel in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ISSUES: 1. The applicant requests an exception to the subdivision code which limits the maximum length of a.cul -de --sac street to- 500 ft. In this case, the only feasible method of developing the Property results in a cul- de- sac'street length of approximately 800 ft.; therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission grant an, exception to the above standard pursuant to City Code Section 14- 35.020. 2. No-other major issues have been identified. In staff's opinion, (a) the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed, (b) that the proposal will not cause any substantial environmental damage, and (c),the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1." Approve the Negative Declaration. 2. Approve•Resolution SD -87 -016 . ATTACHMENTS: I. Negative Declaration 2. Resolution SD -87 -016 3. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 4. Initial Study 5. Plans RC/ rc OA fie, r.•;n�rti h Fv; ' ' 14770 Three Oaks Way, SD -87 -016 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT "A" I. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days "of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. II. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map, payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established' by 'Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative. approval, submission of engineered improvement plans.for any street work and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations . and applicable'Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Saratoga Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for.further particulars. III. Specific Conditions - Engineering Division 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Map approval. 2. Submit Subdivision Map to City for checking and recordation and pay the required fees... 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 40 ft. wide right -of -way on street. fabled ".private' street ". 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication"' provide easements as required. 5.. Improve private street to City standards, including the following: a. designed structural section 15 ft. between centerline• and flowline. b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24), c.. Underground existing overhead.utili.ties, if any. 6. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer, or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary- manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. C. Storm drain inlets,•outlets, channels, etc. 7. Construct standard driveway approaches.'" C SD -87 -016; 14770 Three Oaks Way 8. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions'of, view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 9. Watercourses must be kept free-of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. %/10. The applicant shall record a non - access easement along.Lot #I's frontage adjacent to Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and Three Oaks Way. 11. Protective planting required on•roadside - cuts and•fills. 12.. Obtain an encroachment permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within the state right -of -way. 13. Engineered improvement plans required for: a. Street improvements b. Storm drain construction 14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from - improvement plans. 15. En ter.into.Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. 16. Enter into' "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for improvements on Three Oaks Way. IV. Specific Conditions --Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plans showing the location and intended use- of any. existing. wells •onsite to the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration. V. Specific Conditions _ Saratoga 1. Applicant shall install Saratoga Fire District's shall be installed and final map. 2. All driveways shall•have < foot shoulders. Fire District 3 fire hydrants that meet. the specifications_ Said hydrants accepted pror to filing of the i 14 -foot minimum width plus -one 3. Security gate width not to be less than•15 ft'. wide.' Said gate shall be controlled by a remote digital transmitter. Details.shall be shown on the building plans. 4 SD -87 -016; 14770 Three Oaks Way VI.. Specific Conditions - .Department of Transportation 1. A study should be made of the possible effect of freeway traffic noise on future residents or occupants of the proposed development. Any noise attenuation measures or devices deemed necessary should be provided as part of the development. 2. No work may be done within the State highway right -of -way unless authorized by a State highway encroachment permit. n VII. Specific Conditions _ Santa Clara County Health Department 1. A sanitary sewer connection-is required. 2. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co.. 3. Seal any existing well in accordance with County standards. VIII. Specific Conditions - Planning Department 1'. Design Review approval required for all two -story residences to assess•privacy and compatibility impacts. 12. Any fencing and landscaping along.Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. shall be installed in accordance with City Code Section 15 -29 -040 (Fencing adjacent to scenic.highways) 3. Future home on'Lot #1 and #3 to be single -story in design. 4. Prior to demolishing any structures onsite, a demolition permit is required. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. -------=------------------------------------- Signature of Applicant Date 5 �W l G 2 N�. Q e 1*< t 'V` CATION _ J r , r � I• � J ai. r I O DUMMAM AwjOA6t i I G'T I I I I' 1 II Y f O O _J O 0 H J • Z, F f u 0 Ok AMOOAM OOJG O 8 Z J lAe O Y � I -T Z TRfl L-r ?' OIon e� oG' �O . s TRACT NO 8100 SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SD NO Storm Drain Fees $ 7,700.00 Park & Recreation Fees , 9,100.00 Plan Check & Inspection Fees 12,840.00 Final Map Check Fees 550.00 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: 3/16/88 ORIGINATING DEPT.: planning CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: DR -87 -048.1 - Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave., Appeal of Planning Commission decision denying modification to approved plans. Recommended Motion: Study the findings of the Planning Commission and determine if the Council should affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Commission. Report Summary: On February 10, 1988, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice a request to modify approved plans to relocate a house and garage, modify the roof pitch, revise the rear elevation and install landscaping for a new two -story ham. The owner has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Public Noticing: DR -87 -048.1 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on February 17, 1988 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project. A second notice for. 3/16/88 was mailed to property owners within 500' of the site and Paul, Elva and Springer Avenues were posted on 3/2/88. Fiscal Impacts: Unknown Attachments: 1) Staff report from Planning Director, 3/16/88, with attachments 2) Correspondence received Motion and Vote: 71 09'ffff o2 §&MZ1XQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: 3/16/88 FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: DR -87 -048.1 - Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave., Appeal of Planning Commission decision denying modification to approved plans Project Description /Background On August 12, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a new 3,080 sq. ft. home and detached garage on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot in the R -1- 10,000 zone district. The conditions of approval included a maximum height of 24 -1/2 feet. The property is located at 14230 Paul Avenue and is owned by David Cunningham. A detailed chronology of what has transpired since the original approval is provided at the end of this report. In brief, three modifications, all of which were approved by staff, were made to the project during construction. These modifications were: a) Front setback of house changed from 25' to 371. b) Rear setback of garage changed from 35' to 251; and c) Roof pitch of house changed from 5:12 to 2:12. A neighbor to the rear of the project, Avenue, brought the modifications to th, Commission. After discussion of the meetings, Mr. Cunningham was directed to modifications to the original project. following modifications: Jerry Bevans on Springer attention of the Planning issues at two Commission file an application for the The applicant requested the a) Modify front yard setback from 25' to 371; b) Modify the roof pitch from 5:12 to 2:12; c) Modify the rear elevation of the house by reducing the size of the balcony from 8' x 6' to 3' x 6' and by covering the bedroom and bathroom windows with etched or opaque glass; d) Add landscaping to middle of backyard for privacy. The Planning Commission denied the modification application without prejudice at its February 10, 1988 meeting. The property owner is appealing that decision to the City Council. 1 Analysis of Appeal The applicant's appeal states the following concerns, each of which is followed by a staff comment: 1) He never received a formal request to modify the pitch of the roof. Staff Comment: The original plans approved by the Commission scaled a 5:12 roof pitch; the home was expected to be constructed according to the plans. The field modification to the 2:12 pitch was allowed in order to keep the height of the house at 241611, the maximum stipulated by the Planning Commission in its approval of the original plans. While the Commission did not formally request a modification for the home to return to the original pitch, their action in denying the modification could be construed as expecting to see the original 5:12 pitch (the height would have to increase to approximatley 27 -1/2 feet to maintain this pitch). 2) He complied with all the requests that were asked of him, primarily those dealing with privacy and view. Staff Comment.: On January 12, 1988, the Planning Commission heard the neighbor's complaint and discussed two viewpoints; 1) the neighbor's concerns that his view of the mountains and his privacy were lost and, 2) the Planning Commission's concensus that the house under construction was not in substantial compliance with the plans approved by the Commission on August 12, 1987. The Commission directed the appellant to file for a modification to his plans and scheduled the item for a study session. At the study session on January 19, 1988, the discussion focused on privacy and view issues. The Commission did not elaborate on their prior concensus that the project was not in substantial compliance with the original plans. They reviewed the proposed amendments to the rear elevation and agreed that the view was not impacted by the relocation of the house. .Further, the Commission agreed that opaque glass and a reduced deck at the second story would mitigate the privacy impact on the neighbor to the rear. Operating on this understanding, the appellant submitted his plans to formally request the approval of the modifications. Although the discussion at the study session is not binding, the appellant acted to amend his plans per his understanding of the direction from the Committee-of-the - Whole meeting. At the public hearing on February 10, 1988, the appellant recapped the issues from the study session and described the modifications that were made to the plans. The Commission stated that neither view nor privacy was an issue. The issue, as summarized by Commissioner Burger, was " ..the existing house was not the house approved by the Commission..." The Commission denied the request for modifications to the plans (6 -1, Kolstad). The dissenting opinion was that "...in the findings, compatible bulk and height was required, not conformity; the neighborhood demonstrated that this design was compatible." 2 3) He received approval for "every move they made." Staff comment: The modifications to th and the pitch of the roof as the home approved at the staff level. Once the however, approval of the modifications Planning Commission. Their decision was Findings required by City Code e house and garage setbacks was under construction were Commission became involved, became the authority of the to deny the modifications. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 15- 45.080, the Planning Commission is obliged to make five findings in order to approve a design review application: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height- The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district, and shall not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control standards. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. In August, 1987, the Planning Commission made the findings to approve the residence as shown on the plans submitted with the application. Based on these original findings and on subsequent discussion on the modifications during Planning Commission meetings, staff provided the Planning Commission with findings for approval for their February 10, 1988 meeting. In this case, the Planning Commission did not address the findings; they denied the modification because "it was not the house originally approved by the Commission" (see minutes). 3 Decision by the City Council The City Council must study the record of the Planning and may affirm, reverse or modify their decision. (kwkwV�' A��O) chuek Hsia arming Director Attachments Commission Pages 1 -13 1) Appeal application and letter dated 2/12/88 2) Minutes: Page 14 Planning Commission dated 1 /13/88 Page 15 Planning Commission COW dated 1/19/88 Page 16 -18 Planning Commission dated 2/10/88 Page 19 -20 3) Application for modification, dated 1/20./88 Page 21 -22 4) Findings and minutes of the Commission dated 8/12/87 Page 23 5) Findings of the staff report dated 2/10/88 6) Plans approved 8/12/87 7) Revised plans YH /kc /dsc 4 Chronology of the project 1. August 12, 1987 - Planning Commission approved Resolution DR -87- 048 and findings. 2. September 21, 1987 - The Building Inspection Division issued a building permit per plans submitted to the Commission on August 12, 1987. 3. October 8, 1.987 - The building inspector completed the field inspection on the .foundation of the house. Forms and steel were approved. The setbacks were verified by the contractor's string line. The setback to the front of the home was 37' which exceeded the 25' minimum shown on the plans. 4. October 16, 1987 - The building inspector completed the field inspection on the foundation of the garage. A correction notice was issued because the forms and steel were set at 25' rather than 35' from the rear property line. The contractor was notified by the building inspector to contact the Planning Department with a revised.site plan showing the change, to ensure that it met the requirements of the code. 5. October 20, 1957 - The revised site plan was approved by the Planning Department at the front counter. The revised site plan showed the change in the setback of both the house and garage. 6. October 28, 1987 - The Building Inspection division placed a "stop work" order on the project to verify that the height of the house would not exceed 2416 ". The contractor, Building and Planning Departments agreed that the pitch of the roof would need to be changed to maintain the height limitation of 24' 611. Construction resumed. 7. November 17, 1987 - Mr. Bevans, neighbor to the rear on Springer Avenue, filed a letter with the Planning Commission, asking the Commission to require the owner to comply with the original setbacks placement and design of the structure. The Commission requested a report from the staff. 8. December 9, 1987 - Mr. Bevans filed a second letter with the Planning Commission. The item was scheduled for the January 13, 1988 regular meeting. 9. January 13, 1988 - The Planning Commission discussed the issues of Mr. Bevan's letters, directed the applicant to file a formal modification application and referred the matter to a study session. 10. January 19, 1988 . - The Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the modifications. 11. January 20, 1988 - The applicant filed a. request for modification to the plans. 5 12. February 10, 1988 - The Planning Commission denied the modifications without prejudice on a 6/1 vote. 13. February 11, 1988 - Applicant filed an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision. Memocc M . Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: ZrAl t Date Received:_ Hearingal'e? Fee /oo.6ti CITY ' USE 0, APPEAL APPLICATION -7Q- Igo Decision Being Appealed: U"A�,z, Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): 4-c mccU; 41 c, Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. T11TS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITFIIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF Hi: DATE OF THE DEC 12 February 1988 Reason for Appeal: At the Planning Commission Meeting on February 10, 1988 we presented solutions to the problem as It was presented to us in the study session meeting on January 19, 1988. This was solely an Issue of privacy and view Attachment A. These findings never addressed the Issue of the roof line or appearance. In fact, the committee gave their views on the project and generally agreed that the pitch of the roof was acceptable since the view was not a problem, Attachment A. Fran Barnett opened up the meeting on February 10, 1988 providing an example of the opaque glass we planned on Installing in the 2nd story rear windows. This was passed around and It appeared acceptable. A reduction in the size of the rear balcony was also proposed from 8' to 2'. This also appeared acceptable. These above two modifications were provided on drawings to the planning staff for review and Inclusion in their package for the 2/10/88 meeting. It Is our belief that the reason the committee voted 4 - 2 against our modification Is because of the alteration of the roof line. I would like to point out that Mr. Kolstad on the planning commission, an architect, has always approved of this modification. First of all I would like to address the history of the roof and why It was changed. But It was only changed with approval of the building department. In the Initial Planning Commission meeting, August 12, 1987, the roof was never discussed as a positive or negative Issue. The major design element that was discussed was the porch cover which was considered a design element. As stated in the August 12, 1987 minutes, Attachment B: o Chairwoman Harris felt that the porch cover was a design element. o Burger /Clay moved for approval of DR -87 -048 making findings that the 304 sq. ft. covered porch area was an architectural feature which minimized the perception of bulk. This covered porch area was a feature from the original approved plans and has not been changed. 000003 The plans that were approved Indicated that the lot was flat with no recognizable grade. This lot, before It was cleared, had two condemned shacks on It, littered with abandoned cars, and completely overgrown vegetation, when It was cleared and the foundation poured It was apparent that the lot had a 3' slope from front to rear. When discovering this we met with the building department to determine a method to maintain the maximum height limitation of 24'6 ". The building department was not clear as to where to measure from and finally settled on the southeast corner. This corner is the lowest possible point therefore requiring the main roof to be changed from a 5:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch. By doing this, It caused �n appearance of flat � r , <,r roof. Again, this did not affect the ilreehr roof the Planning Commission felt minimized the perception of bulk. This change was not Incorporated until the BuJIdIng Department approved the new plans and stamped off on them, With this approval we have built the structure and put the roof on as approved. When you average all four corners of the house the average height of the bulling Is 23 feet. There Is another Issue that should be mentioned, but I don't believe it played any part In the denial of the application. The foundation was moved back 8' to preserve a 29" pine tree which is conslstant with city preservation plans. It has been proven through sketches done by the planing department and the building department that this movement had no impact on any of the neighbors. If anything, by moving the house back 8', It reduces the perception of bulk from Paul Avenue. Even with this move there Is still 73' from my house to the back property line, and a total of 100 'between my house and the neighbor directly behind US. It appears to us that there are only two Issues that are of concern to the Planning Commission: 1) Privacy Issues concerning our neighbor to the rear. 2) The appearance of the roof line Is different from the one they Initially approved. As for the first Issue I believe we have compltely satisfied everyone's concern by adhering 100% to their recommendations as presented to us In the study meeting. Issue number two is a result of maintaining the height limitation and was only done after receiving complete approval from the building department. While there has been concern mentioned about the change in the appearance of the roof, there has never been a formal request presented to us to modify the roof. Again, the roof pitch alteration was done with full approval by the building department. 000004 This building is approximately 85% complete and the next step to be done Is sheet rocking, and the final touches. I believe that any requirement placed on us to make any major modifications would cause undue hardship. Again, any of the work done to date has been done with complete approval of the planning and building department of the City of Saratoga. It seems IIke we are caught in a dispute of policy between the Planning Commission and the Planning and Building Departments. We should not be penalized or held accountable for a procedural problem that we did not create. ATTACHMENTS: a) Tuesday, January 19, 1988 - Committee -of- the -Whole o obscure glass in the b(xth was acceptable o generally agreed that the pitch of the roof was acceptable b) August 12, 1987, Planning Commission Meeting o porch cover was a design element o covered porch area was an architectural feature Information Kathryn Caldwell response to the Planning Commission o highlltes In red o top of page 3 - This situation Is not exceptional; these adjustments are common once construction of a project begins In order to accomodate actual field conditions. 000005 BMW LT - Ao, I .I, O&A"40_.-L CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, January 19, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole Roll Call - Present: Guch, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Clay, Harris Absent: Siegfried Staff: Hsia, Caldwell, Harper, Toppel, Young ------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. DR -87 -048 - Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave. Planner Caldwell reyiewed. the � concerns regarding pri,�acy� and yiew brought out ^at the 1/13%88 Planning_Commis_si.on_mee_t�gJ. She presented three diagrams requested by the�Chair4 showing the change in location of the foundations, change in roof height and pitch and a line of sight drawing between the two residences. Steve Harper, Chief Building Inspector, explained that the finished floor was not raised; moving the house lowered the floor levels approximately 611. Fran Barnett, representing Cunningham, proposed the installation of latticework approximately 1' from the windows and around the balcony, planted with Bougainvillea to address the privacy. Mr. Bevans was concerned that the lattice and landscaping would not be maintained and wanted the rear deck and windows eliminated. Obscure glass in the bath was acceptable. Trees along the rear property lin would block the sun to his residence. Ms. Barnett presented photographs of homes in the neighborhood with similar rooflines and submitted a petition of support for the home. City Attorney Toppel instructed the Committee to give the applicant guidance regarding mitigation measures to be included in the modification application. The..--Committee gave their views on the project and generally agr_eed__that the pitch of _the ._ roof __wasacceptable „. since view •' was not a problem. The balcony should be reduced 1n size and not �utilized—and the second story windows should include etched glass to address the issue of privacy. Landscaping which is mutually acceptable to both neighbors -would be acceptable to the Commission. 1 000007 i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 12, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued OF I . f / Page 7 19. SD -87 -011 Cummingham, 14234 Paul Ave., Saratoga, request for building site and DR -87 -048 design review approval of a new 3,080 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 22, 1987. ------------------------ - - - - -- ______________ __________________ __ --------------------------- - - - - -- __ Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director I Isia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of August 12, 1987. Chairwoman I larris called attention to letters previously received on this Application. 000008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 J AUGUST 12, 1987 !PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 9:21 P.M. Mr. Dave Cunningham, Applicant, stated that neighbors were pleased to have the lot improved; pictures of other two -story homes in the area were presented. He noted that square footage of the proposed house was increased by: The 10 ft. storage area added to the rear of the garage; however, the garage was to the rear of the property and barely visible from the street The porch area (covered with a hip style roof) was calculated at approximately 300 sq. ft. in calculations of the house. The porch roof was essentially a design element. Mr. Bob King, 14271 Paul Ave., Saratoga, stated that he did not perceive the proposed house as bulky and supported this Application. Mr. Joseph Kovacs, Paul Ave., stated that the house was aesthetically pleasing and noted that the porch cover was an important element of the design. Commissioner Clay noted that subtracting the square footage of the detached garage and covered porch area brought the remaining square footage into line with that allowed; he questioned whether the garage, which was detached and set behind the house contributed to the perception of bulk. BURGERYTUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:37 P.M. Passed 4 -0. The City Attorney noted that the Revised Design Review Ordinance would exclude a covered v porch, if not enclosed, from the calculation of square footage. Chairwoman Harris felt that the porch cover was a design element. Commissioner Clay noted that when considering perception o hulk, inclusion of a separate structure would result in not reaching the desired conclusion. I BURGER /CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -87 -011 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -0. � t�tC QYE APPROVAL OF DR -87 -048, MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT THE 304 SQ. FT. C VERED PORCH AREA WAS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE WHICH MINIMIZED HE PERCEPTI OF B I FACTTHAT - GARAGE WAS DETACHED, LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE LOT AND OFFSET IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOUSE, WAS NOT COMPLETELY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND MINIMIZED THE PERCEPTION OF BULK. Passed 3 -1,' Commissioner Tucker opposed. AGENDA ITEM ff 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM Planning Commission Kathryn Caldwell DATE: 1/13/88 SUBJECT: Complaint cif neighbor re: DR -87 -048, 14230 Paul Ave. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff has prepared the following information relative to a new, two -story home under construction at 14230 Paul Avenue: Background /History 1. August 12, 1987 - Planning Commission approved Resolution DR -87- 048 and findings. Minutes of the meeting, resolution and findings are attached. 2. September 21, 1987 - The Building Inspection Division issued a building permit per plans submitted to the Commission on August 12, 1987. 3. October 8, 1987 .- The building inspector completed the field inspection on the foundation of the house. Forms and steel were approved. The setbacks were verified by the contractor's.string line. The setback to the front of the home exceeded the 25' minimum shown on the plans. 4. October 16,' 1987 - The building inspector completed the field inspection on the foundation of the garage. A correction notice was issued because the forms and steel were set at 25' rather than 35' from the rear property line. The contractor was notified by the building inspector to contact the Planning Department with a revised site plan showing the change to ensure that it met the requirements of the code. 5. October 20, 1987 - The revised site plan was approved by the Planning Department at the front counter. The revised site plan showed the change in the setback of both the house and garage. 1 0000lo iorandum to Planning Commission DR -87 -048; 14230 Paul Ave. 1/13/88 October 28, 1987 - The Building Inspection Division placed a "stop work" order on the project to verify that the height would not exceed 2416 ". The contractor and.-Planning-Department agreed_ that lowering the -- pitch_vof the roof was an ac_ ceptable wa to maintain the height limitation of 24 -1%2' Issues Issues raised by Mr. Bevans letter dated 11/17/87: 1. Setback and placement altered greatly Comment: The site plan indicates that the home was relocated from the 25' minimum front yard setback required by City Code to 37' in order to save the 29" pine tree. The rear of the home was moved from 81' to approximately 73' from the sear property line; (35' is minimum required by code). The detached garage in the rear yard was relocated from a 35' setback to a 25' setback. This change met the minimum requirement of the City Code as did the original site plan. 2. Design altered greatly Comment: The garage was reduced in depth from 30' to 19' in order to maintain the 25' minimum rear yard setback. The pitch of the roof of the home was lowered from 5:12 to 2:12 in order to maintain the maximum 24 -1/2' height stipulated by the Planning Commission. The changes were _in� conformance with City Code and Planning Commisson_F,condition, respectlyelX.��M` Issues raised by Mr. Bevans in his letter dated December 9, 1987: 1. "The modification has allowed living spaces to be -raised 3 -4' in elevation as well as the structure's location to be pushed closer to my house by 9110 ". W. J Comment: "'The approved plans showed that there was approximately a 2' crawl space under the porch and that the first floor is 2' above ground level on a flat lot. Once the lot was cleared of vegetation and construction started, the crawl space waLs modified to address the field The lot sloped gently from front to rear and south to north. The distance from the natural grade to the finished floor is 1110" at the southwest corner of the porch and approximately 414" at the northeast corner (per Building Inspection Division). However, the finished floor of the home has not changed since the Planning Commission approved the project. The 414" height above grade at the northeast corner of the building is a result of the natural slope towards the north. The finished floor at the rear of the home is an extension of the front, just as the plans reflect._ `a 000011 Memorandum to Planning Commission Re: DR -87 -048; 14230 Paul Ave. 1/13/88 Page 3 This situation is not exceptional; these adjustments are common once` construction of a project begins in order to actual field; conditions. No living areas have been raised accomodate height and the overall iieight of the structure is within the 24- 1/2' limitation of the Planning Commission. 2• 11 ... the entire . garage )1u within Supposedly within he August 21 Commission meeting.', Comment: Although the garage has been relocated from 35' to 25' towards the rear lot line, the location is still outside the required rear yard where it is permitted to be built without approval of the Planning Commissions. The required setback is 25' in this zone district. O m '• � O a 3. "with 'these -modifications I have mow no second story deck and windows you can now looks � into living spaces and my bedroom., dire Comment: The location of the deck and windows at the rear elevation are unchanged from the original plans. The movement of the house from 81' to 73' towards the rear property line did not affect the view into the neighbor's yard. The distance between the two homes is approximately 98' rather than 106' and the detached garage is still located between the homes. Summation Essentially the appellant is arguing that condition #3 of Resolution DR -87 -048, (allowing the staff to approve to the plan as long as the plans are in subsantialmocompliance) undermines the entire planning procedure. Staff disagrees that this condition should be r-hanged. -When an applicant_ requests modifications to the plans, the revised When an. " L _compared with the approved plans _and the record_of a Staff would dies approval- _plans a change and refer the ,..r _p cord the Planning Commission under any of the following 1. The proposal required a variance to the City Code. 2. The proposal conflicted with any condition of approval that the Planning Commission adopted. 3. The proposal was inconsistent with any findings that the Commission made or grappled with at the meeting. 4. The proposal reopened any issue discussed with the Commission at the public hearing. ,. The facts of this case do not support a change to the Planning Commission condition regarding substantial compliance. The 3 Gn "in Memorandum to Planning Commission Re: DR -87 -048; 14230 Paul Ave. 1/13/88 Page 4 modification was entirely within the requirements of the City Code, the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission, and the findings made by the Commission. In fact, the modification met the intent as well as the letter of the City ordinance as follows: 1. The increase setback in the front yard was to protect a 29" pine tree and construct the driveway around the tree rather than remove it. This effort is consistent with City policy and ordinance regarding tree preservation (Article 15 -45). 2. The decrease in the rear yard setback to 25' for the garage is permitted by the code. There is no discretionary approval required (15- 12.090) since the structure is outside the required rear yard. 3. Although the rear yard setback for the second story portion of the building is decreased 81, it is still some 73' from the rear property line. The decrease does not result in any new impact on the neighbor to the rear. Recommendation On October 20, 1987, staff made judgement that the requested modification to the plan was in substantial compliance with the y plans and intention of the Planning Commission when the Commission approved the project on August 12th. Having recently reviewed the site and assessed the project as it is now constructed, staff still feels there is no impact on view or privacy created by the modification.„ 6 Attached is a letter from Mr. Cunningham committing himself to construct a 6' fence and install 25 gallon Blue Italian Cypress trees along the rear property line in order to protect his privacy as well as Mr. Bevans'. .Staff recommends that -the Planning Commission accept the letter as a condition of the project---that must be completed prior to final inspection of the residence. No other action by the ♦ ,j Planning Commission is required. . %1 Attachments: 1. Letter from J. Bevans dated 11/17/87 2. Letter from J. Bevans dated 12/9/87 '• 3. Res. DR -87 -048, minutes & findings 8/12/87 ` 4. Report to Planning Commission, DR -87 -048 5. Reduced plot plan & elevations, DR -87 -048 6. Measurements of finish floor from Building Dept. 7. Letter from Cunningham dated 1/6/88 4 0. 0013- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 13, 1988 MISCELLANEOUS: - 18. DR -87 -048 Report on 14230 Paul Avenue --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Memorandum of January 13, 1988. Mr. Jerry Bevans, Springer Ave., Saratoga, presented a set of drawings; he felt that the project was not being constructed its approved by the Planning Commission and reviewed the project changes made as stated his letters and referred to in the Staff Memorandum. He concluded that both his view of the mountains and his privacy were lost. — — Mr. Tom McKenna, 14256 Springer Ave., Saratoga, noted concern regarding a process wherein public testimony was taken and then substantial changes, as noted above, were made to an approved project; he viewed this situation as an infringement of his civil rights. Mr. Richard Davis, Springer Ave., Saratoga, noted concerns of a similar situation in his neigh- borhood and asked that the City monitor field conditions before project approval. Ms. Eileen Fitzgerald, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, stated that Applicant had two options, namely, loss of view or loss of privacy. Mr. Robert Weinmann, 14371 Springer Ave., Saratoga, stated that while technical compliance appeared to have been achieved, these changes in fact obliterated privacy and eliminated the view of Mr. Bevans. An example of a similar situation was cited. The question of protection of privacy need to be addressed; he cited his concerns regarding this issue. Mr. Bevans cited an example of privacy intrusion and presented a petition of individuals who were also concerned regarding this situation. Mr. Cunningham, Applicant, responded that the Bevans lot was 3 -4 ft. lower in elevation; he did not feel that moving his house back on the lot changed the initial approval. He stated that privacy must be protected by the use of curtains and offered to install landscape screening; however, it house could not be built below grade. A drawing and pictures were presented. The City Attorney advised the Commission of alternatives available. Commissioner Clay noted that a procedural problem existed in determining what substantial compliance entailed and asked that the Commission address this issue. Commissioner Guch noted that a substantial change in roof pitch created a perception of excessive bulk; the roof as originally proposed was one of the finest features of the house. Commissioner Siegfried stated that incomplete plans had been reviewed; had an additional 4 ft. in Height of the rear of the house been shown, the Commission may have decided differently. Commissioner Burger concurred that the house was not in substantial compliance with the approval granted; she noted that the Commission had not provided clearer guidelines for Staff. She suggested design alternatives to address this situation. Chairwoman Harris added that the roof was to be restored the its original pitch in order to comply with the original approval; Commissioners Burger and Guch concurred. Commissioner Kolstad felt that the house was in substantial compliance; he noted that on a site visit that the house did not seem incompatible to the neighborhood nor that the moving of the house to the rear of the site had a major impact on privacy of adjacent residents. However, he questioned the procedures for determining if substantial compliance had been achieved. The City Attorney advised that since the majority of the Commission felt that substantial compliance had not been met, the Applicant should submit an application for modification unless, unless a plan mitigating these impacts could be worked out. Commissioner Guch added that just because an Application met Code requirements, such did not necessarily mean that the intent of the Commission had been met. Mr. Cunningham noted the improvements to the property had meet with favor from the neighborhood; he cited costs involved in changing the structure and time lines for project completion. He added that modifications had been approved by Staff. Consensus of the Planning Commission that substantial compliance had not been met; Applicant to file an Application for modification. 000014 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, January 19, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole ---------------------------------------------------- Roll Call - Present: Guch, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Clay, Harris Absent: Siegfried ------- Staff: Hsia, Caldwell, Harper, Toppel, Young The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. DR -87 -048 - Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave. Planner Caldwell reviewed the concerns regarding privacy and view brought out at the 1/13/88 Planning Commission meeting. She presented three diagrams requested by the Chair showing the change in location of the foundations, change in roof height and pitch and a line of sight drawing between the two residences. Steve Harper, Chief Building Inspector, explained that the finished floor was not raised; moving the house lowered the floor levels approximately 611. Fran Barnett, representing Cunningham, proposed the installation of latticework approximately 1' from the windows and around the balcony, planted with Bougainvillea to address the privacy. Mr. Bevans was concerned that the lattice and landscaping would not be maintained and wanted the rear deck and windows eliminated. Obscure glass in the bath was acceptable. Trees along the rear property line would block the sun to his residence. Ms. Barnett presented photographs of homes in the neighborhood with similar rooflines and submitted a petition of support for the home. City Attorney Toppel instructed the Committee to give the applicant guidance regarding mitigation measures to be included in the modification application. The Committee gave their views on the project and generally agreed that the pitch of the roof was acceptable, since view was not a problem. The balcony should be reduced in size and not utilized and the second story windows should include etched glass to address the issue of privacy. Landscaping which is mutually acceptable to both neighbors would be acceptable to the Commission. 1 000015 t! PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � � 1 � � Pro V e_ FEBRUARY 10, 1988 � 13. DR -87 -048.1 Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave., request for modifications to approved plans to relocate the house and garage, modify the roof pitch, revise the rear elevation and install landscaping for a new two -story home in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988. Chairwoman Hams noted the letter of Mr. Barrie Coate addressing Exhibit "A" Condition 10; a phone call had been received from Mrs. Sherrill regarding the Saratoga News article. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:07 P.M __ Ms. Fran Barnett, Paul Ave., stated that issues discussed at the Study Session had been addressed as follows: - Privacy impacts; she noted for the record that Applicants did not believe that such existed; however, the following modifications were made as requested: — Opaque glass in the master bedroom; sample was submitted — Reduction of balcony off the master bedroom; such would be reduced to a 3 ft. width Planting a tree in the rear yard; to be done as recommended by the horticulturist - View impacts; she presented pictures for the record showing the similar roof line of this house and adjacent homes Ms. Barnett presented copies of statements from residents of Paul Ave. Mr. Jerry Bevans, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, presented a scale model showing differ- ences between the house originally approved and the modified structure; he noted the bulkiness and view impacts created by the modifications. Issues involved were reviewed and compliants surrounding this incident were summarized; he asked that the Commission bring this project into substantial compliance. Ms. Eileen Fitzgerald, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, noted that the Commission had determined on January 13, 1988, that this project was not in substantial compliance with the approval given. Appellants were dismayed to learn that the tree for which the house had been moved, was now browning at the top; such added insult to injury. Mr. David Cunningham, Applicant, noted concern at the Saratoga News article and presented pictures disputing what he believed to be a magnified photo taken by the Appellant. Modifications to the house were reviewed; nonetheless, the house was an average height of 23 ft. - -such did not exceed the height limitation at any point. In response to Commissioner Clay's question, he stated that when he received the building permit and gone out to mark the lot, the tree was in the way of the driveway, so the house was moved back. He confirmed that when the house was moved back, there was no permit issued nor permission to move the house back. He stated that he talked to the City and was told that as long as no encroachments, setback, side yards or easements existed, the house could be adjusted to accommodate the tree and the driveway. Mr. Cunningham stated that he did not wish to remove the tree in the front yard; every effort had been made to preserve this tree. Mr. Robert Weinmann, 14371 Springer Ave., Saratoga, felt that the house should be moved back to the original design specifications; he was concerned that the Saratoga News article was overlooked by the Commission. His primary concern was the obstruction of privacy and he concluded that citizens trusted the Commission to protect privacy and views. Mr. Bob King, 14271 Paul Ave., Saratoga, felt that privacy was not seriously impacted nor that return to the original plans would significantly increase line of sight or the view. Mr. Nick Young, 14252 Springer Ave., Saratoga, felt that most residents of Paul Ave. were unhappy with the boxy type of houses being built on the street. Mr. Gary Plateau, 14301 Paul Ave., Saratoga, noted the reasons he moved to Paul Ave. and stated that the house was an improvement to the vacant lot previously at this location. GUCHBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:27 P.M. Passed 7 -0 Commissioner Siegfried stated that issues raised had been addressed as well as could be done; his concern was that the house under consideration was not the house approved -- namely, a two story cottage type of house. Commissioner Kolstad felt that opaque windows satisfied his concerns regarding privacy impacts. He felt that the original house was as poorly designed as the one being considered, thus the changes shown in the modifications were unsatisfactory. Commissioner Burger had hoped that the Applicant and Appellant could reach an agreement; however, such was not the case. Thus the Commission would have to reach a decision. 00 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 FEBRUARY 10, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger concurred that substantial changes had been made to the design; had such been presented originally, she would not have voted favorably on this design. Commissioner Guch did not feel that privacy was more impacted with one design nor the other. She noted that there was no mention of the tree in the front yard at the original hearing. The basic issue was that the design before the Commission was not what was approved. Commissioner Tucker noted that she had opposed this application initially and stated that she continued to oppose approval of such. Commissioner Clay noted the sequence of events resulting in a modification of the original design; he felt that he would not have approved such modifications at the time they occurred nor was he favorable to them now. He concurred that the design under consideration was not the house approved by the Commission. Chairwoman Harris concurred with comments already made, namely, that privacy was not an issue and that the design before the Commission was not what was previously approved. The City Attorney noted that a consensus seemed to have been reached by the Commission in that privacy impacts had been mitigated; however, changes to the roof line were not resolved. Commissioner Burger added that a majority consensus also had been reached that the house under consideration was not the house approved by the Commission. Planning Director Hsia noted that according to the Building Inspector, the original structure could not have been built as proposed due to technical problems. Mr. Cunningham interjected that the grade differential and height limitation created the problem; when plans were laid out, it was assumed that the lot was flat. He noted site improvements and stated that every request of the Commission at the Study Session had been addressed. Chairwoman Harris noted that the Commission had hoped that Applicant and Appellant would reach a compromise; however, since such had not occurred, the Commission was now obliged to make a decision on the modifications done to the original plans. Mr. Cunningham responded that Appellant's complaints of privacy impacts were addressed. The Chair recognized both the Applicant and the Appellant for final statements. Ms. Barnett stated that all the issues brought to the Study Session had been addressed; now, there were different issues. She felt that the Applicants were caught between the Planning Commission and the Staff and felt that such was unfair. Mr. Cunningham reviewed Minutes of the Study Session showing that issues had been addressed. He concurred that the house was not what was originally approved; however, the modified house was attractive, would be landscaped and the site was significantly improved. Mr. Bevans summarized repeated efforts to address this situation at an earlier stage of construction. He noted that there were privacy and cost impacts to him; suggestions of stained glass windows were remedies which would not bring the structure into substantial compliance as stated in the decision of the Commission, August 12, 1987. Commissioner Clay commented that it seemed that the foundation was started before obtaining permission; once construction had been initiated there was pressure to continue, making allowances as necessary. Chairwoman Harris noted that the Planning Department and Commission accepted at face value that the design approved could be built. Actions available to the Commissioner were reviewed. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was unable to find a solution; the modified design was in fact, not the house approved by the Commission. The City Attorney stated that at Meetings of the Commission the primary concern was privacy impacts; if the Application was denied, a modification of the existing structure would still be required since it could not be built as originally designed. 000/3' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 10 Commissioner Burger summarized that the issue was that the existing house was not the house approved by the Commission - -such may not be possible. However, the existing structure was the one befoue the Commission and it was their task to come to some conclusion. Commissioner Kolstad commented that in the Findings, compatible bulk and height was required, not conformity; the neighborhood demonstrated that this design was compatible. BURGER /KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR -87- 048.1. Failed 2 -5, Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Tucker, Clay opposed. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he made the following Motion with great misgivings. SIEGFRIED /CLAY MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR- 87- 048.1. Passed 6-1, Commissioner Kolstad opposed. th �v t /2O /�'U �.MVZ- - � C& -� 37 i-n. off- -. +O `f v e V 01. RIO o-F P c -fck of ord ri-o s`4- LA-? � �. Ala %�D Uczr, to 3' x L( or i V"' �. Cove- .0) a� --c�- -�v C\b+ 0009 �- �r -i-o ►S_ 00020 � Y G�1g� EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS: Auqus� la, 1101 I. Unreasonahle interference with views or Privacy (and comnatihl.e i.nf1.1J ProJect Y -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that at 24.5 ft., the height is not excessive for a two story structure, and views are currently constrained by the area's level topography and mature vegetation. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that upper story side windows are kept to a minimum and setbacks are adequate. A hedge along the south (right) side property line also protects the neighbor's privacy on that side. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree removal or grading is proposed. 3. Perception of excessive bulk -The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that it is too large for the 7,500 sq. ft. substandard lot. Rather than 75% of the floor area standard, it is 88% or 3080 sq. ft. including the garage. As such it is disproportionately large for the subject lot. 4. Compatible bulk and height -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that there are other 2 story homes of similar height on Paul Ave. various design features (front porch, hipped roof) make the home compatible in Style with existing homes in the area. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are maintained. S. 6radinq and erosion control standards -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is required. 4 000.-1-/ PLANNING COMMIISSION MEETING AUGUST 12, 1987 Page 8 • 'i71 •' ?,�1,�•r rl1f;'.S _-• 'i "'+ -• •---• �... —'�. t. •.. e' •.' 19 ui..SD -87 011: =, Cummingham, 14234 Paul Ave., Saratoga, request.for buildutg,stte,and DR-87.,048 .­,design review approval of a new 3,080 sq, ft. two -story single family , �xi< a a� r dwelling in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14. and. 15 of,the _ Ciiy•Code. Continued from July 22, 1987, Commissioner. Burgerreported on the land use visit.« .. ,. 'Planning. Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of : August 12, 1987.E , Chairwoman Harms called attention to letters previously received on this Application, The Public Hearing was opened at 921 P.M. ' Mr. Dave Cunningham, Applicant, stated that neighbors were pleased to have the lot improved; pictures of other two -story homes in the area were presented. He noted that square footage of the proposed house was increased by: - The 10 ft. storage area added to the rear of the garage; however, the garage was to the rear of the property and barely visible from the street ' - The porch area (covered with a hip style roof) was calculated at approximately 300 sq. ft. in calculations of the house. The porch roof was essentially a design element. Mr, Bob King, 14271 Paul Ave., Saratoga, stated that he did not perceive the proposed house as bulky and supported this Application. Mr. Joseph Kovacs, Paul Ave., stated that the house was aesthetically pleasing and noted that the porch cover was an important element of the.design, Commissioner Clay noted that subtracting the square footage of the, detached garage and covered porch area brought the remaining square footage into line with that allowed; he questioned whether the garage, which was detached and set behind the house contdbuted to the perception of bulk. BURGER/rUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:37 P.M. Passed 4 -0. The City Attorney noted that the Revised Design Review Ordinance would. exclude a covered porch, if not enclosed, from the calculation of square footage. Chairwoman Harris felt that the porch cover was a design element. Commissioner Clay noted that when considering perception of bulk, inclusion of a separate structure would result in not reaching the desired conclusion, BURGER/CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -87 -011 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, Passed 4 -0. BURGERICLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -048, MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT THE 304 SQ, FT. COVERED PORCH AREA WAS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE WHICH MINIMIZED THE PERCEPTION OF BULK, ADDING THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE GARAGE WAS DETACHED, LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE LOT AND OFFSET IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOUSE, WAS NOT COMPLETELY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND MINIMIZED THE PERCEPTION OF BULK. Passed-3-1. Commissioner Tucker opposed. DR -87- 048.1; 15230 Paul Ave. EXHIBIT "B" PTNDTNaR- 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy and compatible inf ill project -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that at 24.5 ft, the height is not excessive for a two -story structure. The views are unaffected by the relocation of the house on the site from the original plan. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that upper story windows are kept to a minimum and setbacks are adequate. A hedge along the south (right) side property line also protects the neighbor's privacy on that side. The rear windows are opaque glass and the rear deck has been reduced in size to render it unusable. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree removal or grading is proposed. 3. Perception of excessive bulk -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the 304 sq. ft. covered porch is an architectural feature which minimizes the perception of bulk and the size of the home is within the limits of the City Code and proportioned to the size of the lot. 4. Compatible bulk and height -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that there are other two -story homes of similar height on Paul Avenue. Various design features (front porch, hipped roof) make the home compatible in style with existing homes in the area. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are maintained. 5. Grading and erosion control standards -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is required. 4 H. A. "BUD" BEAUDOIN P. O. BOX 55 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95071 PHONE 408 - 867 -9848 w� 70 4!4 o, -;f, ti i P. A. "BUD" BEAUDOIN P.O. BOX 55 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9507.1 PHONE 408- 867 -9318 8 7 3'' 7— 013 t z 3 AD -- �-� -�t� • �/" � cr�r7� � 3,20 �f !- �c�c.� � ��ta�.Y�.� ��, / `ps( Gtr -•��i =7�v -G -�w ��- �- a�- +^rc�% /�1 � , -7Zo J!"�- ... w � � w � �'-�''�- ► -�.L.t -dui*/ - ' C O �7 � � .L� ._<�.1ti Y�-�.�� . Cr�c� ✓C.�f� -G� �— y��•¢C.Q,.� I a i I 12 February 1988 Reason for Appeal: At the Planning Commission Meeting on February 10, 1988 we presented solutions to the problem as It was presented to us in the study session meeting on January 19, 1988. This was solely an Issue of privacy and view Attachment A. These findings never addressed the Issue of the roof line or appearance. In fact, the commlttee.gave their views on the project and generally agreed that the pitch of the roof was acceptable since the view was not a problem, Attachment A. Fran Barnett opened up the meeting on February 10, 1988 providing an example of the opaque glass we planned on Installing In the 2nd story rear windows. This was passed around and It appeared acceptable. A reduction In the size of the rear balcony was also proposed from 8' to 2''. This also appeared acceptable. These above two modifications were provided on drawings to the planning staff for review and Inclusion in their package for the 2/10/88 meeting. It Is our belief that the reason the committee voted 4 - 2 against our modification Is because of the alteration of the roof line. I would like to point out that Mr. Kolstad on the planning commission, an architect, has always approved of this modification. First of all I would like to address the history of the roof and why It was changed. But It was only changed with approval of the building department. In the Initial Planning Commission meeting, August 12, 1987, the roof was never discussed as a positive or negative issue. The major design element that was discussed was the porch cover which was considered a design element. As stated In the August 12, 1987 minutes, Attachment B: o Chairwoman Harris felt that the porch cover was a design element. o Burger /Clay moved for approval of DR -87 -048 making findings that the 304 sq. ft. covered porch area was an architectural feature which minimized the perception of bulk. This covered porch area was a feature from the original approved plans and has not been changed. The plans that were approved Indicated that the lot was flat with no recognizable grade. This lot, before It was cleared, had two condemned shacks on It, littered with abandoned cars, and completely overgrown vegetation when It was cleared, and the foundation poured It was apparent that the lot had a 3' slope from front to rear. When discovering this we met with the building department to determine a method to maintain the maximum height limitation of 24'6 ". The building department was not clear as to where to measure from and finally settled on the southeast corner. This corner is the lowest possible point therefore requiring the main roof to be changed from a 5:12 pitch to a 2:12 pitch. By doing this, it caused an appearance of flat roof. Again, this did not affect the proch roof the Planning Commission felt minimized the perception of bulk. This change was not Incorporated until the Building Department approved the new plans and stamped off on them with this approval we have built the structure and put the roof on as approved. When you average all four corners of the house the average height of the bulling Is 23 feet. There is another Issue that should be mentioned, but I don't believe it played any part In the denial of the application. The foundation was moved back 8' to preserve a 29" pine tree which.ls consistant with city preservation plans. It has been proven through sketches done by the planing department and the building department that this movement had no Impact on any of the neighbors. If anything, by moving the house back 8', It reduces the perception of bulk from Paul Avenue. Even with this move there Is still 73' from my house to the back property line, and a total of 100 'between my house and the neighbor directly behind US. It appears to us that there are only two Issues that are of concern to the Planning Commission: 1) Privacy Issues concerning our neighbor to the rear. 2) The appearance of the roof line Is different from the one they Initially approved. As for the first Issue I believe we have compltely satisfied everyone's concern by adhering 100% to their recommendations as presented to us in the study meeting. Issue number two Is a result of maintaining the height limitation and was only done after receiving,complete approval from the building department. While there has been concern mentioned about the change In the appearance of the roof, there has never been a formal request presented to us to modify the roof. Again, the roof pitch alteration was done with full approval by the building department. This bullding Is approximately 85% complete and the next step to be done Is sheet rocking, and the final touches. I believe that any requirement placed on us to make any major modifications would cause undue hardship. Again, any of.the work done to date has been done with complete.approval of the planning and building department of the City of Saratoga. It seems IIke we are caught in a dispute of policy between the Planning Commission and the Planning and Building Departments. We should not be penalized or held accountable for a procedural problem that we did not create. ATTACHMENTS: a) Tuesday, January 19, 1988 - Committee -of- the -Whole 0 obscure glass In the both was acceptable o generally agreed that the pitch of the roof was acceptable b) August 12, 1987, Planning Commission Meeting o porch cover was a design element o covered porch area was an architectural feature Information Kathryn Caldwell response to the Planning Commission o hlghlltes In red o top of page 3 - This situation is not exceptional; these adjustments are common once construction of a project begins In order to accomodate actual field conditions. 12 - CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, January 19, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole ------------------------------------------------------------------ Roll Call - Present: Guch, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Clay, Harris Absent: Siegfried Staff: Hsia, Caldwell, Harper, Toppel, Young The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSI0I4 A. DR -87 -048 - Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave. Planner Caldwell reviewed the concerns regarding privacy and v _ught out at the 1/13/88 Planning Commission mee_ tine. She presented three diagrams requested by the Chair showing the change in location of the foundations, change in roof height and pitch and a line of sight drawing between the two residences. Steve harper, Chief Building Inspector, ' explained that the finished floor was not raised; moving the house lowered the floor levels approximately 611. Fran Barnett, representing Cunningham, proposed the installation of latticework approximately 11 from the windows and around the balcony, planted with Bougainvillea to address the privacy. Mr. Bevans was concerned that the lattice and landscaping would not be maintained and wanted the rear deck and windows eliminated. Obscure glass in the ' bath was acceptable. Trees along the rear proper y line would b oct the sun to his residence. Ms. Barnett presented photographs of homes in the neighborhood with similar rooflines and submitted a petition of support for the home. City Attorney Toppel instructed the Committee to give the applicant guidance regarding mitigation measures to be included in the modification application. The Committee gave their views on the project and generally . gzeed t1fat the-pitch of the_raaf talDle, since view A was no roblem. The balcony should be re uce in size and not uti ize and the second story windows should include etched glass to address the issue of privacy. Landscaping which is mutually acceptable to both neighbors would be acceptable to the Commission. 1 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 12, 1987 Page % PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 19. SD -87 -011 Cumminbham, 14234 Paul Ave., Saratoga, request for building site and DR -87 -048 design revicw approval of s new 3,0$0 srl, ft, two-story single f:utlily City oK . the 1. -1- 10,000 zoning; district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the t: City Cckle. Continued lruni July 22, 1987. -----------------------=-------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger reported on the I :utd use visit. ------------------------------------------- Planning Director Ilsia presctttcd the 14cl)ort to the Pl:uuring Commis Jolt of August 12, 1987. Chairy uncut I larris called attcntirtn to letters previously reccived un this Application. r �s R r _ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 AUGUST 12, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 9:21 P.M. Mr. Dave Cunningham, Applicant, started that neighbors «ere pleased to have the lot improved; pictures of other two -story homes in the area were presented. Ile noted that square footage of the proposed house was increased I1y: The 10 ft, storage area added to the rear of the garrag;e; however, the garage was to the rear of the property and barely visible from the suect 'Ilre porch atrca (covered with a hip style rout) was calculated at approximately 300 sq. ft. in calculations of the house. The porch ruuf was essentially a design clement. Mr. Bob King, 14271 Paul Ave., Sarratoga, stated that he did not perceive the proposed house as bulky acrd supported this Application. Mr. Joseph Kovacs, Paul Ave., stated that the huusc was aesthetically pleasing and noted that the porch cover was all important clement of the design. Commissioner Clay noted that subtracting; the uluaac fout:tl;e of the detached garage and covered punch :uca hroul-ht tilt rrnrainirrg; stgu :rrc h-lar,c into line with that allowed; he questioned whether the l anal e, tvhi�: h was tictaclrcd and tint behind dre house contributed to the perception of bulk. BURGER [I'UCKli1: O CLOSE TI ]E PUBLIC I II?ARING AT 9:37 P.M. Passed 4 -0. The City Attorney noted that the Revised Design Review Ordinance would exclude a covered Porch, if not enclosed, from the Calculation of %quare foutat;e. Chairwoman I Ian-is felt that the porch cover was a design rlenreut. Cuntutis >,iunrr ('!ay noted "tL:rt when cunst7c erT� percep ton o bulk, inclusion of a scparate structure would result in not reaching the desired conclusion. BURGER /CLAY MOVEI) APPROVAI. OF SD•87 -011 PER T] 113 AIODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -U. OVERED PORCH v -rrt.rt m NINIt/L-u till. 1'LRC L I' ' 3UL ', ADDING THAT DUE TO THE A HAT'1'1 E GARAGE A DLTACI IED, LOCA'[ EDT O T HE REAR OF THE LOT AND OFFSET IN RELATIONSI Ill) TO THE 1 IOUSE, WAS NOT COMPLETELY VISIBLE FROM THE S`1'RL''L:T AND MINIMIZED TILL PERCEPTION OF BULK. Passed 3 -1, Commissioner Tucker opposed. N AGENDA ITEM # l Q0. 93&i&J2A1YQ)0� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOCA: CALIFORNIA 95070 008) 867- 3.138 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: 1/13/88 FROM: Kathryn Caldwell SUBJECT: Complaint of neighbor re: D: - 87 -040u, 14230 Paul Ave. -----------------------------------------=--------------------------------- - - - - -- At the request of the-Planning Commission, staff has prepared the following information relative to a new, two -story home under construction at 14230 Paul Avenue: -Bac }:ground /History 1. August 12, 1987 - Planning Commission approved Resolution DR -87- 048 and findings. Minutes of the meeting, resolution and findings are attached. 2. September 21, 1987 - The Building Inspection Division issued a building permit per plans submitted to the Commission on August 12, 1987. 3. October 8, 1987 - The building inspector completed the field inspection on the foundation of the house. Forms and steel were approved. The setbacks were verified by the contractor's .string line. The setback to the front of the home exceeded the 25' minimum shown on the-plans. 4. October 16, 1987 - The building inspector completed the field inspection on the foundation of the garage. A correction notice was issued because the forms and steel were set at 25' rather than 35' from the rear property line. The contractor was notified by the building inspector to contact the Planning Department with a revised site plan showing the change to ensure that it met the requirements of the code. 5. October 20, 1987 - The revised site plan was approved by the Planning Department at the front counter. The revised site plan showed the change in the setback of both the house and garage. 1 0001. 1.1 iorandum to Planning Commission DR -87 -048; 14230 Paul Ave. 1/13/88 October 28, 1987 - The Building Inspection Division placed a "stop work" order on the project to verify that the height would not exceed 24'611. The contractor and Planning Department agreed that lowering the pitch of the roof was an acceptable way to maintain the height limitation of 24 -1121. Issues Issues raised by Mr. Devans letter dated 11/17/87: 1. Setback and placement altered greatly Comment: The site plan indicates that the home was relocated from the 25' minimum front yard setback required by City Code to 37' in order to save the 29" pine tree. The rear of the home was moved from 81' to approximately 73' from the sear property line; (35' is minimum required by code). The detached garage in the rear yard was relocated from a 35' setback to a 25' setbac }:. This change met the minimum requirement of the City Code as did the original site plan. 2. Design altered greatly Comment: The garage was reduced in depth from 30' to 19' in order to maintain the 25' minimum rear yard setback. The pitch of the roof of the home was lowered from 5:12 to 2:12 in order to maintain the maximum 24 -3/2' height stipulated by the Planning Commission. The changes were in conformance with City Code and Planning Commission condition, respectively. Issues raised by Mr. Bevans in his letter dated December 9, 1987: 1. "The modification has allowed living spaces to be zaised 3 -4' in elevation as well -as the structure's location to be pushed closer to my house by 9110 ". Comment: 'The approved plans showed that there was approximately a 2' crawl space under the porch and that the first floor is 2' above ground level on a flat lot. Once the lot was cleared of vegetation and construction started, the crawl space was. odified to address the field conditions. The of sloped gently from `fYS' o rear and south to -north. The distance from the natural grade to the finished floor is 1110" at the southwest corner of the porch and approximately 414" at the northeast corner (per Building Inspection Division). However, the finished floor of the home has not changed since the Planning Commission approved the project. The 414" height above grade at the northeast corner of the building is a result of the natural slope towards the north. T110 finished floor at the rear of the home is an extension of the front, just as the plans reflect. 2 000I_42 0 �ro 0 Memorandum to Planning Commission Re: DR -87 -048; 14230 Paul Ave. .Page ge38 3 This situation is not exce tional; these adjustments are common once construction of a ro'ect begins in order to accomo ate ac ua ie con NO wing areas have been raised in heig t and the overall height of the structure is within the 24- 1/2' limitation of the Planning Commission. 2. "... the entire ara e established within the August,21 built Planning1Commission meeting.,,- Comment: Although the garage has been relocated from 35' to 25' towards the rear lot line, the location is still outside the required rear yard where it is permitted to be built without approval of the Planning Commissions. The required setback is 25' in this zone district. 3. "With these modifications 1 have now no privacy. -__fpm -the second story deck and windows you can now look directly into living spaces and my bedroom.,, Comment: The location of the deck and windows at the rear elevation are unchanged from the original plans. The movement of the house from 81, to 73' towards the rear property line did not affect the view into the neighbor's yard. The distance between the two homes is approximately 98' rather than 106' and the detached garage is still located between the homes. Summation Essentially the appellant is arguing that condition fi3 of Resolution DR -87 -048, (allowing the staff to a to the plan as long as the Tans are PProve modifications undermines the entire planning procedurein substantial compliance) . Staff disagrees that this condition should be applicant re han9eci. 'When an quests modifications to the laps the revised laps are a wa compare wi Sta wou pp g e record of a nova . isa rove a chap e and refer the proposed modification to the Planning Comm ission under any of the following circumstances: 1. The proposal required a variance to the City Code. 2. The proposal conflicted with any condition of approval that the Planning Commission adopted. 3. The proposal was inconsistent with any findings that the Commission made or grappled with at the meeting. 4. The proposal reopened any issue discussed with the Commission at the public hearing. The facts Commission of this case do not support condition regarding a change to the Planning substantial compliance. The 3 n,�n� �� Attached is a letter from Mr. Cunningham committing himself to construct a 6' fence and install 25 gallon Blue Italian Cypress trees along the rear property line in order to protect his privacy as well as 1.1r. Bevans'. Staff recommends that -the Planning Commission accept the letter as a condition of the project that Trust be completed prior to final inspection of the residence. No other action by the Planning Commission is required. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. F- Letter from J. Bevans dated 11/17/87 Letter from J. Bevans dated 12/9/87 Res. DR -87 -048, minutes & findings 8/12/87 Report to Planning Commission, DR -87 -048 Reduced plot plan & elevations, DR -87 -046 Measurements of fini --h floor from building Dept. Letter free Cunningham dated 1/6/88 4 0 r . �. Memorandum to Planning Commission 1/13/88 % Re: DR -87 -048; 14230 Paul Ave. Page 4 ;r modification was entirely within the requirements of the City Code, the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission, and the findings made by the Commission. In fact, the modification met the intent as well as the letter of the City ordinance as follows: l� 1. The increase setbsc): in the front yard was to protect a 29" pine tree and construct the drive% -.ay around the tree rather than rc-mcve it. Thi:- el fort is. consistent with City policy and ordinance regarding tree preoe rvation (Article 15 -45). 2. The decrease in the rear yard setfiac): to 25' for the garage is permitted by the code. There is no discretionary approval required (15- 12.090) since the structure is outside the required rear yard. 3. Although the rear yard setback for the second story portion of the building is decreased 81, it is still some 73' from the rear property line. The decrease does not result in any new impact on the neighbor to the rear. Recommendation ' on October 20, 1987, staff made judgement that the requested modification to the plan was in substantial compliance with the plans and intention of the Planning Commission when the Commission approved the project on August 12th. Having recently reviewed the site and assessed the project a:; it i,- now constructed, staff still feels there is no impact on vie•a or privacy created by the modification. Attached is a letter from Mr. Cunningham committing himself to construct a 6' fence and install 25 gallon Blue Italian Cypress trees along the rear property line in order to protect his privacy as well as 1.1r. Bevans'. Staff recommends that -the Planning Commission accept the letter as a condition of the project that Trust be completed prior to final inspection of the residence. No other action by the Planning Commission is required. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. F- Letter from J. Bevans dated 11/17/87 Letter from J. Bevans dated 12/9/87 Res. DR -87 -048, minutes & findings 8/12/87 Report to Planning Commission, DR -87 -048 Reduced plot plan & elevations, DR -87 -046 Measurements of fini --h floor from building Dept. Letter free Cunningham dated 1/6/88 4 0 I i O (J 3� i�ezx�c� �e�XiGomo /yzu v ov-t� ,o 0 �j a n [--! r� i aM 3) /YlcbyeuL � �oua2. � A�r�2 4 �C4/tq,� I i i- i Alm v 0 i IJ � ;WY` (i� KiC�CIL Ai1 rf �� z) -4&/Lt arLe & q) i i i AldW pop f i Oz; Lj rf a� �n al/p fy 4d rr � ' • �r 1� ,i ; l *-NNW IhI� i i 6 February 19, 1988 Saratoga.City Council members, I would like you to reverse the Planning Commission Denial of DR- 87- 048.1. I hope as you read this you will come to, understand why I believe you should find'in favor of Ms. Barnett & Mr. ,Cunningham. I have on several occasions gone to Planning Commission meetings-and I believe, that for all their good intentions, the Planning Commissioners don't always come up with good.solutions. In the case of Ms. Barnett & Mr, Cunningham they offered no -solution at all, they only created-more problems by their 'inaction'. Most of the commissioners :display little technical knowledge of the building industry, blue print reading.or land use and their principal concern i.s usually the very vague concept of.=;,bulkiness'. ,I believe specific guidelines should_be developed and adopted to help .the,Commissioners. guide individuals and contractors through the process of building in Saratoga. The system now;ivplace force's them `to'gfasp.at ,straws and allows .�gross . inconsistentcy 'in their decisions; Often at Planning Commission public hearings the applicants end up frustrated.and angry due to the apparent lack of concern for their wants and needs. These hearings.don't require an adversarial relationship, cooperation .is the solution. Back to this specific case. After speaking to several °individuals this is my understanding of this case: 1) Ms. Barnett & Mr.. Cunningham received approval on their initial Design Review at which time it was noted there was a large Pine tree, located on the Southern property'boundary, that might interfere with the proposed structure., The preservation of the.Pine tree was, I believe, made a part of the conditions required before issuance of a building permit. I was present at this meeting. . 2) The Building Department issued a Building Permit. 3) When construction commenced it became apparent'that the Pine tree needed more clearance.' They made the decision to adjust the location of.the structure on the lot,in order to comply with the concerns of the planning commission regarding the Fine tree's health. 4) They contacted the Building Department and were told that they were within substantial compliance. and that as long as they would comply,,wi.th stated limitations (note A) the structure could be built at the new location, slightly further to the rear of the lot 5) They received assurances from the City Attorney, the Head of the Building Department and another person 0 ame unknown) in the Building Department that it was highly likely that the Planning Commission would pass the Request for Modifications to Approved Plans. At the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1988, Ms. Barnett presented to the commission a list of changes that they, the Planning Commission staff and the Building Department had agreed io in previous discussions. The Commission closed public hearings and began a discussion of issues ie. 'The house doesn't look like what we had approved.' that were completely different from those in the Request for Modifications to . Approved Plans, ignored previous verbal agreements, and voted to deny. If you don't find in Ms. Barnett's and Mr. Cunningham's favor, and if as a result they are required to make any r appreciable changes to their existing structure, and since as I believe the Planning Commission is the prime 1, creator of this situation in as much they aren't willing to abide by the agreement reached with the applicants, the Buildinq Npartment and their own staff, then the City of Saratoga should accept it's responsibilities and bear all costs. (N) The agreement reached between the Planning Commissior, Staff, the Building Department and Ms. Barnett & Mr. Cunningham was: use obscure glass in all rear facing windows except the sliding glass door, reduce the depth of the rear facing second story deck from 8 feet to [ or 8 feet and to plant a large fast growing tree to protect the privacy of the neighbor to the rear. Rese_tfully, V;O Robe. "t W. Ki- "q 5aC.A"�a i 1423 Paul Ave.uuntard } a which is bloocingowt Be nh m� bl Springer Ave. This picture taken with a Somm lens is being pro- vided to present a comparative view of a photo which ran in a ,.previous issue. A photo looking out of a window in the Bevans home toward the Cunningham home was taken with an 85mm lens. Another picture of the lot and the unfinished home which ran'next to the window photo was taken with a SOmm lens..In a re- cent planning commission meeting, the commission decided that the privacy issue between the two neighbors is no longer an issue. i r1 I i r 0 M401MOMM r� P R k 0 -2, e, te ..• zr�.�.r 2 all. /I-/- ;3 �4Z2i I Li 2, I'Ll �,-7 1 Qom_ Pr,vL. Pte. c� 74.0 ,,;2z , boo � J fie. J � �v 1 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM / MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services APPROVAL �RV SUBJECT: Review of Green Valley Disposal's Proposal to Operate a Curbside Recycling Service Recommended Motion: Proposal is presented for information and comment. Council may wish to ask questions about the proposal and provide staff with direction on how to proceed in the negotiations with the other cities. Report Summary: Green Valley Disposal has prepared a proposal to operate a curbside recycling service in each of the contract cities it serves. As with all curbside recycling programs, revenues are projected to fall short of costs, and the program would require a subsidy of 65� per month from households within each of the contract cities. Residents would receive a return on this investment through expanded landfill life and avoided increased disposal costs. Green Valley proposes sharing financial risk with the contract cities on a 50/50 basis. Green Valley's proposal involves the collection of eight recyclable materials on a weekly basis. Green Valley's proposal is being reviewed by the City Councils in each of the contract cities. Fiscal Impact: No immediate fiscal impact since proposal is presented for preview and comment. The Program as proposed by Green Valley could yield approximately $13,000 in increased franchise fees for Saratoga annually. Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Community Services Director 2. Proposal from Green Valley Disposal Motion and Vote: 0 U L X-73 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE_ • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)867-,3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: March 16, 1988 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger To: City Council Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson From: Community Services Director Subject: Status of Curbside Recycling ----------------------------------------------------------------- This memorandum is to update the Council on the current status of efforts to explore the feasibility of implementing a curbside recycling program with the other contract cities served by Green Valley Disposal. On September 8, 1987, the Council held a study session to learn more about curbside recycling. At the close of the study session, staff was directed to pursue exploring the feasibility of implementing a curbside recycling service with the other contract cities, especially with regard to the possibility of engaging the services of a consultant to design a curbside recycling program and assist the cities with the development of bid documents for potential program operators. In December, I met with the Rate Review Committee and was asked to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP) document which could be used to solicit the services of a consultant as described above. This was done, and the draft RFP was scheduled for discussion on February 10 by the Rate Review Committee. Green Valley was also invited to present a proposal to operate a curbside recycling service at that meeting. On February 10, the Rate Review Committee reviewed both my draft RFP and a summary of a curbside recycling program proposed by Green Valley. The Committee decided to take no further action on my RFP until they could analyze further Green Valley's proposal. Green Valley was asked to prepare a more elaborate proposal and present it to the Rate Review Committee on February 25, which they did. On February 25, the Committee decided to forward Green Valley's proposal to each of the involved City Councils in March for consideration. Issues to Consider 1. A curbside recycling service would be less costly if provided on a regional basis involving all of the contract cities (Campbell, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and Saratoga). To what degree are cities (including Saratoga) committed to pursuing curbside recycling? At what cost? To: City Council Page 2 Subject: Status of Curbside Recycling March 16, 1988 2. Another issue is whether to engage the services of a consultant to design a curbside recycling program at an estimated cost of $25,000, or whether to go with Green Valley's proposal and save the $25,000. 3. If the cities agreed to hire a consultant, go out to bid, and ultimately contract with another curbside recycling program operator, there is the issue of how the recycling program operator would interface with the existing waste hauler (Green Valley). To what degree would the relationship between the two companies cause problems for the public and the cities? How would billing be handled, for example? 4. If it was decided to go out to bid for recycling ,program operators, how could the bids-be structured to effectively compare the potential risks of cost increases? Green Valley's Proposal - Summarized Number and Nature of Items to,be Collected and Recycled: Total 8 types of materials. 1. Newspaper 5. Plastic soft drink bottles 2. Glass 6. Cardboard 3. Aluminum cans 7. Used motor oil 4. Tin cans 8. Automotive batteries Collection Frequency: Every week, corresponding with regular trash collection scheduled. Collection Vehicles: Four trucks with trailers containing bins. Staffing: Four drivers, one processing facility operator, and one supervisor. Processing Facility: Use of existing company facilities to perform a low level of processing. Recycling Containers Provided to Customers: Burlap sacks. Participation Rate Projections: Saratoga 30 %, Los Gatos 55 %, Campbell 40%,, Monte Sereno 30%. Costs: 65 cents per month per household, based on estimated annual expenses of $435,000, and estimated annual revenue of $210,000 (net annual cost $225,000) assuming all four contract cities participate in the program. By comparison, San Jose's monthly cost is 91 cents per month. To: City Council Subject: Status of Curbside Recycling March 16, 1988 Page 3 Risk Sharing: Green Valley proposes sharing the financial risks of operating the program with the contract cities on a 50/50 basis. If program revenues decline (for example, due to a downturn in recyclable markets), Green Valley would absorb half of the loss, and the other half would be passed on to the rate payers in the form of a higher surcharge. If program revenues went up, Green Valley would keep half of the increase and the other half would be passed on to rate payers in the form of a reduced surcharge. Status of Other Cities Monte Sereno: The City Council has reviewed Green Valley's proposal and found it to be acceptable. Waiting for actions of other cities. Los Gatos: Proposal will be considered by Council later in month. Campbell: Council has referred proposal to its Civic Improvement Commission which will consider the DroDOSal later this month and then report back to the'Council with their findings. Conclusion The attached proposal from Green Valley Disposal provides more detailed information about their proposed curbside recycling service. FKA, OAF jm Attachment: Green Valley Disposal Recycling Proposal SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / J;�, I AGENDA ITEM � A MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Procedures for Modification of Approved Building Plans and Development Conditions Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance is intended to codify administrative procedures which have now been established concerning the modification of approved building plans and development conditions, as described in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney; (b) Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: A PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) RE: Modification of Approved Building Plans and Development Conditions DATE: March 4, 1988 As a result of a recent situation involving staff modification of plans for a single family dwelling which had received design review approval by the Planning Commission, the City Manager established administrative rules to define those situations where a modification must be approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance is intended to codify these rules. Section 1 of the ordinance would make the following changes to Section 16- 05.030 of the City's building regulations: 1. Add a specific reference to development conditions in paragraph (b); 2. Add a new paragraph (c) to require that a zoning clearance be obtained from the Planning Director before any building permit is issued, such clearance being intended to ensure that the construction drawings comply with all the zoning regulations and development conditions. 3. Add a new paragraph (d), which states that the issuance of a permit shall not constitute approval of any modification of building or site plans or development conditions previously approved by the City, unless such modification has also been approved in accordance with a new Section 16- 05.035 which is being added to the City Code. 4. Add a new paragraph (e) providing for an indemnity agreement to be included on all permit applications. (This amendment is part of a comprehensive revision of sections throughout the entire City Code relating to indemnification of the City and liability insurance, which is addressed in a separate ordinance being presented to the Planning Commission). 5. Add a reference to "any other provision of this Code relating to the project" in paragraph (g). 00 The revision of Section 16- 05.030 also involves the elimination of an existing paragraph which purports to extend the jurisdiction of the City to county, state and federal governmental entities. The paragraph has been eliminated since the City does not have the legal authority to regulate such entities. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance would add a new Section 16- 05.035 to the City Code concerning modification of building plans and development conditions. The various levels of approval would be as follows: 1. If there is no change to the exterior of a structure or material change to the approved site plan, and the modification does not otherwise violate or change any development condition, the modification may be approved by the building official (i.e., the City Engineer's office). 2. Any change of a development condition must be approved by the authority originally imposing such condition. 3. For changes not described above, a modification would be approved by the Planning Director if: (i) the Director originally approved the project; or (ii) the project was approved by the Planning Commission but the modification does not result in any material change or adverse impact upon surrounding properties. The term "material change" would still be a matter of some discretionary judgment, but various circumstances have been defined by the ordinance as constituting material changes and these circumstances have been broadly worded. The City staff is already following the procedures and requirements set forth in the proposed ordinance. The reason for codification of the same is to give notice to applicants and developers of the limitations upon the authority of staff to modify approved plans and development conditions. It should also be noted that under existing provisions of the City Code, a public hearing will be required for any modification if a public hearing was required in connection with the original project approval. Since the ordinance amends the building regulations contained in Chapter 16 of the City Code, there is no legal requirement for a review and recommendation on this ordinance by the Planning Commission. Nevertheless, I am providing a copy of the ordinance and this Memorandum to the Commission for review and comment prior to the scheduled public hearing by the City Council,. cc: Saratoga Planning Commission -2- Saratoga City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 16- 05.030 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO PERMITS AND ADDING SECTION 16- 05.035 RELATING TO .MODIFICATION OF BUILDING PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 16- 05.030 in Article 16 -05 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S16- 05.030 Permits; fees (a) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to engage in any work for which a permit is required by this Chapter, or any code adopted by this Chapter, without first securing such a, permit from the building official. Each applicant for a permit shall pay to the City for each permit issued, at the time of issuance, such fee as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. All schedules of permit fees contained in any of the codes adopted by reference in this Chapter are hereby repealed. (b) The issuance, granting or modification of any permit pursuant to this Chapter, or any code adopted by this Chapter, shall not be deemed or construed to be a permit for or approval of any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any other provision of this Code, or any other ordinance or regulation of the City, or any development condition imposed by the City and any permit purporting to give authority to violate, contradict or cancel any ot the provisions of this Chapter or any other Code provision, ordinance, regulation or development condition of the City shall be invalid. (c) Prior to the issuance of any perm -it pursuant to this Chapter, the building official shall first obtain a zoning clearance from the Planning Director certifying that the project as shown on the construction drawings complies with all applicable zoning regulations and development conditions. The zoning clearance shall not '*11 constitute a representation or warranty by the City to the owner of the property or NIL to any other person with respect to the statements contained therein, nor shall the issuance of a zoning clearance prevent the City from enforcing any zoning regulation or development condition if a violation of the same is later found to exist. (d) The issuance, granting or modification of any permit pursuant to this Chapter, or any code adopted by this Chapter, shall not be deemed or construed to be a permit for or approval of any modification of building, or site plans previously approved by the City or development conditions imposed by the City, unless such '01 modification is approved in accordance with Section 16- 05.035 of this Article, and any permit purporting to give authority to modify any such building plans, site plans or development conditions shall be invalid. -1- (e) Every application for .a permit pursuant to this Chapter shall contain an agreement by the applicant to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of the work authorized by the permit or the failure to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit.. A (f) . Unless otherwise specifically designated, all references to "permit" or "permits" under the provisions of this Article shall mean and include building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, grading and moving permits. (g) The building official shall not issue any permit to any person who has failed to correct any previous violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or any code adopted by this Chapter, or any other provision of this Code relating to the project, after notification of the same, until such time as all such previous violations have been satisfactorily corrected; provided, however, the building official may issue such permit if the violation is being corrected and will be completed by a time designated by the building official." SECTION 2: A new Section 16- 05.035 is added to Article 1.6 -05 of the City Code, to read as follows: "§16- 05.035 Modification of building plans and development conditions No modification shall be made to any building or site plans previously approved P by the City or to any development conditions imposed by the City, unless such modification has been approved as follows: (a) Where the modification does not result in any exterior change to a structure or material change to an approved site plan, and does not otherwise violate or change any development condition relating to the project, the modification may be approved by the building official. (b) Where the modification involves any change to a development condition, the modification shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission if the condition was originally imposed by the Commission or by the City Council on appeal, or subject to approval by the Planning Director if the condition was originally imposed by said Director. (c) Any modification which is not described in either Paragraph (a) or Paragraph (b) of this Section shall be referred to the Planning Director, for disposition as follows: (1) If the project was originally approved by the Planning Director, the modification may be approved by said Director. (2) If the project was originally approved by the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, the modification shall require approval by the Planning Commission if such modification results in any material change to the project or any adverse impact upon the surrounding area; otherwise, the modification maybe approved by the Planning Director. A material change shall include, but is not limited to, any ascertainable change in the size, height or -2- - -- _ elevations of a structure or its placement upon the site; any change in the approved elevation of a building pad; any ascertainable change in the location or design of access roads, driveways or parking areas; or any change in a specific requirement of an approved grading plan or landscape plan." SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. s s s s s s The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 16, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment to Subdivision Regulations Pertaining to Vesting Tentative Maps Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance. Report Summary: Article 14 -80 of the City Code, pertaining to vesting tentative maps, is basically a mirror image of the state law on this subject. Last year, various amendments were made to the state law and the ordinance will serve the purpose of bringing our City Code into conformity with these amendments. The changes were basically intended to clarify the previously enacted state law and do not significantly change any of the provisions concerning vesting tentative maps. Fiscal Impacts: A ttachments: Motion and Vote: None. (a) Proposed ordinance. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 MEETING DATE: 4 -12 -88 (4 -20 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM 7 F� CITY MGR. APPROVAL a^ (Existing) A Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1988 - 1989. A Resolution appointing attorneys for Fiscal Year 1988 - 1989. Report Summary: For the past seven years, the City of Saratoga has utilized the provisions of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972" to raise the revenue necessary to fund required maintenance and incidental costs within the Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1. Pursuant to the Act, proceedings are required for each fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within the District. Resolution No. directs the City Engineer to prepare a report describing the improvements, the costs, the areas involved and the proposed assessments for each parcel. Resolution No. appoints Atkinson /Farasyn as the attorneys for the district. This district includes all previously existing lighting districts, Azule, Azule annexed, Quito and Saratoga Village, Arroyo de Saratoga, Tricia Woods; three (3) Park Maintenance Districts, Manor Drive, Fredricksburg Drive and Greenbrier; one (1) Parking District, Village Parking District No. 1, Meadow Brook, Saratoga - Sunnyvale, Leuther Court, Bonnet Way, Brookview School District, Fremont School District, Sunland Park and Miljevich Drive. It is anticipated that the Engineer's Report will be ready for preliminary approval at the May 18, 1988, meeting of the City Council. Also, at the May 18, 1988, meeting the resolution of intention of fixing time and place of hearing (hearing should be held on June 15, 1988) should be passed. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for the administration, maintenance servicing and lighting energy are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the taxes and, in turn, remit to the City. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. together with Exhibit "A ". 2. Resolution No. Motion and Vote: