Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-02-1987 City Council Staff Reports
4170 W SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL T7V1PrTTTTVR RTTMMARV Mn _ AGENDA ITEM -/,t MEETING DATE: September 2, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney SUBJECT: Revocation of Business Licenses Issued to Sherri Salon and Body Care and Mimosa Beauty Salon and Body Care Recommended Motion: Revoke the business licenses issued to Sherri's and Mimosa, based upon the grounds set forth in S 4- 05.150 (a) (1) and (4) of the City Code. Report Summary: See memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney dated August 26, 1987. (b) Reports from the County Sheriff's office dated June 16, 1987, August 14, 1987 and August 24, 1987. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney . M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915-1979) RE: Revocation of Business Licenses for Sherri's Salon and Body Care and Mimosa Beauty Salon and Body Care DATE: August 26, 1987 On March 24, 1987, a business license was issued to Quyen T. Brown to operate a business under the name of Sherri's Salon and Body Care. The nature of the business was described in the affidavit for license as "haircut, perm, facial and body care and skin care. Nails." The conduct of this business apparently commenced on or about April 1, 1987. On or about December 1, 1986, a renewal business license was issued to Xminh Kim Huynh, to operate a business known as Mimosa Beauty Salon and Body Care. The nature of the business was described in the affidavit for license as: "beauty salon and body care for men and women." According to the affidavit, the business was commenced in May of 1986 and a renewal license was issued for continuation of this business during the calendar year 1987. Following an undercover operation conducted by the Sheriff's office, on June 16, 1987, Ms. Huynh was arrested for soliciting for prostitution, unlawful business practices and maintaining a house of prostitution. A second arrest for the same charges was made on August 14, 1987. Copies of the reports from the Sheriff's office pertaining to these arrests are attached hereto. An undercover operation was similarly conducted at the Sherri's Salon and Body Care establishment, resulting in the arrest of an employee on August 14, 1987, and the subsequent arrest of Ms. Brown on August 24, 1987. These individuals were also charged with soliciting for prostitution and unlawful business practices. Ms. Brown was additionally charged with maintaining a house of prostitution. Copies of reports from the Sheriffs office relating to these arrests are also attached hereto. Based upon the facts set forth in the attached reports, it is recommended that the business licenses issued to Ms. Huynh and Ms. Brown be revoked upon either or both of the following grounds set forth in S 4- 05.150 (a) of the City Code: -1- ATKINSON • FAIRASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN P.O. BOX 279 LEONARD J. SIEGAL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 HAROLD 5. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. (415) 967 -6941 STEVEN G. BAIRD MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney . M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915-1979) RE: Revocation of Business Licenses for Sherri's Salon and Body Care and Mimosa Beauty Salon and Body Care DATE: August 26, 1987 On March 24, 1987, a business license was issued to Quyen T. Brown to operate a business under the name of Sherri's Salon and Body Care. The nature of the business was described in the affidavit for license as "haircut, perm, facial and body care and skin care. Nails." The conduct of this business apparently commenced on or about April 1, 1987. On or about December 1, 1986, a renewal business license was issued to Xminh Kim Huynh, to operate a business known as Mimosa Beauty Salon and Body Care. The nature of the business was described in the affidavit for license as: "beauty salon and body care for men and women." According to the affidavit, the business was commenced in May of 1986 and a renewal license was issued for continuation of this business during the calendar year 1987. Following an undercover operation conducted by the Sheriff's office, on June 16, 1987, Ms. Huynh was arrested for soliciting for prostitution, unlawful business practices and maintaining a house of prostitution. A second arrest for the same charges was made on August 14, 1987. Copies of the reports from the Sheriff's office pertaining to these arrests are attached hereto. An undercover operation was similarly conducted at the Sherri's Salon and Body Care establishment, resulting in the arrest of an employee on August 14, 1987, and the subsequent arrest of Ms. Brown on August 24, 1987. These individuals were also charged with soliciting for prostitution and unlawful business practices. Ms. Brown was additionally charged with maintaining a house of prostitution. Copies of reports from the Sheriffs office relating to these arrests are also attached hereto. Based upon the facts set forth in the attached reports, it is recommended that the business licenses issued to Ms. Huynh and Ms. Brown be revoked upon either or both of the following grounds set forth in S 4- 05.150 (a) of the City Code: -1- "(a) (1) A false or fradulent statement or misrepresentation of any material fact in the application for the license." "(a) (4) Conducting the business in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner, or in a manner which endangers the public health, safety or welfare." Pursuant to § 4- 05.150 (b) of the City Code, on August 17, 1987, a notice of intention to revoke the business license was personally delivered to each of the business establishments, and a copy of the notice was mailed to each licensee. The notice advised each licensee that the City Council would be considering a revocation of the business license at its regular meeting on September 2, 1987, and that the licensee had the right to appear at that time and present any evidence in opposition to the proposed revocation. With respect to the grounds for revocation, the affidavit for business license obviously contained false or fraudulent statements concerning the nature of the business to be conducted on the premises. The criminal charges which now have been filed against each licensee, as described in the attached reports from the Sheriffs office, indicate that each business was being conducted in an illegal, improper manner and contrary to the public health, safety and welfare. In addition to the attached reports, Sergeant Tom Sing from the Sheriffs department, who was one of the arresting officers, will be present at the public hearing and available to answer any questions the Council might have concerning this matter. The revocation of a business license constitutes an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to the City Code and obviously does not represent a determination of any criminal charges which may have been brought against each licensee. The Council may revoke the licenses if it determines that one or more of the grounds for revocation is supported by substantial evidence. The Council is not required to sustain a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. On the basis of the evidence presented in the attached reports from the Sheriff department, staff recommends that both licenses be revoked. -2- C 8115 N. San Pedro Street San Jose, Calif. 95110 (408) 294 -1334 C SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF - 4300 INf`Ir1GNT 0;:Pf1RT COOS 315, 647Cb) PC ...— . - -... .. —. v... r EPORT.BEATNO R87 -8525S TYPE OF INCIDENT: Soliciting for prostitution LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: CITY 14471B Big Basin Wy Saratoga CROSS STREET' 1 People, State of California SSN ASSAULT VIC rIM HT,WT• RESIDENCE ADDRESS: Z I T Y IIES PHONE' - ^= BUSINESS NAME BUS. ADDRESS C I T Y 6U3 PHONE El REPCRTEO By' On View i:GB S :iN %cn r'h4NE .. ' RESIDENCE ADDRESS: .,I T rt;.S PrtONE .. aUS:NESS NAME. 9ui ACORESS C I T', DAY.OATElT:ME OCCURRED "' - Tue. 6 -16 -87 1430 hours REPORTED TO �LIA,ETiVE REPORTED /O — 6 -87 1500 hours L,SCC "I NO S AGENCY. SUSPECTMPRESTEEE•1 HUYNH, Minh Kim DOB -18 -54 SSN ).L P.0 .3885854 3OURE00 CI:EU© Nu M265790 ADDRESS USED: 981 Lovell, Campbell SExRACE. F / Viet HT.'Nr. 5'2 "/120 HAIR;EYES: Blk /Brn uttock /Ift thigh LIST BELOW PART CIPATING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ATTACHMENTS, ADDITIONAL VICTIMS, SUSPECTS, ANO NITNESSESS, OE TAILS Or CRIME ;INCLUOIN.; IDENTIFY .— :•a 4, =�.pv �'TC JALUES OF 'PDF FR.7�: PLEO Deouty Patrick Moore #288 Original report Due to several complaints to the Sheriff's Office from citizens of Saratoga ` . f 14471 S Big Basin Way, City of Saratoga, I went in the establishment on June 16, 1987 approximately 1345 hours and was met by an oriental female, ricer $35.00 for a half hour or $60.00 for an hour. I asked for the , hou -c and gave her thcee $20.00 bills and she handed me a 8 1/2 by it spiral San it. She requested that I take a shower and led me to a bathroom located in a hallway, containing a shower, toilet and sink, handing me a towe an to wait and to have a seat explaining she was by herself and that she had other customers. While I waited, an elderly male came out of a enclosed etfbieie that 1 Wa5 iftte'. to efit.,I_ted and again asked te wait aRel it -appeared she had another customer in the cubicle next to mine as I heard her and a male voice through the wall. Approximately 1405 hours, HUYNH came into t e down on the padded table. She wanted to know if I wanted oil or powder used and if I wanted a "hard" or "soft" massage and I requested a "soft" massage. massaged my chest and legs and periodically would barely touch my testicles with her finger tips. After approximately twenty minutes, RUM asked $20.00. She told me that I could et everything for $100.00 and I still insisted that I had $20.00. SHe said "OK, next time you bring more money,-. OA REFERRAL Page 2 REPORT/BEAT NO. IR87-8525S give me Me twenty. I jul. Off the table and ret"Fieved $ZU.UU and handed it to her and grit hArk an thp tAhlp She piillerl HnLya her- gpeen and whits -- stripe tube top, exposing her breasts and said"ThAs makes it more sexy" and d,-SKea me- IV I wanted -Mouth, , pointing, to her I I PS Wh is in my m i n-d m—e--an-T- oral rnpulatinn nr. "hand" - mnyinQ hL-r ha-nrj ip ;;nfl rinun inejir-;At4DQ tn me masturbation. I said "hand" and she poured baby oil on my penis and asked Ir I wanteC It naca or SOIL as she grabbed my penis and I told her i chAnced my mind hpr-Aij�,P- my rjifi- ic� ver-ty smact and would know if T hari a_ climax. She stopped and laughe.d wanting to know if that was true and I Insisted my wife Could Lei I . bhe asked it my wite was young and i t0lCl her -HP WAaz qhp thpn ant 3 wL-t t- nwi- I Aarj uipgari fr-he nil nff rif Me ;;Qrj T ASL-erj her questions about hec background and during our conversation she told me t-ndL nUU M1�50=1 Was in pulson tor shooting nec and litted Up her dr-e-s—s--an-d- showed me were the htil Ipt Pntry wntind in �ipr 1pff htittnck,q iriri the -xif wound an the front pact of her thigh. I told her I was late for an appointment ana Wt::IIL UdL;K to the Da.thCOOM, snowecea an put on my clothes. I rnntartPd a 9heriff'-; patrn] n1f ir - pr and -,-nt hArk int-n thp C;,Alnn identifying myself to HUYNH with my depactmental identification and placed h UL U 11CM L -d-L L eti t t UU 50 i I C; I L I ng f 01' P,L Ut� L I LU r- 1 On. ms sHe was neing ci Lea, i owner and advised her I was also charging her with keeping a house of pLUzj1.iLUt1(J1I. , Incluatng the "tip" -arid recQyered the exact marked hill-(;- tnt;41 SAQ-nn :ind T rF--trjPvP(j the spiral notebook with my undercover name which was in plain view in a Yicms display UdZit! 11,UcIL thU fLUI]t dUUL. A Quor t Clace ILI 6-Utj GdtU,'5 MUII!Ulpa was scheduled on July 23. 1987 at 0900 hours. -Court End of . L UPUL t Beptl t Fid t I i k, k ! !UCL tf #288 6-18-87 1130 -houcs S1032 REV 2?81 740.10 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT C IR87 -8252S 647(b)P Soliciting For Prostitution On 8/13/87, the undersigned Madsen #R1074 for him to proceed Saratoga, with undercover money, tion from the employee(s) within Deputy Madsen proceeded to the 1 Mimosa Beauty Salon, 14471 B Big made arrangements with Reserve Deputy Sheriff S. to Sherri's Massage Studio, 14501 Bi -g Basin Way, in hopes of eliciting a solicitation for prostitu- said establishment. At approximately 13'15 hours, 4501 Big Basin Way address, while I proceeded to Basin Way, for the same purposes. The undersigned entered Mimosa Salon at approximately 1317 hours, ar.d a female oriental, subsequently identified as arrestee HUYNH, Minh Kim, DOB: 9 -18 -54 Address: 4092 Ashbrook Circle,.San Jose 5'2 " /1201bs Blk hair /Brn eyes approached me, and merely asked, "Massage ?" I responded yes, then proceeded to a counter in close proximity to the front door. I observed a staircase to the right of the entry way, and also observed what appeared to be furnishings at the top of said stairs. Upon reaching said counter, I observed a document that appeared to be a fee list, with all of the services having one common fee - $65.00.. l advised suspect Huynh that all I had was a $50. bill. She stated that it was okay, and led to me a small cubicle that contained a small bed with a mattress that had the numeral 1 on its door. Prior to entering said cubicle #1, I observed a similar cubicle to the right of cubicle #1, that was numbered 2. Both cubicles were err.pty prior to my entry. Upon entering the cubicle, suspect Huynh asked if I desired to take a shower. I asked if it was necessary, and she motioned yes. The shower was located adjacent to cubicle #2, and was not a common area, as in the past. The undersigned subsequently returned to the cubicle whereupon suspect Huynh proceeded to wipe various parts of my body, pausing briefly at my buttocks and genital areas. As I was laying on my stomach, suspect Huynh proceeded to administer what I would personally categorize as a poor example of a massage, highlighted by the application of what appeared to be baby powder. During the back massage, suspect. Huynh's fingernails briefly touched my anal and scrotum areas. Approximately 15 minutes later, suspect Huynh advised me to roll over on my back, and I did so. She then proceeded to massage the front portion of my body, taking great care to-flick her fingernails on my penis and scrotum area. While she did so, she asked, "how do you feel ? ", smiling at me. 1 responded to the positive. After making circular movements around my groin area with both her hands, she then rubbed my penis, and asked if I wanted her to massage me there. I asked her how much extra it would cost,, and she replied one- twenty, causing me to believe $120. dollars for her to masturbate me. I responded by asking, $120.dollars for just that ? She replied, "one- twenty for everything with me ", and again she patted and stroked my penis. She then added, "you can massage.me too, no clothes" making ar undressing motion of her dress with her hands. I responded that I would have to _ go across the street to get some more money from the bank(B of A). At that point, someone entered the salon, and suspect Huynh told me to "wait ", and smiled and stroked my penis again, and left the cubicle. I attempted to ascer- r tain the identity of the visitor, but could only hear bits of pieces of conversa- tion spoken in english. It was readily apparent that the visitor was not of orients�fi origin. �1.. A few minutes' later, suspect Huynh returned to the cubicle with a somber look SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IR87 -82525 647(b) PC p.2 her face. She returned to applying the massage,'but became 'very non - communicative. 4, I attempted to ask her about the one- twenty again, but she gave me a funny lock, and said, "no one - twenty ". I ther, asked her "how much ", and she merely gestured her hand in a dismissing manner. Subsequently she asked if I desired another hour's worth of massage., and I responded "massage only ? ", and she shook her head in an affirmative manner. I advised her that I had to return to work, she stopped massaging, and.I subsequently dressed and left the salon. I observed deputy Madsen in the area after exiting the salon, and after making contact with him, determined that he was also solicited(see attached supplemental report by Deputy Madsen), and patrol units were called to effect the arrest. At approximately 1415 hours the same date, the undersigned re- entered Mimosa Salon and observed suspect Huynh at the top of the stairs, standing in a loft -type configuration. She appeared to be bending dcwn., as if she were secreting something beneath a sofa. She was advised of our intentions to arrest her, and had to be physically escorted down the stairs due to her obstinacy and resistance. She kept saying in a loud voice, "You want to kill me", over and over. I subsequently requested the return of the undercover money that was giver her, anC she ultimately led me to a brown paper sack under a hide -away couch at thE! top of the stairs. Within said package I observed a large roll of US currency, co- mingled with the undercover money that was verified through serialization. $912.00 was seized as evidence along with the undercover money. I close proximity to the money were a number of spiral notebooks which contained names of possible "tricks ". These were also seized as evidence, along with a large blue check register indicating "Mimosa Salon ", miscellaneous business cards, a box of unused personal checks in the namE, of "Minh Kim Huynh, some credit card charge slips, and s.ign -in logs for 1986. I was unable to locate the sign -in register for today's (8- 13 -87) date. Both suspects were transported to the Women's Detention Facility for booking. Vi. Sgt. T. Sing #79 8 -14 -87 1500hrs f C � C INFORMATION SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TYPE ACTIVITY INTELLIGENCE REPORT Prostitution INDIVIDUAL FILE NO, 87-014 OPERATION NAME IL.AST NAME F;RSTI W;FE'HU!SBAND OCCUPATION S.S., V0. SOA NA MASSEUSE NONE AL IA 5;'N I C K N AM E' LISA 0L:: PLACE EMPLOYEO GR OWNED MASSAGE STUDIO PHONE. 741-1090 ADDRESS 1696 Cedar Creek _.SHFRRP.� C11: ADDRESS 114501 Big Basin Way CITY Saratoga CITY PHONE F I n. VEHICLES San Jose_ _ 270-1198 SEX DESCENT BIRTHDATE HG T. 'NGT HAIR E'J6S i n. 2/14/1,1, 5'T" 115 Blk Brn COMPLEXION, MARp'S, SCARS, TATTOOS, ETC. RESUME OF, ANO'OR 'REASON FOR MAKING REPORT: SOURCE EVALUATION OF 30_RCE -1 USUALLY FAIRLY NOT USUALLY ._. L__. RELIABILITY A. I RELIABLE B. ; RELIABLE C. RE- LIABLE D. _'RELIABLE E. _' UNRELIABLE F. L I UNKNOWN' EVALL'ATION OF PROBABLY - POSSIBLY D'OUBTFJL,LY -- T -RUTH CANNOT 1, ('CONFIRMED 2. TRUE 3• TRUE 4• TRUE 55. IMPROBABLE 6. i--1 t BE JUDGEO DETAILS OF REPO PT -ASSOCIATE -S, M.O. a MI5C. iNFO.1 On 8/13/87, I was assigned to respond to the establishment at 14501 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Sherri's Massage Studio by Sgt. T. Sing. My purpose was to obtain a solicitation for prostitution from any and /or all female employees there. Upon entering the front dcor at approximately 1:15pm, I wa,s met by an oriental female who introduced herself as "Lisa ", who was. subsequently identified as suspect Vo. I indicate to her that I had heard that they gave good massages there, and if I would be able to get one without an appointment. She indicated yes, and,that it was $50., for an hour. I pro- duced a marked $50. bill. Lisa ther. asked me to sign the guest register, and I did. Lisa then led me to a small room, anc told me to remove my clothes. She handed me a small towel, and pointed to a shower deer down, the hallway. Afterwards I returned to thE' small room, and shortly thereafter Lisa returned, and told me to lay on my stomach. She began massaging my back area, and after 15 minutes, had me roll over on my back, and began . massaging the front of my body. While massaging my feet and legs, she would periodically touch my testicles with her fingers.- She asked me if I was a police officer, and I replied "no ". She then put her left hand on my navel ar.d her rigrt hand just below my genitals and said that she did not massage here. I asked her to' repeat herself, and she did, but added that I was a very special customer, and she would .... (she cupped her hand, making a motion like she was masturbating a male person) I.asked if it would cost any extra money, and she said no. I said that I dial not feel comfortable with that. I told her maybe some other time, and she indicated yes. I then dres >sed and left the massage studio. I then concurred with Sgt.. Sing and he indicated that this was the' 2nd solicitation and that Detective Mocre had obtained a solici'tat,ion approximately 2 weeks ago from her. I returned within a few minutes in the company of Deputy Sue Whittington, #579, and arrested her for the listed violations, and also added the 17200 B & P because of it being a "front" business for prostitution. 5UP "/, APPROVING DATE AND TIME THIS REPORT REPORTING OFFICER(5) 01V, 5ER N PISA 8/14/87 1500 S. Madsen CIU PHOTO ATTACHED ❑ YES ❑ NO CH ATTACHED :] YES ❑ NO PAGE NO. 885 N. OarF�e&aro Street San Jose, Calif. 95110 (408) 294 -1334 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF - 4300 IIU(:If1FNT RFP(1RT CODE 3:15 ; 647 (b) ' PC _ _ - -- -— - F `' REPORT /BEAT NO. I R87- 12.139S TYPE OF INCIDENT' e i g a nouse ot prost,itution Soliciting for prostitution LOCATION OF OC CITY 14501 BIG ;BASI'N WAY,, CROSS STREET: ' 4TH ST' NAME OF VICTIM: People, State of California DOB SSN ASSAULT VICTIM HT /WT: RESIDENCE ADDRESS: CITY 1 RES. PHONE: C 0 TACT 0000 10700 BUSINESS NAME: BUS. ADDRESS': CITY BUS. PHONE, CON T A C T 0800 REPORTED BY: On View DOB SSN RES. PHONE: cOV, A c 1 0000 ° 1700 RESIDENCE ADDRESS: - . CITY I BUS. PHONE C 6N T A C , 0e0o ,° 1700 BUSINESS NAME: BUS.. ADDRESS: , { • C.I,LY ,DAY /OAT E/TIME -OCCUR RED: Tue. 6 -18 -87 1500 hours REPORTED 1'O: S/O DATE/TIME REPORTED: - -18'87 1.500 hours ASSOC IR NO 8 AGENCY: SUSPECT /ARRESTEE p1: BROWN, QUYEN THUYEN DOB - 4 -01 -51 SSN D/L NO. . • !� N5504253 BOOKED ❑ CITED ❑ ADDRESS USED: - - 23086•STONEWALL,'HAYWARD SEX/RACE: F /Viet HT /WT: 51211/110 HAIR/EYES:. Bl'k /Brn MARKS /SCARS /TATTOOS:' ' " LIST BELOW PARTICIPATING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ATTACHMENTS, ADDITIONAL VICTIMS, SUSPECTS, AND WITNESSESS, DETA)'LS OF CRIME (INCLUDING IDENTIFYING MAR.` :S) DESCRIPTION AND VALUES OF PROPE'RTY: PLEO Deputy Patrick Moore #288 Original report S11SRECT #2 V0, SOA AKA ".LISA" 2 -14 -55 / 1 b. ; RAPATMA ARfI[TP Pf1RRTRi.F PRCIRTTT[ITTnN AT A SHCIp- KNQWN•'A,'9 SHF.RRT /S REALITY SALON; 14501 BIG BASIN WAY,. SARATOGA, AN INVESTIGATION STARTED AND REVEALED - , SHERRI'S SALON AND BODY CARE, AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS,•WITH -A BUSINESS PHONE OF PRETEXT OF GETTING A MASSAGE. I WAS QUOTED'A PRICE OF'$50.00 FROM A' MY FIRST NAME AND CITY "SAN JOSE." I NOTICED THAT THE"SHOP HAD THE ROOM 171PROS11F EACH OTHER AFTER ENTERING A DOORWAY- - T'WAS nIPECTED TO ONE OF THE ROOMS TO MY LEFT. I WAS ASKED IF I WANTED A SHOWER AND TO GET UNDRESSED PRICE ANU DIRECTED ME TO THE RQUM CAME BACK AND TOLD ME TO GET ON THE TA11,11 AND WANTED TO KNOW IF I WANTED A " HARD" MASSAGE .OR A "SOFT" MASSAGE AND IF I —WANIELI FUWUER UR UIL. - DA REFERRAL 0 OVER r Page 2 REPORT /BEAT NO. IRp7- 1213p5 NMOOMUD MLIJJ LJGlt1L1V 1'LA" LJ11 JLay...1 vaa ..+ +•+++� • -•— • -�- -- - - - - - -- - -- — AND THE OTHER GIRL AS HER "SISTER11, AFTER APEROXIMATELY 40-:45-MINUTES SHE ADVISED ME THAT THE:MASSAGE WAS DONE AND AT NO TIME DID•SHE.T000H-MY PRIVATE WERE ADVERTISED IN THE SPECTATOR" AND SHE ASKED WHAT I WANTED AND I SAID " DON'T KNOW, I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT" SHE WANTED TO KNOW IF I ANYTHING ELSE OR SHE COULD BE ARRESTED. IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE ONLY WAY TO OBTAIN A,SOLICITATION WAS TO REQUEST IT AND SEEING IF THERE WAS A FEE PURSUE THE CONVERSATION DRESSED AND AS I WAS LEAVING, I WAS ASKED IF I WANTED TO LEAVE BY THE BACK DOOR AND I ACCEPTED.. BY "YOKO" AND I REQUESTED A MASSAGE. I AGAIN SIGNED IN THE APPOINTMENT BOOK MY FIRST NAME AND CITY OF "SAN JOSE" AND WAS DIRECTED TO THE SAME ROOM AS SAYING .SHE WOULD BRING MY CHANGE BACK. "YOKO" CAME INTO THE ROOM WITH MY CHANGE AND AGAIN I WAS GIVEN A MASSAGE. DURING THE MASSAGE SHE ASKED WHAT �PL,PE eF WORK 1 BIB A-EeNG WITH OTHER SLIll"" --le. AT THE ENB E)F THE MASSAGE SHE WANTED TO KNOW ,IF:-I!WANTED =TO BE MASTURBATED AND I ASKED "HOW'MUCH" AND SHE SAID "NO MONEY, I DO IT BECAUSE I LIKE YOU" SHE STARTED TO,MASTURBATE ME AND I TOLD HER�TE-) SOTOP TELLING HER "I WANTED' TO 'SAYE"!T`FE)R SHE STOPPED AND WASHED ME OFF WITH A WET TOWEL. I GOT DRESSED AND ASKED IF I COULD LEAVE BY THE BACK' DOOR 'AND SHE SA I'D IT WAS ' OK': AS .I OPENED * THE BACK IT WAS IN THAT I HAD ONE JUST LIKE IT. "YOKO" SAID IT WAS HERS. I NOTED THE CALIFORNIA LICENSE OF 1AUV798 AND LATER DETERMINED IT WAS REGISTERED TO N5504253. .I CONTACTED SAN FRANCISCO VICE AND DETERMINED THAT QUYEN T.'BROWN WAS I CONTACTED A LT. TOM ANGELICA OF JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 504 832 -2300 AND DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING MISDEMEANOR FAILURE TO EXTRADITE ON IT. I REQUESTED A DMV SOUNDEX TO DETERMINE IF "YOKO" WAS IN FACT QUYEN T. BROWN. - eti juEy 16, 198--f AF-�--Rl �iG THAT "YE)KE)" AND GUYEN T. BROWN WERE THE SAME.•AND THE: OWNER- IOF RECORD OF SHERRI'S,. ,I WENT BACK AT APPROXIMATELY 1400 - HO,VRS : AND •,MET. BROWNi! AND REQUESTED N 'MASSAGE': I' UNDRESSED : A'ND .LAID .DOWN MASSAGED FIRST. ' SHE ;LA'UGHED. AND "BEGAN MASSaAGING'iME .. �A'PPROXIMATELY FIVE' .MINUT-ES• INTO- THE- M'ASSAGE',•I ASKED HER',TF ?ANYONE EVER ASKED HER TO MASSAGE THP�M m !,Pl -T.RF 41UPE AND SHl� SA.-� � - FA, Y FOR-ANOTHER `,MASSAGE-' , .1 THEN ASKED HER IF SHE DID ANYTHING ELSE AND SHE SAID "ONLY MASSAGE ". SHE THEN SAID "I REM MBVR YOU-f., YOUR : jT.HE '0 AT . WANTED 0 SA - I T' OR YOUR WIFE" SHE BEGAN MASSAGING, MY T 84STI= ES MID 1! SAl4)-"`l' WANT, TO -'SAV9' 4-T FGR MY WIFE AGAIN" AND-SHE LAUGH -ED ANID _;SAID, I . -WAS--k GOOD, MAN AND STOPPED: SHE - CONTINUED MASSAGING ME AND ' OCOA�S I ONALLY , TOUCHED . MY 'TESTI CI;ES . DURING . THE REMAINDER OF "S I HE , G IVES GOOD ,'MASSAGES �', I THEN LEFT . AGAIN 'BY THE BACK DOOR AND NOTICED A WHITE TOYOTA ,PARKED.•NEXT .TO,•THE°'EXIT: IN'PFRONT .OF BROWNS BUI K, CALIFORNIA W1032 REV 2/81 - ' S V0, SOA SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IR 87- 12139S 647(b) PC, 17200 B&P ON 8- 13 -87, I WAS ASSIGNED TO RESPOND TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AT 14501 BIG BASIN WAY, SARATOGA, SHERRI'S MASSAGE STUDIO BY SGT. TOM SING. MY PURPOSE WAS TO OBTAIN A SOLICITATION FOR PROSTITUTION FROM ANY AND /OR ALL FEMALE EMPLOYEES THERE. UPON ENTERING THE FRONT DOOR AT APPROXIMATELY 1:15 PM, I WAS MET BY AN ORIENTAL FEMALE WHO INTRODUCED HERSELF AS "LISA ", WHO WAS SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED AS SUSPECT #2 V0. I INDICATED TO HER THAT I HAD HEARD THAT THEY GAVE GOOD MASSAGES THERE, AND IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO GET ONE WITHOUT AN APPOINTMENT. SHE INDICATED YES, AND THAT IT WAS $50.00 FOR AN HOUR. I PRODUCED A MARKED $50.00 BILL. LISA THEN ASKED ME TO SIGN THE GUEST REGISTER, AND I DID. LISA THEN LED ME TO A SMALL ROOM, AND TOLD ME TO REMOVE MY CLOTHES. SHE HANDED ME A SMALL TOWEL, AND POINTED TO A SHOWER DOOR DOWN THE HALLWAY. AFTERWARDS, I RETURNED TO THE SMALL ROOM, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER LISA RETURNED, AND TOLD ME TO LAY ON MY STOMACH. SHE BEGAN MASSAGING MY BACK AREA, AND AFTER 15 MINUTES, HAD ME ROLL OVER ON MY BACK, AND BEGAN MASSAGING THE FRONT OF MY BODY. WHILE MASSAGING MY FEET AND LEGS, SHE WOULD PERIODICALLY TOUCH MY TESTICLES WITH HER FINGERS. SHE ASKED ME IF I WAS A POLICE OFFICER, AND I REPLIED "NO ". SHE THEN PUT HER LEFT HAND ON MY NAVEL AND HER RIGHT HAND JUST BELOW MY GENITALS AND SAID THAT SHE DID NOT MASSAGE HERE. I ASKED HER TO REPEAT HERSELF, AND SHE DID, BUT ADDED THAT I WAS A VERY SPECIAL CUSTOMER, AND SHE WOULD .... (SHE CUPPED HER HAND, MAK "ING A MOTION LIKE SHE WAS MASTURBATING A MALE PERSON) I ASKED IF IT WOULD COST ANY EXTRA MONEY, AND SHE SAID NO. I SAID THAT I DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I TOLD HER MAYBE SOME OTHER TIME, AND SHE INDICATED YES. I THEN DRESSED AND LEFT THE MASSAGE STUDIO. I THEN CONCURRED WITH SGT. SING AND HE INDICATED THAT THIS WAS THE 2ND SOLICITATION AND THAT DETECTIVE MOORE HAD OBTAINED A SOLICITATION APPROXIMATELY 2 WEEKS AGO FROM HER. I RETURNED WITHIN A FEW MINUTES IN THE COMPANY OF DEPUTY SUE WHITTINGTON #579, AND ARRESTED HER FOR THE LISTED VIOLATIONS. END OF REPORT STEVE MADSEN #81074 8 -14 -87 1500 HOURS r i SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IR 87- 12139S 315PC, 647b PC On 8/19/87, at approximately 1415 hours, the undersigned entered the Sherri Massage Studio at 14501 Bi.g Basin Way for the purpose of attempting to obtain a solici- tation for prostitution from a 3rd oriental female, observed in the facility on a prior occasion. The undersigned was greeted by suspect QUYEN THUYEN BROWN and she asked if I desired a massage. I indicated yes. Suspect Brown led me to a cubicle which was dimly -lit and occupied by a tab,le - like apparatus, similar to one.seen in dcctor's offices and used for examination of patients.. There did not seem to be anyone else in the facility. Suspect Brown asked me to take a shower, whic was located adjacent to the cubicle, after which she began to admini.ster a massage. After approximately 40 minutes of normal massage, she asked me if ".Lisa" took care of me properly.(Reference to arrestee Vo's aka) I smiled at her, and said yes. SuspECt Brown asked me how, and I replied, "with her hands ". Suspect Brown then.walked over to a' small shelf, obtained a small bottle of baby oil, and began rubbing said' oil on my penis, and commenced to attempt to masturbate me. At that point I declined to continue, and.feigned a physical problem. Suspect Brown subsequently attempted 3 more times to continue masturbation, but I Subsequently told her I had a problem with that, and she ceased. I was told by her that, she would give me a much better time when I rEturned. I stated that I had seen "Lisa" 2 timE!s, and Brown in- dicated for me to see her(Brown) the next time. I left the establishment at approximately 1530 hours. During the period of timE! I spent in the establishment, I overheard male callers on the telephone on 13 separate occasion -s, asking the massage fees, and also heard one individual who identified himself as a lawyer, after which time suspect Brown excused herself and left the room so the conversation could not be heard. Suspect Brown has a cordless phone which she brings into the cubicle during massage sessions. Aside from the $50.dollar massage fee, no additional monies were asked for thE: masturbation(attempted). Suspect Brown did ask if I was a police officer, and 1 replied no. Sgt. Tom Sing #79 8/20/87 1000 hours SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. MEETING DATE: September 2, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering AGENDA ITEM 4 E� CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan Implementation Recommended Motion: Approve "Agreement Regarding Evaluation of Nonpoint Source of Water Pollution" and authorize Mayor to execute. Repoft Summary: Action plan has been developed under cooperative agreement of 15 local juris- dictions to determine extent of nonpoint pollution. Implementation of plan is now required to make that determination. Santa Clara Valley Water District will administer contract. Fiscal Impacts: $17,640 of funds budgeted for grants to other agencies. Attachments: 1. Agreement. 2. Staff Report including Action Plan Summary. Motion and Vote: Staff reccnTriendation 4 -0. AGREEMENT REGARDING EVALUATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE OF WATER POLLUTION Santa Clara Valley Water District, a local public agency of the State of California; County of Santa Clara, a subdivision of the State of California; City of Campbell, a municipality of the State of California; City of Cupertino, a municipality of the State of California; City of Los Altos, a municipality of the State of California; Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipality of the State of California; Town of Los Gatos, a municipality of the State of California; City of Milpitas, a municipality of the State of California; City of Monte Sereno, a municipality of the State of California; City of Mountain View, a municipality of the State of California; City of Palo Alto, a municipality of the State of California; City of San Jose,a municipality of the State of California; City of Santa Clara, a municipality of the State of California; City of Saratoga, a municipality of the State of California; City of Sunnyvale, a municipality of the State of California; QAGREE this RECITALS: day of , 1987, as follows: A. The parties have heretofore agreed to join in meeting the cost of preparing a proposal for evaluation of nonpoint source pollution. B. Said proposal, denominated "Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan" (hereafter "the action plan ") has been approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on August 19, 1987. C. This Agreement will similarly allocate responsibility for implementation of the action plan. AGREEMENT: 1. , Santa Clara Valley Water District shall assume a significant coordination role in carrying out the program proposed in the action plan and shall select a professional consultant for the work in accordance with its established selection procedures. The "09AG6483 1 consultant shall indemnify the parties and provide evidence of public liability insurance in terms and to limits established by Santa Clara Valley Water District for consultants engaged by it for similar work. 2. A Task Force consisting of representatives of agencies specified on "Exhibit All hereto, so marked and made a part hereof, shall oversee and direct the consultant so engaged. 3. The parties shall share in meeting the cost, including the consultant's fee and the necessary and reasonable cost incurred by District, in the proportions stated in the schedule thereof marked "Exhibit B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The indicated shares are based on proportional stormwater runoff from the respective jurisdictions as computed for purposes of District's Benefit Assessment Revenue Program. 4. The total cost to be so apportioned shall not exceed $1,176,000. 5. This Agreement will be effective as to signing parties upon the execution of parties sharing 90% or more of the apportioned cost. District will thereupon proceed to secure the services of a consultant as stated in paragraph 1 above. If execution is refused by one or more of the balance of the named proposed parties hereto the share of such party or parties will be met by the executing parties other than District in the general proportion shown on "Exhibit B" or by such division as the executing parties other than District may determine and agree upon. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic of APPROVED AS TOTORM the State of California By: General Counsel Chairman, Board of Directors ATTEST: Clerk/Board of Directors SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of APPROVED AS TO FORM California By: County Counsel Chairperson, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: 09AG6483 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California City Attorney By. Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ' ATTEST: CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California � . City Attorney By; Mayor ATTEST: TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM. of the State of California By: Town Attorney Mayor ATTEST: 09AG6483 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Town Attorney TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipality of the State of California By: Mayor ATTEST: 09AG6483 ATTEST: 4 CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipality 'APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipality of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor 09AG6483 ATTEST: 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipality of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: 09AG6483 5 ATTEST: CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California .. By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipality �PPR'OVED AS'TO FORM of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: 09AG6483 5 L P CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM of the State of California City Attorney By. Mayor ATTEST: 09AG6483 EXHIBIT A TASK FORCE AGENCIES San Francisco Bay, Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Clara Valley Water District County of Santa Clara City of San Jose City of Sunnyvale Town of Los Gatos EXHIBIT B 8 • SCHEDULE OF COST SHARING PROPORTIONS Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Jurisdiction Proportional Share Campbell 1.7% Cupertino 2.3 Los Altos 1.5 Los Altos Hills 0.4 Los Gatos 1.6 Milpitas 2.5 Monte Sereno 0.1 Mountain View! 3.6 Palo Alto ; 3.7 San Jose 29.8 Santa Clara 5.7 Saratoga 1.5 Sunnyvale 6.7 Santa Clara County 5.5 66.6% Santa Clara Valley Water District 33.4% ' 100.0% 8 a�J U REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8 -27 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 9 -2 -87 SUBJECT: Nonpoint Source Discharge Evaluation Action Plan Implementation Earlier this year Saratoga participated with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions in the preparation of the referenced action plan. The consultant completed work on the establishing of that plan on time and in budget (copy of plan summary is attached). Now it is necessary to proceed with the implementation of this plan. Santa Clara Valley Water District is contributing 1/3 of the cost with the other jurisdictions contributing their prorata share of the other 2/3. This proration is based on the same benefit ratio as was used in the cost of develop- ing the action plan. The total cost is not to exceed $1,176,000 with Saratoga's share being 1.5% or $17,640. $25,000 has been budgeted for this work. Recommend Council approve "Agreement Regarding Evaluation of Nonpoint Source of Water Pollution ". Robert ook City Erigineer RSS /df SUMMIARY • INTRODUCTION This Nonpoint Source (NPS) Evaluation Action Plan (Action Plan) was prepared to� address the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB's) .1.986 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (.Basin Plan). The Basin Plan requires: o Characterization of NPS discharges to South San Francisco Bay; and o Evaluation of the cost - effectiveness of existing and additional NPS control measures. The Action Plan meets the requirements of the Basin Plan. The Action Plan consists of a description of the technical approach, implementation plan, and expected products of the NPS evaluation. The Action Plan was developed through an interactive process between the funding agencies of northern Santa Clara County (Santa Clara Valley Water District., 13 cities and towns., and the County), the RWQCB staff, and CH2M HILL with its associate firm Eisenberg, Olivieri and Asso- ciates (EOA). Technical memoranda (TMs) establishing the project objectives, usefulness of existing data, sample col- lection plan, data analysis plan,, and program management plan were written by CH2M HILL and EOA for review and com- ment by the funding agencies and the RWQCB staff. Comments on the TMs were received at three project workshops. The TMs were then modified to reflect the consensus reached at the workshops. The TMs provide the foundation of the Action. Plan and many of the detailed descriptions necessary to successfully implement the Action Plan are given in the TMs (provided in the appendix of this Action Plan). The program described in the Action Plan has six basic com- ponents, or functions, as follows: o Compilation of Existing Data; o Field Sampling Program; o Modelling; o Analysis o.f Results; o Reporting; and o Program Management. The program schedule describing the relationship between each program function is shown in Figure S -1.. Each program function is described below. SJR11 /000 S -1 1987 1988 1989 S 0 N D =till, A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J rF,ELD EXISTING DATA MPLING PROGRAM MODELLING ANALYSIS OF DATA Ll REPORTING 0 QUARTERLY PROGRESS • FIELD DATA SUMMARY • CONTROL EVALUATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT LJ 1-7 FIGURE S - 1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE TECHNICAL APPROACH A field sampling program and a compilation of existing data will be used to develop calibrated water quality models. The results of the model will be analyzed to meet the objec- tives of the program as described above. COMPILATION OF EXISTING DATA The following existing data will be gathered, in part, from sources identified in TM Nos. 3 through 8: o Local hydrologic and meteorologic data; o NPS control effectiveness and cost data (national and site specific); o Point source discharge quality data; and o NPS discharge data. Once gathered, these data will be evaluated as- follows: o Prepare maps and overlays.to describe the location of data collection sites; o Coded for input to digital data management and modelling programs; and o Checked and loaded into a data management, system. FIELD SAMPLING PLAN The field sampling plan was designed specifically to support the recommended modelling approach. Water and sediment sam- ples will be collected in three temporal phases described below (the number of each to be sampled is in parentheses): o Storms (5)-- representing the transient phenomenon ; of pollutants transported by the rainfall runoff process; o Background (6) -- representing base flow conditions during nonstorm periods throughout the year; and o Synoptic samples (2) -- representing concurrent con- ditions at several locations in a watershed during the wet and dry season to enable evaluation of spatial variation. Samples will be collected at three kinds of sampling sites as follows: SJR11 /000 S -3 o Land use sites (9) -- discrete drainage areas repre- senting discrete land use types; o Control practice sites (1) -- representing drainages with existing control practices in operation whose effectiveness is not adequately described in engineering literature; and o Stream sites (9) -- representing the combined ef- fects of several tributary land uses and instream processes. Because some stations serve two purposes (e.g. land use and stream), a total of only 16 stations will be sampled to achieve the program objectives. Samples from initial storm and background collections will be analyzed for all of the following constituents: dis- solved oxygen, pH, temperature, total suspended solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia (total and unionized), metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc), COD, coliform, organ- ics (with emphasis on priority pollutants), and toxicity. The sampling program will be reevaluated after initial collections and the list of constituents will be refined if the project will benefit. MODET.T.TN[, The purpose of computer modelling is to generate long -term continuous runoff and water quality estimates to minimize the amount of costly field collections necessary to evaluate NPS control effectiveness and determine the current and po- tential NPS loading to South Bay. In order to achieve this purpose, a continuous urban hydrologic simulation is re- quired. Event simulation is inappropriate because it does not account for inter -event relationships or base flow. Stochastic simulation is inappropriate because it relies entirely on historic data and cannot be used to accurately predict the effects of future controls. A three part approach to modelling is recommended as follows: o Detailed Evaluation - -Using site specific field sampling results to calibrate a continuous hydro- logic and water quality model to evaluate runoff from selected land uses and to evaluate NPS con- trol effectiveness; o Stream Process Evaluation--Using-data from selected streams to calibrate the stream process portions of the continuous hydrologic and water quality model to evaluate how instream processes .affect runoff quality; and SJR11 /000 S -4 .� iR o Basin Evaluation -- Using the conclusions of the previous detailed analysis to build a generalized model of the entire basin which can be used to evaluate the effect of various control alterna- tives on NPS loading (including no action, which estimates total NPS loading to South Bay under current conditions). ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The objective of this program function is to use the model results and existing data describing the cost and effective- ness of appropriate NPS control measures to estimate the NPS load reduction to South Bay that will result from implemen- tation of a variety of NPS control alternatives. The optimal combination of control measures, or optimal alterna- tive, will be specified for a range of discrete amounts of NPS load reduction using alternative evaluation procedures developed in the Computer Optimized Stormwater Treatment (COST) computer program available from EPA. It may not be possible for the product of this program func- tion to be a recommendation of the single optimal alterna- tive because the load reduction necessary to meet receiving water quality objectives may not yet have been established by the RWQCB. However, the relationship between NPS control costs and NPS pollutant load reductions will b(,, determined. It is also possible that the RWQCB will wish to reduce NPS loading at some time before water quality objectives are established. In this case, the COST approach will identify "Best Management Practices" that can be used to establish appropriate interim NPS-load reduction levels. REPORTS Three types of reports will be provided as follows: o Quarterly Progress Reports; o Summary of Field Data; and o Control Evaluation Report. The summary of field data will describe what samples were collected,.when and where they were collected, how they were collected in the field and analyzed in the laboratory, and the results of the analyses.. The Control Evaluation Report will be submitted in fulfillment of the RWQCB Basin Plan requirement that a study Nplan be be submitted The implementation of additional Control Evaluation Report will have the following compo- nents: o Description of modelling and control evaluation methods; SJR11 /000 S -5 o Summary of NPS loads and toxicity; o Description of NPS control methods; o Evaluation of control alternatives; o Description of optimized control alternatives; and o Plan to monitor the effectiveness of the imple- mented alternative. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Program management will be accomplished by a Program Manager (PM) who is responsible to the Task Force for implementation of this plan. The PM will schedule, coordinate and review the products of the other five program functions. In addi- tion, the PM has specific responsibilities as follows: o Selection and review of all subcontractors and subconsultants including analytical laboratories; o Training of field personnel; o QA /QC of the program; o Reevaluation of sampling plan after initial collections; and o Preparation of a plan to monitor the effectiveness of the implemented NPS control alternative, if appropriate. I SJR11 /000 M7.1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL a ,a -• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. MEETING DATE: 8 -26 -87 (9 -2 -87) ORIGINATING DEPT: AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT • Conditional. Final Map Approval for Tract 8058 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road & Pierce Road. Wayne Miller Investment. Recommended Motion: Adopt'Resolution No. SD 86- 008 -02 attached, approving conditional Tract Map for Tract 8058 and authorize execution of Contract Improvement Agreement. Repott Summary: 1. The Tract 8058 concists of two commercial buildings along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and seven condominiums along Pierce Road. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed, except Enroachment Permit from Cal Trans. 3. All fees and bonds have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None. . Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 86- 008 -02. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff reccnraendation 4 -0. .+f , RESOLUTION NO.. SD-86- 008 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 8058 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 8058 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: • 1. Encroachment Permit from Caltrans 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 Sect -ion (3) hereof. (21) 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 rejected 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 the 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.certifica.te 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 wa.s 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 J a u� MAYOR RESOLUTION NO, SD -86 -008 RESOLUTION APPROVING.TENTATIVE MAP OF Wayne Miller'Investment WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance 'of the City of Saratoga-'for tenta- tive map approval of a'lot, site or subdivisions of ' 2. , _lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No'.. SD =86 -008 Of this City, and located on the east side of Sara toga- Sunnyv . _a7_ fierce Rd., south of'Cox Ave., and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im provement, 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,gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated anuar 14 1 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and . WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received.and considered the (ct�( (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 22nd day of September , 19 86 and.-is marked Exhibit H in the here i.nabovereferred to file., be and. the same. xs ere y con- ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit H and incorporated here- in by -reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly pas ed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 14th day of January 87 y zY 19 at which a quorum was present, by t e- following vote: AYES: Burger, Guch, Pines, Siegfried, Tucker NOES: AD ISO Y AGENCY ABSENT: Callans By: &At4 iABSTAIN: Harris Chalrman� arming mmissi.on ATTEST: cretary, Planning ommisson SD -86 -008, UP -86 -002, OR -86 -028,, SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AT PIERCE ROAD r' / Exhibit H I. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara County Environmental. Health Services. A. A sanitary sewer connection.wi.11 be required B. Applicant shall obtain domestic water from the San Jose Water Company. II. Specific Conditions - Engineering Department A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking. and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit -three to -scale prints.) C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 42 ft. radius cul -de -sac o.n Pierce .Road. D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as required.. E. Improve Pierce Road to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed structural section 18 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2. P. C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). 3. Underground existing overhead utilities F. Improve Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to City standards, including the following: 1. Asphalt concrete berm 2. Pede.sA rian walkway (6 ft. A.C.) across, frontage and connecting to eX15ting,walkway south of Rodeo Creek. 3. Underground existing overhead utilities 'G. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff t.o street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the followiing: 1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes ;- 2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 4 C, tip j -008; UP -86 -002_ DR -86 -0278, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. & Pierce Rd. 1. Construct standard driveway approache . 1. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 1, Watercourses Must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. ` K.' Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. L. Obta -i,n encroachment permit from Caltrans for work to be done within State right - -of -way. M. 'Engineered improvement plans required for: 1. Street improvements 2. Storm drain construction 3. Access road construction N. Pa.y plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 0. Ent "er into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one year of receiving final approval. P. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Q.' Applicant to design access ip.the property and provide any addi- tional traffic Mitigation that.may be required by the Planning Commission based upon a traffic study prepared by the applicant. III. Specific Condition - Santa Clara Valley Water District A. An easement for flood control purposes shall be transferred to the SCVWD per that agency's specification. A plat.and description of the proposed easement shall be submitted to SCVWD. 8. Ingress- egrass•"easemen -ts shall be transferred to.SCVWD over the driveways in the commercial and residential areas to enable 'the district to access the proposed easement. C. A 15 ft. wide road paved with gravel, asphalt, or concrete shall be installed directly adjacent to and inside the SCVWD- easement line. All paving shou.l,d be designed for H -20 loading. This road should be at least five feet above the creek bottom.' D. An easily removable guardrail shall be installed between the parking area and the creek. A curb should be installed five feet back from the guardrail to prevent damage to the guardrail. c (® C 3D -86 -008, UP -86 -002, DR -86 -028, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. @ Pierce R'd. E. The existing trees may remain. in the proposed easement; however, they should be pruned back. enough to allow equipment access around them. F. There should be no overbank drainage from the proposed development to the creek. The site's drainage should be incorporated into an existing storm drainage system.. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, it should be designed in accordance with SCVWD Sheets 8 -12.. G. In accordance with District Ordinance 75 -6, t'he. owner should-show any existing wells on the plans. The wells .should be properly registered with SCVWD and, either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. IV. Snecific Conditions Saratoga Fire District A. All roof coverings shall 'be fire retardant and shall comply with the Uniform Building Code with Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. B. Each individual townhome unit and each reta -il building shall have an early warning alarm system installed in accordance with Saratoga Fire District Standards and under District Supervision. C. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems must be i.nsta.11ed in all garages and connected' to the Saratoga Fire District digital alarm communicator receiver. D. An emergency access gate for..vehicular traffic must be installed to the south of Pierce Road between the shopping center (Argonaut) and Pierce Road. E. Three fire hydrants to be located by the Fire District and meeting Fire District specifications, must be installed prior to the start of con5tructiOn (2 on the retail center site, 1 on the towhhome- site ). F. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system must be installed in the retail buildings per the 1985 Uniform Fire Code and in accord- with National Fire Protection Association Pamphlet No. 13. Alarm system to be connected directly i -o the Saratoga Fire District- . digital.. alarm communicator receiver. G. Either an emergency access road with a gate or an access road connected to the property to the north for vehicular traffic must be included. V.. Snecific Conditions - Caltrans A. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any work within the State right -of -way. -86 -008, UP -86 -002, DR -86 -028, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. @ Pierce Rd_ B. Applicant shall obtain a pp permit for the driveway connection to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Specific Conditions - Building bepartment A. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, applicant shall` ubmit the following for review and approval: 1. Geotechnical report, by licensed professional including details on soils and - foundation.; 2. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills, cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope,, out.fall location, etc.) C. Retaining structures including- design by A.I.A.•or R.C.E. for walls 3 'ft. or higher. d.- All existing structures, with notes as'-to whether they are to remain or be removed. e. Erosion control measures f. S.tandard information to include title block, plot plan using record data, location map, nort -h arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.. VII. Specific Conditions -A. Dedicate mutual to the north, to B. Applicant shall days of the pass void. - Planning Department access easements in favor of City -owned property the satisf'act -ion of -the City Engineer. sign the agreement to these conditions 'within 30 age of this resolution or'sai.d resolution shall be C. Height of townhomes not to exceed 25.5 ft. D. Exterior colors shall be as proposed for the retail buildings. The townhome's shall be eart.htone and subjec -t to staff review and approval. E. Landscaping per the approved plan shall be installed prior 'to final occupancy. F. Prior to the issuance of building permit -s, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Department review and approval: 4 86 -008, UP -86 -002, DR -86 -028, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. @ Pierce Rd. c.ific Conditions Planning Department cost. 1. Any modifications to the proposed site development pl.an or elevations. 2. Revised plans showing alteration of Building A to provide access to the loading spaces through the rear of the building. G. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right- ' of -way. 1f-H. The applicant shall submit C.C.& R.'s,for the townhomes to include the following: 1. Maintenance of all common areas; 2. Prohibition on ex- terior alterations unless approved by the Planning Department. 3. Prohibition on amending the C.C,. & R.'s without consent of the City, These C.C. & R.'s shall be submitted for Planning Department review prior to Final Map approval. I. Construction plans shall be in subs'tantial compliance with those approved by the Planning Commission on.1/14/87. The foregoing conditions are ,hereby accepted :3 .. Signature of Applicant Date G 7 o ?� r y 'C 8 - tF�339� �•0 . OA �Xy / / / 1 / \` KCIPII M3 XNMMLL � W ? n CA W AB. TRACT 8058 R p A p T -p G N. -Y. V E A L :. J .. TOP WALL • MOO t, AFTAININ6 ;WALL I ' l � � : , �- /'fASC LYE14T /N6 MYfMIMT •• � � 4 � /80.07' / - o .1 � 4 ► i- 3 ` I F.F. 4 347.50_ P r ♦ _ �• \ ADs3�46.5`0 i R y A g ptScALNp \ �E -°34f2 Q9 m tAw AD 345.0 ° log Ott VI a i ` S A R A T O G A — S U N N Y V A L E 0 (N 2' $3' 48° w 923.92' ) _ N 2° 5' 00" W 929.81_ 311.48' o R 0 A D v s � ((Npi 0 ;940° E)2 N i° 4' 4�° E 684.83'! �- °!— Im N 0 °08'22 "W 398.00' �o' j (N'30' "E� \ ?9��� —mac— � QQ-- ��— _,.-�g IBD.l2 —'— —�• _°•' _ _ & _ 4.00 200.O�o c2 $, L _ I — 73.po' p� We9 °5P30' E N�68 "FiYG1 I INGRESS / E RE SS 95.03 l EAS'M'T• IWI��^�zJa�ac -__ -, I �p_2 W 1221_ N ° y r� :oo �- 1 20 s 020 $ 2 30-' - — _� _ I h I a �' LOT I 1 ► �$ �� - -_ I 1 Ln I I. w 1.472_ *ACRES GROSS M ~ II SCALE : 1 °•40' "V''I 1.087 tACRES NET t�laryl I8 uj I , BK. IoI I I' m j ee- 7U C/TY OF SA P gTOGA I I '`c 40' WIDE FLOOD CONTROL STORM �� 9�o%i� `� _ eK. a I I � DRAIN EASEMENT 4821 O.R. !9� • \ ro r °27'03 "E�,I I I^ a In Iknl A\\ M1 r W 511 °00 tO 131'50 °W, �N, _ '� JN t) :J J r � 32.02' °,x,.52 /8.8q' _ \\ I ff I r) r)(� �— 0.89' 3¢° /j7"t. \� I N 2'02'05 ^w LL S.C. vw..O. FLOOD CONTPOt r STO�S✓1 N�, I OR4/N E46EMENT .BK J, g St /6 64' 6 a r \Sir Li �0 `d'. \ s Fn 1 . S39 0 Ri¢ZAO 1~ 0 °� _ . t� CID ="�r�k \ a z ,1 Q s CIO Ir.aO a - _ NI ° 436 "E 90.0` - --D I� U 7 l3° z 9 o L �e�0�4_00' =, s� I+t stss> S. E. in S to ij P. :x1 ^' EXCEPTION TO pS E I s� °Q STREET R. g _- 3o.13' DEDICATION �,�� L 32.!2' T /V 2 °15'00 ~ry 011133 ± Ac. NE'31�35 E'l$ g 2 0 ` W R 12.00 'E E'a�E N2+s1Qss F j 0 , � -- FOUND 1' IRON PIPE .3 Q�:EftMOHUMEH 6 `Ni°3�53'61I R.C.t.jS95 y .J , 0.763 ±ACRES al 0.561 ±ACRES NETSS� -° P. S.E.'t LANDS DE 3D.13' 93. 0' 134.33' , (t3q.,2q')3 51 BE LANES) FOUND 3/44° IRON PIPE ,. , ..... -'. N 2° 15' 00" W 04.59' N42 °W�'0.08' 30' x 30' rF0U11�3/40 ROM PIPE (BENT) LANDS DE 197 W 4 Q Q 1$15 wyo.32 196 DAGGETY L) _ o REGAN LANE � N W� s B CL EGAN LANE J -.J W 0 �a 3x 3 .91 (13 .04') �Q O 1 iii X O U LEGEND \ ( lz INDICATES RECORD DATA PER 08 MAPS 8 , 9 4 10 (( ) a 11 p 159 3o 4 81 0 IND /GATES fCZr 15290 Qo INDIC4TE9 arl STD MONUMENT m 6E SEr /NDIG4lE5 I STO MONUMENT FOUND BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARING NORTH 2°15'00 °WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "RECORD OF SURNE_`(" RE- CORDED BOOK 120 OF MAPS AT PAGE 31, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. NOTE: AREA WITHIN DISTINCTIVE BORDER= 2.368 t ACRES ,4L6 DIMENSIONS ARE S<:OW/V IN fEEr,4N0 DEC /MALS TIJERE01 INDICATES P4161-IC SER ✓ /CE EASEMENT P.U.E. INDICATES PUBLIC U771-17Y E46'E1VENr S•S.E. IND 1047,ES SAN /rARY SEWER EASEMENT. TRACT No. 8058 BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN " 5 " RECORD OF URVE RECORDED IN BOOK 120 OF MAPS AT PAGE 31, SANTA CLARA COUNT` RECORDS CITY OF SARATOGA— COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - CALIFORNIA 5CALE : V* 40' JUNE 1981 SANDIS 81 ASSOCIATES, Inc. ENGINEERS- SURVEYRS- PLANNERS 605 CASTRO STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA (415) 969 -6900 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 18l149 W bI$ > uIS CC W m 0 (N 2' $3' 48° w 923.92' ) _ N 2° 5' 00" W 929.81_ 311.48' o R 0 A D v s � ((Npi 0 ;940° E)2 N i° 4' 4�° E 684.83'! �- °!— Im N 0 °08'22 "W 398.00' �o' j (N'30' "E� \ ?9��� —mac— � QQ-- ��— _,.-�g IBD.l2 —'— —�• _°•' _ _ & _ 4.00 200.O�o c2 $, L _ I — 73.po' p� We9 °5P30' E N�68 "FiYG1 I INGRESS / E RE SS 95.03 l EAS'M'T• IWI��^�zJa�ac -__ -, I �p_2 W 1221_ N ° y r� :oo �- 1 20 s 020 $ 2 30-' - — _� _ I h I a �' LOT I 1 ► �$ �� - -_ I 1 Ln I I. w 1.472_ *ACRES GROSS M ~ II SCALE : 1 °•40' "V''I 1.087 tACRES NET t�laryl I8 uj I , BK. IoI I I' m j ee- 7U C/TY OF SA P gTOGA I I '`c 40' WIDE FLOOD CONTROL STORM �� 9�o%i� `� _ eK. a I I � DRAIN EASEMENT 4821 O.R. !9� • \ ro r °27'03 "E�,I I I^ a In Iknl A\\ M1 r W 511 °00 tO 131'50 °W, �N, _ '� JN t) :J J r � 32.02' °,x,.52 /8.8q' _ \\ I ff I r) r)(� �— 0.89' 3¢° /j7"t. \� I N 2'02'05 ^w LL S.C. vw..O. FLOOD CONTPOt r STO�S✓1 N�, I OR4/N E46EMENT .BK J, g St /6 64' 6 a r \Sir Li �0 `d'. \ s Fn 1 . S39 0 Ri¢ZAO 1~ 0 °� _ . t� CID ="�r�k \ a z ,1 Q s CIO Ir.aO a - _ NI ° 436 "E 90.0` - --D I� U 7 l3° z 9 o L �e�0�4_00' =, s� I+t stss> S. E. in S to ij P. :x1 ^' EXCEPTION TO pS E I s� °Q STREET R. g _- 3o.13' DEDICATION �,�� L 32.!2' T /V 2 °15'00 ~ry 011133 ± Ac. NE'31�35 E'l$ g 2 0 ` W R 12.00 'E E'a�E N2+s1Qss F j 0 , � -- FOUND 1' IRON PIPE .3 Q�:EftMOHUMEH 6 `Ni°3�53'61I R.C.t.jS95 y .J , 0.763 ±ACRES al 0.561 ±ACRES NETSS� -° P. S.E.'t LANDS DE 3D.13' 93. 0' 134.33' , (t3q.,2q')3 51 BE LANES) FOUND 3/44° IRON PIPE ,. , ..... -'. N 2° 15' 00" W 04.59' N42 °W�'0.08' 30' x 30' rF0U11�3/40 ROM PIPE (BENT) LANDS DE 197 W 4 Q Q 1$15 wyo.32 196 DAGGETY L) _ o REGAN LANE � N W� s B CL EGAN LANE J -.J W 0 �a 3x 3 .91 (13 .04') �Q O 1 iii X O U LEGEND \ ( lz INDICATES RECORD DATA PER 08 MAPS 8 , 9 4 10 (( ) a 11 p 159 3o 4 81 0 IND /GATES fCZr 15290 Qo INDIC4TE9 arl STD MONUMENT m 6E SEr /NDIG4lE5 I STO MONUMENT FOUND BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARING NORTH 2°15'00 °WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "RECORD OF SURNE_`(" RE- CORDED BOOK 120 OF MAPS AT PAGE 31, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. NOTE: AREA WITHIN DISTINCTIVE BORDER= 2.368 t ACRES ,4L6 DIMENSIONS ARE S<:OW/V IN fEEr,4N0 DEC /MALS TIJERE01 INDICATES P4161-IC SER ✓ /CE EASEMENT P.U.E. INDICATES PUBLIC U771-17Y E46'E1VENr S•S.E. IND 1047,ES SAN /rARY SEWER EASEMENT. TRACT No. 8058 BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN " 5 " RECORD OF URVE RECORDED IN BOOK 120 OF MAPS AT PAGE 31, SANTA CLARA COUNT` RECORDS CITY OF SARATOGA— COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - CALIFORNIA 5CALE : V* 40' JUNE 1981 SANDIS 81 ASSOCIATES, Inc. ENGINEERS- SURVEYRS- PLANNERS 605 CASTRO STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA (415) 969 -6900 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 18l149 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / 36� MEETING DATE: September 2, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: —74 -W CITY MGR. APPROVAL/V/f SUBJECT: Request from Heritage Preservation Commission to consider waiving heritage resource designation fee. Recommended Motion: That the City Council consider the Heritage Commission's request and either remove or retain the fee. Report Summary: To provide an incentive to property owners to designate heritage resources, the Heritage Preservation Commission requests that the City Council consider waiving or dropping the $40.00 fee for application for heritage resource designations. The fee was established when the Council adopted the fee schedule in October, 1986. Fiscal Impacts: If approved, $40.00 application fee would be eliminated. Attachments: 1) Report to Mayor and City Council. 2) Heritage Commission minutes, April 1 and July 22, 1987. 3) Fee schedule Motion and Vote: Fee removed from fee schedule 3 -1 Ryles opposed). REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 20,1987 COUNCIL MEETING: Sept. 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Request from Heritage Preservation Commission to consider waiving heritage resource designation fee. Background During the past few months, the Heritage Preservation Commission has had under discussion the issue of application fees for preservation - related permits. The issue arose when the Commission was reviewing an application for a heritage resource designation and learned that a fee had been established for such applications. When the City Council adopted the most recent fee schedule in October, 1986 (Resolution #2383), some fees which were previously not specified were added; the two preservation- related fees fall into this category. There is now a $40 application fee for desig- nation of heritage resources and a $20 permit fee for heritage resource alterations. As with other planning fees, the heritage fees were based on a staff analysis of the average time and cost to process the applications. Council policy regarding fees has been to recover at least a percentage of the cost of processing through an appropriate fee structure. The Heritage Commission believes that because the designation of heritage resources is a voluntary act on the part of the property owner, some sort of incentive is needed to encourage owners to designate. One incentive is an application process that is free of charge. Based on this belief, the Commission voted unanimously at its July 22, 1987 meeting to request that the City Council consider waiving or removing the fee for heritage resource designations. The Commission believes the $20 alteration permit fee is still appropriate. Recommendation Staff recommends the Council consider the Heritage Commission's request and either delete or retain the fee. YU UEK HSIA P1 ning Director �' 1 Heritage Resource Commission r Minutes B. Heritage Resource Plaques 7122187 Page 2 U. Young showed the Commission one of the bronze plaques that arrived from the manufacturer. The Commission discussed how to give them to the property owners and publicize the events. It was decided unanimously to.group them by location for presentation purposes. Commissioners Landsness and Uoester will work on the groupings and contact the property owners. and Commissioner Tyrrell will work with the local newspapers. Item will be put on next agenda for discussion. N. Application fees for preservation permits. The Commission discussed what approach to take on this issue. M/S Uoester /Cameron to subMit'a written request to the City Council asking to have the fee for resource designations dropped. Passed unanimously: Staff was directed to work with Chairman Hei.d on drafting the memo. B. Heritage Resource I.nventor-y The Commission - continued working on the inventorry. forms, completing the review of forms 31 -36. IU. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION. Commissioner Tyrrell brought up the Marsh- Metzger house application to be heard by the Planning Commission that evening. He asked staff if the Planning Commission had received the Heritage Commissions memo. U. Young replied in the affirmative, noting that the memo and a discussion of it were included in the staff, report. on that • 'item. Commissioner Tyr..rell noted,he would attend the meeting „this evening. U. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5= 05.p.m. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 5 at 3 -30 p.m. Rje�speV�9c�tf�u�l1y submitted, Ualerie Youn Secretary to .Corini-as_i -on. 7 � Heritage preservation Commiosicuz Minutes, April I, 1987 ' � / � II. Old Business ' ^` ` A. Commission Procedures ,~ W . Heid reported on a di scuss i on w ith Pl an ni ng1 irector ' regarding Commission procedures. Heid read sections from the ordinance describing Heritage Commission' Duties. ` B. Bed and Breakfast Ordinance � ` <^�`� ` W. Heid distributed information on former Ipns/L ihg Houses requested by the City Council for the pup! iI� . hearing on April 15,-1987. Staff noted that the - information will be part of the staff report for the Counc i l packet. List was provided by Saratoga Historical Foundation. C. Resource Inventory - Copies of completed inventories were distributed to Commission members. General discussion on progress of inventory and how to complete the 6historical importance/' section. ' ` There was also discussion on how comprehensive the survey should be i.e., whether or not to submit the list of 8(} to the council as it is, and the format in which the survey should be. III. NEW_BUSINESS A. Fees for Heritage Resource Permits ' . Planning Director Hsia stated that it is city poldqy that any application fee be such that the city recoup the cost for processing the application and that it'not exceed those costs. ^ Mr. Hsia suggested the Commission approach the CouncAl or City Manager in the form of a letter stating why th,L� fees for Heritage Preservation'be waived. He further suggested that if the Co il �� down . � e unc �,-rns owm the proposal, the Commission may be able to include this in their budget or use the special heritage funds created by money received from the house tour. ' Resolution No. 2383 Adopted October 15, 1986 EXHIBIT "A" CONT'D. Code Section Subject Description of'Fee Amount- §7-20.220(g) Horses License fee - issuance $ 40 §7- 20.220(g) Horses License fee - renewal $ 40 97- 30.0.70(e) Amplified sound Fee for registration statement- $ 20 plus deposit of $250 §9- 45.040 Off- street vehicles Permit application fee' $ -.100- §,9- 55.060 Abandoned vehicles Administrative fee for removal $ 100 §10- 1.0.030(c) Special events, Permit application fee $ 50 §1.0- 15.020(a) Pipes, drains & conduits Permit application fee $ 200 §10- 20.080(a) Encroachments Permit application fee: $ 200 §11- 10.020(c) Parks . Group use pdrmit application fee: Hakone Park - Residents: $ 300 Nonresidents: $ 3510 Lower house only: $ 75 Security deposit: $ 2'00 Wild.wood Park - Residents: $ 25 Nonresidents: $ 50 Fundraisers: $ :100 Weddings: _$ 100 Security deposit for groups of .30 or more $ 100 Athletic leagues: $ 5 per participant per season §13- 25.010 Heritage preservation Application for .$ 40 designation Permit application fee $ 20 Appeal fee $ 150 -3- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.-1'3)�E MEETING .DATE: September 2, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning /1 U S'b AGENDA ITEM: f CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Local celebration of the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution. Recommended Motion: Adopt proclamation, authorize - application for designation as.a Bicentennial Community, appoint Heritage Commission as the Local Bicentennial Committee, direct Commission to organize local celebration events. Report Summary: The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends local-participation in the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution, as outlined in the attached report. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1) Report to Mayor and City Council 2) Application for designation •3) Proclamation 4) Heritage Commission minutes, August 5, 1987 Motion and Vote: Staff recommendaticQi • 4 -0 . OIL" REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 21,1987 COUNCIL MEETING: Sept. 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Local celebration of the 200th anniversary of the United States constitution. At their August 5, 1987 meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission discussed possible ways to locally celebrate the 200th anniversary of the United States constitution on September 17, 1987. There was consensus that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the City of Saratoga participate in the following ways: 1) Apply for official designation as a Bicentennial Community and establish the Heritage Preservation Commission as the Local Bicentennial Committee. 2) Issue a proclamation recognizing the 200th anniversary of the constitution and designating September 17, 1987 as Constitution Day. 3) Direct the Heritage Commission to organize local participation in the national bell - ringing event, and encourage Cable TV coverage of the events. Attached is information regarding the national celebration program, the City's application for designation as a Bicentennial Community, the proclamation, and Heritage Commission minutes from the August 5, 1987 meeting. Y C UEK HSIA Pl ning Director CALIFORNIA 200 COUNCIL GOV, GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN HonorraT C.'bahrrran Fk 7Z ALDRIN .Astroncatt Prof William B. Allen Gene Autry Donald P. Baker Dr. Edward Barker Robert F. Braver Joseph L Bentley Mrs - Henry Braun Mrs. Margaret Martin Brock Edmund G. (Pat) Brown Hon. Willie Brown John G. Carlson Robert 1'. Campion Jim Channon Senator Alan Cranston Hon. Mike Curb Hon. Julian C. Dixon Hon. Don Edwards Duane Elgin Harold Ezell Non. Robert H. Finch Hon. Robert M. Garrick Dr Armand Hammer Dr. Harry Handler Bruce Herschensohn Charlton Heston Hon. James B. Hodgson Henry Y. Hwang Cyril Johnson Carl N. Karcher Peter D. Kelly Dr. Claudia M. Kernan Hon. Tom Lantos Russell F. Lasser Hon. Edwin Meese III Lt. Gen. James F.. Moue, Jr. Hon. Carlos J. Moorhead Robert W. Naylor Hon. Richard M. Nixon Robert T. Parry Jerrold Perenchio Dr. Charles N. Quigley Neal Rogin Dr. Jonas Salk Henry Salvaton Barry A. Sanders JcHrey Scott Mrs. Frank Roger Seaver Hun. Wm. French Smith Holmes P. Tuttle Peter V. Lleterroth Hon. Diane E. Watson George M. Williams Senator Pete Wilson David L. Wolper Julia WU Hem, Zry Yarenla" ky Hon, Lam Z:trian Paul Z.itfrrn Peter F- Paul Fvecutbv .Sectary BOARD OF TRunus Ross M. Blakely Bonita Granville Writher co-chairs James M. Cirona Jane Crosby Coanne Cohere Raymond D. Edwards Marguerite P. Justic'c GrotRc F. Mcxxly Fred W. O'Green Jackie Ramos Henry Sal»tcri Gilbert R. Vasquez FOUNDATION STAFF Peter F. Paul Encutirr Vice Resident Chief (perating Officer Ray Kabakcr Vice President Cannviunicadons Lynn Pentz Vice RrsidenI Pmgrant & Marketing Louise E. Leigh Director, Outreacb Pmgram Verna D. Manox Trtwsurrr lathim and Watkins General Counsel Windcs & McClaughry Certified Public Accountants Scali, McCabe, Sloves /West Advertising Burson & Marsteller Public Relations/Public Affairs GPy 1A cE ,1 x � rowI\ 000- 410 T, � -S CONM 1987 California Bicentennial Foundation For The U.S. Constitution 700 North Brand, Suite 550, Glendale, California 91203 (818) 500 -1787 Mr Harry Peacock City Manager Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr Peacock: July 6, 1987 104e P9 VAe 7 #UA 44&y, 6W4%,IA�� On Sept. 17, 1987, Americans everywhere will celebrate the 200th I'vri anniversary of the United States Constitution, by ringing bells, re- enacting the signing of the Constitution and releasing balloons at 1 pm Pacific Time. The President will lead the nation in the celebration from Philadelphia. yes The California Bicentennial Foundation urges your city to join in t1WTX national celebration by taking these steps: 1. Please fill out the enclosed BI(ENIIINiNIAL COMMUNITY APPLICATION form for official Designated Bicentennial status for your city. Your Bicentennial Committee should represent a cross - section of the community, but can be as small as two people. Also, if you will state in the "Flans" se- ti.on: will r artic: -ate in tho- California State- - wide commemoration of the Bicentennial on Sept. 17, 1987, your city will qualify for official certification and recognition. PRASE return the form as soon as possible. 2. Issue a proclamation recognizing the 200th anniversary of the Constitution and designating Sept. 17, 1987 as Constitution Day (sample proclamation enclosed). 3. Accept a special Constitutional Scroll, sponsored by the National Council of Christians and Jews, to affix signatures of participants in the re- enactment of the Constitution signing ceremony. 4. Accept a special Constitutional Day banner from the Fraternal Order of Masons, to display at City Hall as part of a national project to have every business and household display this special banner on Constitution Day (To be presented by your nearest Masonic Lodge). 5. Obtain memorabilia from the Foundation, such as red, white and blue balloons with the slogan "We The People Means Me," small Liberty Bells for the national bell- ringing, parchment replicas of the Constitution, pins, buttons, etc. Your community deserves to be celebration honoring the birth most happy to assist with you Very enthusiastically, Louise Leigh Director, Coa minity Otat:reach recognized as part of this momentous of our national heritage. We would be r preparations for the celebration. s ' ^�v1.k CE FB V � h �D ti CO;cZ� BI CBNTEENNIAL COMMUNITY APPLICATION The California Bicentennial Commission on the United States Constitution cakes great pleasure in extending to you and your community a cordial invitation to participate in the, 200th birthday of our Constitution. The creation and development of our representative government from _ Revolution through Independence and to the present is a remarkable story that is best commemorated through local obse stance. The Bicentennial Community Program enables citizens of large ci -ties and small towns alike to participate in this recognition o -f American history. We sincerely urge you to join this program by completing this application. REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATING BICENTENNIAL COMMUNITIES The Commission encourages - local governing bodies to establish Bicentennial Communities. The term "community" includes all political _ subdivisions having an elected government, such as a city, county, town, village, municipality, township, borough., any Native American tribe or reservation, or any combination thereof. Unincorporated areas which have an established identity of their own may also apply for designation. A Designacad Bicentennial Community is one that establishes a Bicentennial committee representative of the community; incor ?orates a commemorative program to educate its residents about the meaning and significance of the Constitution; and receives official designation from the California and National Commissions. To be considered a Designated Bicentennial Community, a.communicy should submit a completed application 'form to the California Bicentennial Commission. CALIFORNIA BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION ON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 700 N. Brand Blvd., #550 Glendale, CA 91203 (818)502 -1791 Bicentennial Community Application Saratoga, California (Name of Community) Please list names, addresses and asiiiia *.ions of the members of vour Bicentennial group. If you need more space to list members. use blank sheets and attach_ NAME ADDRESS AFFILIATION Warren Heid City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Heritage Preservation Commission Elizabeth Ansnes Saratoga, CA 95070 ' I Roy Cameron I Norman Koepernik I Sharon Landsness " Richard Tyrrell " Barbara Voester Certification IT IS CERTIFIED: ` 1. That as Chairperson of the Bicentennial Committee, I am authorized to sign this Certification. 2. That all the above procedur,ai'steps have been accomplished. 3.' That the undersigned or my successor will furnish periodic ^ progress reports when requested. 4. That if approved, official California Bicentennial and National' Logos will be used in accordance with California and Federal Commission regulations. SPACE FOR OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of Chairperson. Signature of Chief Elected Official Basic Data (Please Type or Print) DATE OF APPLICATION `• NAME OF COMMUNITY September 2,1987 Saratoga, California TYPE (c txcounty, etc.) POPULATION STATE lc y 29,500 California COUNTY Santa Clara COUNTY SEAT San Jose MAILING ADDRESS (includezip) 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 OF=IC;AL NAME OF BICENTENNIAL GROUP Heritage Preservation Commission, City of Saratoga LOCAL 31� {arren L eide_RSON WADDRESS �yQfy,G)NJJ �18C��.ncj area code) 4 UU ttii 4 iiSS b / i MAILING (include zi ) 13777 Frui� vale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NAME OF CHIEF ELECTED LOCAL OFFICIAL PHONE NUMBER (include area code) Mayor Donald Peterson j(408)867-3438 MAILING ADDRESS (includezip) 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Brief Outline of Bicentennial Plans 1. Adopt proclamation recognizing September 17, 1987 as "Constitution Day" 2. Appoint local Bicentennial Committee (Heritage Preservation Commission) 3. Participate in national bell- ringing event. 4. Encourage Cable TV coverage. CALI?OR.vLA, 3ICENTE"M IAZ C010aSSION USE ONLY Da :� a�olicat :on 4ec�ived: ' 1 Oficia_I Name or State 3icentennial Commiszion Chairperson: a�orCved 3y: (Signature 3nd.ti:.'e of 3uthorizea officar) Data Sant ;o NaLionai Corrrmiss:Cn C0 I,NIcNTS. E FOR FEDERAL COMMISSION USE ONLY COMMISSION ON 310ENTENNIAL OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SiZFJLOCAL AFFAIRS DIVISION BICENTENNIAL COMMUNITY CLEARANCE FORM DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY GATE CHECK LIST: ❑ 1. State approval C] 2.List of Members ❑ 3. Program 4. Signatures Cl S.Other (jee. emarks) REMARKS: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 3Y: 0AT'_ APPROVAL GRANTED 3Y :. DATE. NOTIFICATION OF DESIGNATION STATE COMMUNITY (Dates) I s of )Saratoga 1P���1L�JF'g�77CiQy2 WHEREAS, September 17, 1987 is the 200th Anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Constitution, as amended, embodies the ideals of liberty under law and was designed to maintain our free government in perpetuity as a more perfect union and to secure the blessings of liberty by consent of the governed; and I WHEREAS, few governments in the world have been able to provide liberty and stability to their citizens under a. written constitution for more than a generation; and WHEREAS, the laws adopted under this character of freedom and the attractive way of life resulting have drawn to our shores citizens from every corner of the world, and provide impressive evidence of the enlightened vision and the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Bicentennial offers the opportunity for the American people to rededicate themselves to the great principles that have formed the basis for our national strength and prosperity; and WHEREAS, it is timely and appropriate for us to keep in our hearts and minds the marvelous achievements of the Constitutional f Convention in 1787 and to preserve the Constitutional Republic and the high ideals of our Founding Fathers; NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that September 17, 1987 is hereby recognized as "UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DAY," and all citizens of Saratoga are called upon to recognize and participate in this special observance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Saratoga to be affixed thereon this 2nd day of September, 1987. Donald Peterson Mayor Heritage Preservation Commission 8f5/87 Minutes Page 2 II. NEW BUSINESS R. Constitution Bicentennial Celebration The Commission discussed possible ways the City could Participate in the celebration. There was consensus that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the City participate by applying for designation as a Bicentennial Community, issue a proclamation recognizing the celebration, participate in the bell - ringing by ringing the Saratoga Uolunteer Fire Bell at the indicated time and encouraging churches with bells to ring'them also; and by encouraging local Cable TU coverage of the event. The Commission will be able to assist in the organization of the events. Staff will draft a memo to the Council. III. OLD BUSINESS R. Heritage Resource Plaques Commissioners Landsness and Uoester briefed the Commission on their work. Properties can be divided into three categories- 1) Foothill Club and Uilla Montalvo - cultural facilities; 2) Three residences; 3) City properties and firebell. It was decided that a letter would be sent to the recipients, then the presentations would be scheduled and photographs taken. Information on the entire program would then be given to the press after the presentations were completed.. Staff will draft a letter to the recipients for Chair Heid's signature. B. Marsh- Metzger House Commissioners Landsness and Uoester reported on the action taken at the Planning Commission Meeting on July 22. U. Young noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed revised elevations for the stru'c,tures at a Committee -of- the - Whole Meeting on August 4; she showed the Heritage Commission the latest revisions. Chair Heid noted the Commission had already made its recommendation to the Planning Commission and encouraged Commissioners to attend the next Planning Commission meeting when the application would be heard (August 26). SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: September 2, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager /'03 ° AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Boundary Adjustment with City of San Jose Recommended Motion: 1. Approve concept of Boundary ,adjustment 2. Direct application be filed with LAFCO 3. Direct commencement of prezoning action Report Summary: In order to normalize our boundary with San Jose and remove the need for complex tax sharing agreements and service arrangements as a result of a new commercial development which will straddle city boundary lines, it is proposed that a boundary adjustment with San Jose be initiated. Fiscal Impacts: The one time cost to Saratoga as lead agency is estimated at $1,200. Overall annual tax incxease to Saratoga in 1987 dollars is estimated to be between $12,000 and $13,000. Attachments: 1. City Manager's report dated 8/28/87 2. Letter and attachments from Les White, Asst. City Manager, San Jose Motion and Vote: Staff reczdation 4 -0. (KMITT Qq 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: August 28, 1987 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Boundary Adjustment with City of San Jose On July 7, 1987, I was notified by the San Jose staff of the action taken by the San Jose City Council to approve a boundary adjustment between the two cities at Saratoga Avenue, Prospect, Lawrence Express- way and Quito Road which would place all the area north of Lawrence Expressway and west of Saratoga Avenue into the City of San Jose and all of the area south of Lawrence and west of Quito into the City of Saratoga. A copy of the report and maps from San Jose are attached. All of the property in question is zoned commercial in both cities. The basis for the adjustment is to avoid having a new commercial development, which has been approved by both cities, from being par- tially in San Jose and partially in Saratoga requiring complicated arrangements relating to taxation and services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the boundary adjustment in concept. Direct the staff to prepare a boundary adjustment application for submittal to LAFCO and schedule a prezoning hearing on the area to be annexed to Saratoga before the Planning Commission. Harry R. C, Peacock 3m Attachments CITY MANAGER CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 801 NORTH FIRST STREET 1"t-OF-11 VLi SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 JUL, fi 19V (408) 277.4000 C July 7, 1987 CITY MANAGER Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Harry, Here are the staff report and appropriate page of the May 5, 1987, synopsis, showing the Council approval of the Saratoga Avenue boundary reorganization. Gary Schoennauer, Director of Planning, may be reached at 277 -4754 for additional information, or feel free to contact me if I may be of further help. Sincerely, es White Assistant City Manager LW: JB:dc Enclosures C I T Y OF S A N J O S E - M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: PROPOSED SAN JOSE- SARATOGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FROM: Gary J. Schoennauer Director of Planning DATE: April 13, 1987 APPROVED DATE RArkraniimn 111m1 J' liV . � A. In 1985, the City of Saratoga requested that the City of San Jose detach approximately 1.5 acres located at the northwesterly corner of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. The acreage was to be annexed to Saratoga to facilitate a proposed office and retail development on the site. The City Council of San Jose unanimously opposed this proposal as inconsistent with an adopted City Policy on boundary adjustments. Currently, Saratoga is proposing a revised boundary swap with San Jose. The adjusted boundary would follow Lawrence Expressway south to the intersection of Quito Road and Elmwood Drive (see Exhibit 1). San Jose would obtain a little over 6 acres and Saratoga would receive approximately 5 acres. At this time, the City Council should decide whether to support the new proposal. ANALYSIS AND COST IMPLICATIONS The proposed boundary adjustment can be evaluated in terms of its fiscal impacts, public works and transportation effects, service impacts, and consistency with the City Council's Boundary Change Policy. Fiscal impacts are sales tax generation and net assessed valuation. As a result of the proposed land swap, San Jose will obtain 6.54 acres, of which 4.58 acres generate sales tax revenues. Net assessed valuation for this acreage totals $3,215,870. In contrast, Saratoga would receive 4.79 acres, of which 1.21 acres have sales tax generating land uses. Net assessed valuation of the 4.79 acres is $2,246,715, The discrepancy in assessed valuation between the two jurisdictions is explained by the 1.49 acres of vacant land to be annexed to Saratoga. Upon the development of the vacant properties, the assessed valuation will increase, thereby making the exchange a.balanced one (see Exhibit 2). The public works and transportation effect's include the maintenance of public facilities and potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed office development. According to the Public Works and Traffic Operations Departments, the boundary adjustment does not create any immediate problems with the maintenance of streets, lights, or signals. Similarly, the proposed office development will not contribute more than one percent to the traffic load of the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. The Honorable Mayor and City Council F April 13, 1987 . Page Two Therefore,. there are no expected Level of Service problems. If the proposed Reorganization occurs, neither the Police Department nor the Fire Department anticipate significant impacts to the provision of police and fire services. The existing service zones and beats would reflect the new boundary. The boundary adjustment conforms to the Council's Boundary Changes Policy #6 -15. The policy states that the City will "only consider modifications that include equal exchanges of like territory, population or tax base ". Overall, the Saratoga -San Jose swap would satisfy this ,requirement, as discussed above. In addition, the boundary adjustment would create a more identifiable boundary between the two cities, thereby upholding the policy's guideline of maintaining civic identity. COORDINATION For the preliminary evalution of the boundary adjustment, the Department of City Planning discussed the proposal with the following City Departments:. Public Works, Traffic Operations, Fire and Police. +. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the City Council agree to support the proposed boundary reorganization between San Jose and Saratoga outlined in this memorandum subject to two conditions: 1. That the reorganization be approved only in the form proposed, so that the invalidation of any part of the reorganization package as a result of legal protests will terminate consideration of the matter. 2. That the City of Saratoga act as the "conducting authority" for reorganization proceedings, be responsible for all fees and application materials to LAFCO, and act as lead agency for the purpose of environmental review. Gary J. Schoeennauer .Director of Planning GJS:LRP:iw Attachments SJSARBND:1 -2/A -6 204 -08 . EXHIBIT 1 �A TO r ■ a O r' W Groin , r _ d \ C Z Ave G• R - 3c r W A (P'Q) ~are,, 3 •nr `601 Q rE 0 0I P, itl v Sim SH P CEPiTi i ° C -3 SENIOR HIGH it ELEMENTARY f SCHOOL �o i, ,•1 .f r 5 i BROOKVIEW ,.y vacant a QC x o v Nort h1 O` T Area. To Be Annexed To San- Jos, 97 Area To Be Annexed To Saratog *SHEET: SC A L E: I"= 500 nn1iimn DISTRICT Proposed Sphere of influence Boundary ._ ... __ .... ,. - _ SAN JOSE- SARATOGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT L � Parcels to be Annexed to San Jose Assessor's Parcel Numbers Existing Land Uses 386 -10 -4 Car Wash 386 -10 -6 Retail 386 -10 -7 6% Karate Dojo 12.5% Restaurants 37.5% Retail 44% Professional Offices 386 -10 -41 Vac 386 -10 -43 12% 22% 33% 33% 386 -10 -49 386 -10 -55 386 -10 -56 f Totals Acreage 1.00 0.93 0.91 ant 0.13 Printing Service 2.27 Professional Offices Retail Restaurants Vacant Tire Sales & Installation Baptist. Church 0.26 0. 42 0.62 approx. 6.54 Parcels to be Annexed to Saratoga Assessor's Existing Parcel Numbers 386 -11 -46 386 -11 -47 386 -11 -48 386 -11 -50 386 -11 -51 386 -11 -52 386 -23 -36 386- 2.3 -37 386- 2:3 -38 386- 2.3 -40 Totals Land Uses, Service Station Restaurant 2 Retail Stores Professional Offices Professional Offices Professional Offices Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant. Acreage 0.41 0.28 0.52 0.79 0.86 0.44 0.14 0.45 0.42 0.48 approx 4.79 EXHIBIT 2 Net Assessed Valuation 768,060 26-1,726 603,515 1,504 1, 38,8 , 235 19,602 125,201 4 8 , 0.27 3,215,870 Net Assessed Valuation 89,625 95,478, 252,101 291,196 491,673 583,662 -0- *. 1.00, 000 225,081 117,899 2,246,7.15 *The City of San Jose owned this property and sold it to a private party in May 1986. The property will be merged with 386 -23 -37 on the 1987 County Assessor's rolls. SJSARBND:1 e r 8 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT b. PUBLIC HEARING on cancellation of California Land Conservation Contract No. 72 -117 (Tomimatsu) for property located on the southeast corner of Snell and Chynoweth Avenues. APN 690 -26 -007. CEQA: ND. (Plann,iny) Resolution No. 59775. C. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance establishing an underground utility district at Cottle Road from Santa Teresa Boulevard to Hospital Parkway. CEQA: Exempt. (Public Works) Ordinance No. 22519 passed for publication. d. Dis °cussion of the proposed boundary reorganization with the City of Saratoga al,ong Saratoga Avenue. (Planning) Proposed boundary reorganization approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the reorganization be approved only in the form proposed, so that the invalidation of any part of the reorganization package as a result of legal protests will terminate consideration of the matter; and (2) That the City of Saratoga act as the "conducting authority" for reorganization proceedings, be responsible for all fees and application. materials to LAFCO, and act as lead agency for the purpose of environmental review. 7 - 05/05/87 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITtW: MEETING DATE: 9/2/8_7 ORIGINATING DEPT.; a pl� nning CITY MGR'. APPROVAL S.D-&7-0'0'9,, LL 87 -Q03, SD-87-009,.1; ]�_ivoir, 20411, Hill Ave., - Appeal of SUBJECT.: Planning Commission, decision- ap pr-6ving the reversion 'to acreage plan, lot line adjustment and tentative, 'building site applications Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal by approving SD-87009 (.Reversion to Acreage) and affirm the decisions of the Planning Commission ap -ovincr!:LL-8j"003 (,lot line adjustment), and SD-87 -909.1 (tentative builailrig, site apptoVal,) Report Summary.— 1, On July '22, 1987, thelPlanni-Ing -Commissill,on considered a,request for approval of reversion to,.acreage:plaft (SD-87-000) to establish four lots where nine 'lots currently exist,, and a lot line adjustment application (L17:-87-003) to allow a series of 'adjust- -mdnts between those four' lots. In a7ddItIon, building site approval (SD- .87-009.1) was keqpested for 'three lots, of record in the R-1"2,0,0,00 zoning district. 2. on a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission -approved, all three, appl-ica-tabris.- Oni- 7/29/87,, Mrs.. Smith appealed the Commission'-s"ac't-ion; 3. The three grounds for the appedl,were addx�essed,bythe Planning Commission in the. course of' its deliberation. The project. waa.processed in accordance with the City Code and appropriately conditioned:. I Fiscal Impacts: Attachments:. 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. Motion and Vote: N/A Staff Repbttutotthe City Council -dated 9/2/87 Appeal letter dated 7/29/8•. Correspondence Planning .Commission minutes,--7/,?2/8,7 Report to the Planning Commission Plans Appeal denied subject to submittal ,of revised map 5-0. 09'XW o0 §&MV_��3UQ)0& 13777 FRUI I VALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director DATE: 9/2/87 SD -87 -009, LL -87 -003, SD- 87- 009.1; Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave. - Appeal of SUBJECT: planning Commission decision approving the reversion to acreage plan, lot line adjustment and tentative building site applications A. Background On July 22, 1987, the Planning Commission considered a request for approval of a reversion to acreage plan (SD -87 -009) to establish four (4) lots where nine (9) lots currently exist, and a lot line adjustment application (LL -87 -003) to allow a series of lot line adjustments between those four lots. In addition, building site approval (SD -87- 009.1) was requested for three legal lots of record located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. On a 5 -0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the reversion to acreage plan, and approved the lot line adjustment and building site approval applications. Analysis of Appeal 1. In her appeal letter, Mrs. Smith, has indicated that the subject property should be developed as acre lots rather than the "arbitrary half- acre" lots. As pointed out in the Report to the Planning Commission, the subject property is part of the Bonnie Brae subdivision recorded in the early 1900's. The site is zoned R -1- 20,000 and is designated RLD (low density residential) on the City's General Plan Map. Currently, a total of 12 lots of record exist on the 5.2 acre site, although at least one of these lots could be required to be merged pursuant to Article 14 -65 of the City Code. The applicant's proposal would decrease the number of lots on the subject site from 12 to 7 (seven), ranging in size from 21,600 sq. ft. to 56,200 sq. ft. With the exception of Lot #14 (as shown on the tentative building site map,) all of the "proposed" lots meet or exceed the minimum lot area, width, frontage and depth requirements prescribed by the zoning code. As such, staff has determined that the applicant's request is in compliance with the zoning code. In addition, since staff did not find significant geotechnical or traffic impacts resulting from the proposal, staff 1 found the applications to be consistent with the General Plan. 2. The second point argued by the appellant concerns the legality of improving Hill Ave., and future improvements on Vine St. Prior to the 7/22/87 public hearing, the City Attorney reviewed the title report issued for the 5.2 acre site, and determined that the applicant has an easement over the top portion of Hill Ave. As such, the applicant could improve the entire length of Hill Ave. as required by the City Engineer. With regard to the Vine St. improvements, condition #B -7 on Resolution SD- 87-009.1 defers any improvements along this street until Parcels E or F are developed. It should be recognized that Vine St. is a 40 ft. wide dedicated street and, the only reasonable and orderly access to these parcels is from Vine St. The appellant is concerned with the impacts that the Vine St. improvements will have on her property. However, the exact nature of these improvements are not only dependent on when Parcel E or F are developed, but also the development of the large vacant piece of land owned by the appellant and located to the northeast of the subject site. If, for example, access to all of the future lots on Mrs. Smith's land is from Montalvo Rd., it's reasonable to expect that Vine St. would be improved to minimum access road standards; i.e., 20 ft. wide right -of -way with 18 ft. wide pavement. On the other hand, if access to one or more of these lots is via Vine St., the street would be required to be improved to local street standards (i.e., 40 ft. wide right -of -way with 26 ft: wide pavement), since the 4 -lot limit on the number of lots that can be served by a minimum access road would be exceeded. As such, the final improvements along Vine St. are clearly dependent upon the future plans of the appellant, with the minimum amount of improvements occurring only if Vine St. is to serve Parcels E and F. 3. The final point that the appellant makes concerns the process by which the applicant achieved his desired goals: In staff's opinion, the applicant operated within the framework of the zoning and subdivision codes and complied with its regulations. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal by approving SD -87 -009 and affirm the decisions of the Planning Commission approving LL -87 -003 and SD -87 -009 1. Yu h e k Hs is P1 ing Director YH /rc /dsc 2 T APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: • Audrey S. Smith Address: 20301 Hill Ave. Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee A50, dLo CITY USE ONL) Telephone: 867 -3051 Name of Applicant: Richard Rivoir Project File No.: -SD -87 -009; LL -87 -003; SD -87 -009.1 Project Address: 20411 Hill Ave.. Project Description: aG per_;tem X113 7/22 Planning Commission.' meeting Agenda - Staff Outline Decision Being Appealed: Ree attached letters dated July 19, 1987, July 25, 1987 and cover letter dated 7/29/87 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Cover letter dated 7/29/87 attached with letters dated. 7/19,.-and 7/25. 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. TIIIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED 14ITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF' HE 9-,VE OF THE DECISION. t AUDREY S. SMITH 20301 Hill Ave. Saratoga,.California July 29, 1987 Saratoga.City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor and Council Members: REF: R. Rivoir property 20411 Hill Ave. SD -87 -009 LL -87 -003 SD - &7 -009.1 I wish to formally appeal the Richard Rivoir applications referred to above and indicated on the attached executed Appeal Application form. I am also enclosing copies of two previous letters addressed to you from my son, Stuart, in which he outlines our concerns and opposition to the actions taken by the Saratoga Planning Commission on July 22, 1987. We are seriously concerned with items #2 and 3 as outlined'in my sons's letter of July 25, 1987 regarding the proposed access that may serve two possible sites fronting on Vine Street and the adverse impact on my property. It is not our intent to cause the applicant undue delay, but our desire to settle this access issue prior to further govern- mental processing of the Rivoir property applications. We are confident we can reach a fair and equitable solution to this problem and are convinced that it can be resolved through the realignment of Vine Street at the intersection of Hill Ave., easement adjustments, and partial abandonment of Vine Street. We kindly request a meeting with representatives of your planning staff and Mr. Heiss, the applicant's engineer, to discuss the basis of our appeal and our proposal in more detail. In addition, we also stress the necessity of a field trip to view our property with myself or members of my family. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention. Sincerely, Audrey S. Sm' h ASM /p Enclosures Stuart S. Smith 6 Lawridge Road Santa Cruz, Ca. 97060 City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. July 25, 1987 Saratoga Ca. 95070 Ref Land Development of a Mr. Rivoir, Hill Ave. Gentlemen: I am writing as an interested party in opposition to reference development on the grounds of improper planning of the 5.2 acre parcel as well as its effect on the surrounding.undeveloped parcels of the Aratas and of my mother, Mrs. S. M. Smith (Audrey) -an elderly widow,- who has owned and resided on the adjoining nine acres for some forty years. At the Planning Commission meeting of July 22 it was evident to us that there was insufficient understanding of the proposed building program and. of its negative effect on one of the few remaining beautiful close -in hillside areas. All too readily the Commission "rubber- stamped" staff recommendations -- perhaps in part due to the lateness of the hour or to the absence of one of its members (Mr. Ziegfsied). Basically, the points which need to be addressed in further depth are: 1.. Total Area Development: The beauty, terraine, and Peace of this area leand themselves to at least acrea development instead of the existent arbitrary half -acrea For example: Mrs. Smith's larger parcel to the east, when eventually developed, would result in acre -plus lots although technically in half -acre zoning. Access would be via Montalvo Road and not Vine St. 2. Access to the Development via Hill Ave. and Vine St. Not only is the legality of improving Hill Ave. in cuestion, but access to two :}lots at the foot of and facing Vine St. has been left unplanned. If the present request is approved and improvements made to the four lots on top, this would preclude an orderly development of the remaining two, which would then be "stranded" from cohesion with the others. In a future petition for access to these two lots via Vine St., the impact on Mrs. Smith's property would be devastating, probably resulting in lenthy and costly legal wrangling. -2- 3. The clever manipulation of the parcel by excessive lot- line - adjustments thus avoiding slope- density requirements which a normal subdivision of the property would require, not only sets a bad precedence but reflects on the ethics and intents of the developer. Reference to "legality" of 1906 recorded lots may not apply to what is morally right for Saratoga today. In summary, I feel the whole proposal has been ill- conceived and attended by impatience, exasperation, and misunderstanding on the part of the petitioner and planners. If not corrected, the present plan would result in a horrible mistake which would surface again when access to the two "lost lots" facing Vine St. is coOsidered. As trustees of the integrity and beauty of Saratoga, I earnestly request that you familiarize yourselves with the entire plan prior to your August meeting, with the object of taking a stand for deferral of the whole matter for further study and its negative impact of the adjoining property owners. P.S. You are cordially invited to personally view and feel this area, preferably by foot (bring walking shoes) or by helicopter. LAW OFFICES Robert J. Tennant Lynn C. Belanger Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 August 27, 1987 Re: RIVOIR PROPERTY 5D -87 -009, LL87 -003 5D87 -009.1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: On your agenda of September original Council action for SD -87 -009, and, on the same Mrs. Audrey S. Smith of the grant of lot line adjustmen approval for three existing 2, 1987, you will have before you an a proposed reversion to acreage, overall project, an appeal by July 22, 1987, Planning Commission ts, LL -87 -003, together with site lots, SD 87- 009.1. Mr, and Mrs. Rivoir wish to call your attention to the fact that their original application to the planning department was only for building site approval for three of their twelve lots of record. They had no plans then, and have none now for developing more than that. Staff, however, required that they subm entire twelve -lot parcel. The Rivoirs, protest, submitted such a plan, showing configuration which you now have before plan is to be implemented, reversion to adjustments are necessary. it a master plan for their reluctantly and under the possible seven lot you on appeal. If that acreage and lot line It is ironic that what started as simple applications for site approval now embroil the Rivoirs in an appeal from an overall plan which they did not seek or even wish to create. As pointed out by the staff's July 22nd report to the Planning Commission: "The application of lots 14, 15 and 16 applications, since a dependent on Line Alustme 1790 So, Winchester Blvd. "6 Campbell, California 95008 -1183 Phone(408)866 -4292 for tentative building site approval "is not directly tied to the above decision on this application is not the outcome of the reversion to acreage and Lot t applications." Mayor of Saratoga and Members of the City Council Page Two 27 August 1987 In fact, there is no provision in law for placing such requirements on site approvals. In acceding to staff's desire for long range planning, the Rivoirs did not agree to give up their rights to the established site approval procedure. They therefore respectfully request that the Council consider the present appeal from two separate viewpoints: the initial application for site approval as an independent request by the applicant, and the master plan, and its accompanying request by the City to decrease lots as essentially a request by the City. If the Council finds it cannot deny the entire appeal without adding new conditions, then the Rivoirs would prefer to exercise their right to obtain the site approvals they first requested, asking that only those conditions be imposed which are appropriate to site approval alone. This would, of course, allow them to retain their original twelve lots, and to apply in the future to reconfigure them when development is contemplated. Very truly yours, NN C. B LANGER LCB:md cc: Mr. and Mrs. R. Rivoir A►_igus;t '20.. 196 7 Keith► Miller 14901") Vickery Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 City of 'Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitaale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 AUG Z 7 X94. Dear `if y C.OUnCi I., We are responding to yo►_rr notice of appeal regarding the Rivoir property. My wife and I litre at 14900 Vickery Lane, directly adjacent to the subject property and Vine Street. Our home has been in the family since the 1930's and I am very familiar with the subject property. in fact, we sold the Rivoir family Lot 7, and years; later, Lot 6 on Vine Street. We have used and helped maintain Mine Street for the past 50 years as a secondary access. Although the Smith.--;, Rivoirs, and others have used 'dine Street as access to Vickery Lane through our property, it was done so only with permission, and we want to male it clear that neither the public nor anyone has a right to use our property without our permission. We are in favor of the proposed application as it combines Lots 6 &7, as well as ether_: on Vine Street. If someone else had purchased Lot 6 when it was listed for sale, the lots probably_ would have been built on separately. It is our understanding that Rivoir has no plans, to build on Vine Street at this time, but is willing to combine these lots as part of a master plan. Thank qOU for gOLjr consideration in this matter, as we, too, want only the best for Saratoga. Sincerely, Keith Miller • 13. SD -87 -009 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request that the Planning Commission LL -87 -003 recommend approval to the City Council for a reversion to acreage plan SD -87 -009.1 to establish four (4) lots where nine (9) lots currently exist and to consider a lot line adjustment application to allow various adjustments between the four (4) lots. In addition, the applicant is requesting tentative building site approval for 3 lots in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and . 15 of the City Code. — --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 22, corrections in Staff Analysis, 3., to read: - Lot 14: Frontage 40 ft., Width 104 ft., Depth 220 ft. - Lot 15: Frontage 105 ft., Width 116 ft., Depth 210 ft. 1987, and noted The Public Hearing was opened at 10:00 P.M. -Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil` Engineer, reviewed the history of this Application and presented a 1906 map of record which created legal lots of record and dedicated Hill'Ave., Pleasant Ave. and Vine St.-- streets which served this subdivision. The current Application only addressed Lots 14, 15, and 16; however, at the request of Staff, a Master Plan had been designed. No improvements were being requested for Vine St. at this time; Applicants were favorable to a deferred improvement agreement. Mr. Heiss suggested the following changes to Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - In B., Specific Conditions - Engineering Division 19.,- until such time as Vine St.' became a public street, or was abandoned, there-was no purpose to require changes to this driveway. A modification of the driveway could be included in the deferred improvement agreement relative to Parcels E and F. - In G., Specific Conditions - Planning Department 2., request made that this accessory structure be removed before final occupancy approval rather than prior to final building site approval_ The City Engineer, suggested that the removafof the accessory structure be completed wiLhin • the one year period of construction of required improvements and secondly, to require .the posting of a bond, insuring that this relocation was completed within the time allotted. Mr. Steward Smith read into the record .a letter of Mrs. S.M. Smith, dated July 15, 1987. Mr. Dave Arata, representing the senior Aratas at 20400 Hill Ave., presented a preliminary title report from Valley Title Co. which proved that Hill Ave. Was not a public road; he asked for resolution of this issue in the near future. He noted concern regarding the volume of traffic on Hill Ave., the use of a hammerhead instead of a cul de sac at the turn around and suggested an additional lot line adjustment on the border of Hill Ave. to create a wider interior road. He _ noted his interest in creating a plan which would be harmonious with the neighborhood. -In response to Chairwoman Harris' question, Attorney Baird stated that the City would not become the insurer of title to the Rivoir property. Conditions of Approval require that the Applicant ( Rivoir) provide a dedication of Hill Ave; if such cannot be provided through sufficient documentation to the satisfaction of the -City, the applicable Condition would not be satisfied and the Applicant would not be able to proceed with the project. The City Engineer noted that improvements made to the driveway in question would make any future decision more difficult. Attorney Baird suggested that in Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval: B., Specific Conditions - Engineering Division Item 19. could be incorporated into Item 7. Mrs. Smith noted that the property had been in her family for forty years and suggested that the ' property in question have two homes'on it; this would prevent excessive traffic on Hill Ave. BURGER/GUGH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. Passed 5 -0 BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE SD -87 -009. Passed 5 -0. BURGER/CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LL -87 -003. Passed 5 -0. _ _ BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -87 -009.1 AS AMENDED. Passed 5 -0. n /Z�s7 Mrs. S. I�:. Smith 20101 Hill Ave Saratoga, Ca. 95070 July 19, la$7 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Gentlemen, I am writing in response to notification by you of the nroposed land development by my neighbor, a Pir. Rivoir, of his nr6perty consisting of some six acres adjacent to and to the west of mine. Aw concerns lie Primarily in the lay -out, duality, and environmental impact of the project, as .jell as its effect on my use and enjoyment of buildings on my property abutting the dividing line between our respective properties, namely, that right- of -wav labeled "mine St." on Subdivision lap Bennie Brae #1 &2. On that map -dated 1906-my parcels are #1 (4 acres - improved) and #s 2,3,4 and 5 (one rlus acre each -unim- proved). 14r. Rivoir owns lots 6 through 17 of random sizes from very small to about one -half acre. I believe all lots were c:- riginally laid out in an arib- trary manner, and that later the General Plan also arbitrarily placed the dividing line between acre and one -half acre zoning between my lots 1. and 2, leaving my lot #1 in one acre zoning and the remainin? 36 Lots on the half acre side. It is important to me that these final. contiguous parcels in this most desirable foothill area be given the utmost attention not only as to legality of development and zoning, but to the character of layout and improve- ment that would result in a real asset to our community. My specific oomments after viewing Mr. Rivoir's proposed plan are as follows: 1. It appears there has been an effort to manipulate the ©riginal twelve odd - shaped lots, through the device of excessive lot -line- adjustment, to seven of poor configuration and access - -this perhaps in order to avoid corrforming to the slope- density formula ordinance and five lots if the property were subdivided anew. This technique not only sets a bad precedent but is out of keeping with this hillside area of largely estate -type homes. -2- 2. The proposed two lots facinz "Vise St." with access from Hill Ave. via "Vine :�t. ", if allowed, would not only require an extensive private driveway with the attending traffic impin7ing on my peace and safety, but would render my Farage buildinr, on the corner of Vine and Hill virtually useless due to the dangerous blind corner thus created requiring hacking out into on- coming traffic. Also, there would be restricted access to my guest house. Both huildinrs were built some fifty years ago without reference to present day set -back requirements. Possible alterna- tives to this unacceptable situation could be (1) access to all. building sites via "Pleasant St." or some other way from Hill Ave. or (2 ) If and when my own property is developed by me or my heirs, access throug -h my present lots 4 and 5 at the foot of "Vine 6t. ", which right -of -way could then be abandomed. It is to be noted in this respect that "Vine O"t." would not he used in any future development of my property- -the lot_*ical access being from 1- .'ontalvo Rd. 3. It is requested that any widening of Hill. Ave. be done in such a manner that will not inter- fere with structures or landscaping- in that area passing my property. In conclusion, I wish as a long time resident of some forty years to cooperate in any way which will result in an eventual harmonious development of the entire area, and request the present plan not be accepted in its present piecemeal. .form. 7incerely_ �� �M.� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: July 22, 1987 APPLICATION NO, & LOCATION: SD -87 -009, LL -87 -003, SD -87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Avenue APPLICANT: Rivoir APN: 517- 19 -49, 50, 52, S4, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 & 63 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 70.040, the applicant is requesting approvals of a reversion to acreage plan (SD -87 -009) to establish four (4) lots where nine (9) lots currently exist, and a lot line adjustment (LL -87 -003) application to allow various adjustments between those four (4) lots. In addition, the applicant is requesting tentative building site (SD -87- 009.1) approval for three (3) lots in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 1S of the City Code. ISSUES: 1. Reversion to Acreage (SD -87 -009) - No issues 2. Lot Line Adjustment (LL -87 -003) - No issues 3. Tentative Buildng Site Approval (SD -87- 009.1) - The applicant's plans show that Pleasant Ave. will potentially serve five (S) lots and is proposed as a minimum access street. According to City Code, the maximum number of lots served from any minimum access street is four (4) lots. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify that requirement pursuant to City Code Section 14- 35.010 in that exceptional- circumstances exist and no adverse :impacts are expected. No other issues have been identified. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code and will not cause serious public health or safety problems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the applicant's reversion to acreage plan (SD -87 -009). 2. Approve LL -87 -003. 3. Approve SD -87- 009.1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution LL -87 -003 2. Resolution SD- 87- 009.1 3.. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Review dated 3/5/87 & 5/22/87 S. Plans, Reversion to Acreage (SD -87 -009), Lot Line Adjustment (LL -87 -003) and Building Site Approval (SD- 087- 00.9.1) RC /dsc RESOLUTION NO. LL -87 -003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APN'S517- 19 -49, 50, 52, 54. 5S. $6, 61. 63 and 64 WHEREAS, a lot line adjustment between Parcels E, F, G, H as shown on the applicant's lot line adjustment plan has been filed with the Planning Director of the City of Saratoga for LL -87 -003; and WHEREAS, the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan, the regulations of the zoning and subdivision ordinances; and WHEREAS, the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the subject properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does approve the lot line adjustment subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall receive City Council approval of the reversion to acreage application, SD -87 -009 and comply with any applicable conditions. 2. The applicant shall submit a parcel map to the City Engineer for recordation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of July 19 87 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 3/87 RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -009.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF RIVOIR, APN'.S 517- 19 -58, 59, 62 WHEREAS, the 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 site approval of 3 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD- 87- 009.1 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 July 22, 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption 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 the Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to sa.id subdivision, and tentative approval 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 maps are dated the 18th day of December, 1987 and March, 1987 and are marked Exhibit C in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. Thee 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 adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of July, 1987, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission SD -87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Ave. EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. General Conditions 1. The owner shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Prior to obtaining Final Approval, the applicant shall comply with the conditions of SD. -87 -009 and LL -87 -003. B. Specific Conditions - Engineerin4 Division 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 2. Submit "final map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. half- street on Vine St. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 40 ft. street on Hill Ave, from Montalvo Rd. to approximately midway between Vine and Pleasant Streets and for a 30 ft. right -of -way from that mid -point to Pleasant Street. S. Construct Pleasant Avenue as a minimum access road 18 ft, wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on G" aggregate base for its entire length. 6. Construct turnaround on Pleasant Avenue having a 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on G" aggregate base within 100 ft. of any proposed dwelling. Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of cul- verts and roadside ditches. 7. Enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to improve Vine St. to City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer, when Parcel E or F are developed as shown on lot line adjustment map dated 2/87 (LL-67-003). 8. Improve Hill Ave. to City standards, including the following: a) Designed structural section 26 ft. between flowline from Mon - talvo Rd. to where the right -of -way reduces to 30 ft., then 22 ft. from there to Pleasant Ave. SD -87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Ave. b) P.C. concrete curb and gutter (R -36). 9. Construct storm drainage system 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. 10. Construct standard driveway approaches. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 12. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 13. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 14. Engineered improvement plans required for: a) Street improvements b) Storm drain construction C) Access road 1S. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 16. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. 17. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 18. Increase inside curb radius to a minimum of 30 ft. at the intersection of Hill Ave. and Pleasant Ave. Right-of-,way radius to , be not less than 20 ft. C 1 /r- a- cCcLa�� 19. Enter into a deferred improvement agreement to abandon or realign the existing driveway located at the corner of Hill Ave, and Vine St. serving Parcel G as approved by the City Engineer, when parcel E or F are developed as shown on lot line adjustment (LL -87 -003). C. Specific Conditions - Pacific Gas & Electric 1. Provide for a 10 ft. public utility easement as required by P.G.& E. D. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara County Health Dept. 1. A sanitary sewer connection is required. 2. Any existing septic tanks) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. r SD-87-009.1; 20411 Hill Ave. 3. Domestic water shall be suppli -ed by San Jose Water Co. 4. Seal any well in accordance with County Standards. E. Specific Conditions -. Saratoga Fire Di.strict 1, The applicant shall install two (2) fire hydrants that meet the Fire District's specifications. Said hydrants shall be installed and.accepted prior to construction of any building. F. Specific Conditions - Building Inspection Division 1. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. grading limits b. drainage details C. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher d. erosion control measures G. Specific Conditions - Planning Department 1. Approval of SD -87 -009 (Reversion to Acreage Application) and LL -87- 003 is required. 2. Prior to Final Building Site approval, the applicant shall submit a bond to guarantee to remove or relocate to meet current setback requirements, the accessory structure located at the corner of Hill and Pleasant Avenues within one (1) year of final site approval. 3. If the applicant chooses to relocate rather than remove the existing accessory structure on Parcel G (per LL -87 -003 dated 2/87), •the applicant shall apply for a second unit use permit or remove the existing kitchen facilities. 4. The applicant shall obtain City approval prior to demolishing any structures on site. S. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall remove the existing gate located at the entrance o-f Pleasant St. 6. No ordinance site trees, other -than those indicated on the tentative building site plans, shall be, removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 7. Geote,chnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechni.cal aspects of the development plans (i.e., feasibility of proposed building sites, site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and raodways) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. SD- 87- 009.1; 20411 Hill Ave. 8. Geotechnical design recommendations shou -ld be modified (if necessary) to ensure the long -term stability of the currently proposed building sites and residential improvements. 9.. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to- the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 10. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultatn should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface improvements, and excavations for foundations and re•ta,ining walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel. In addition, a responsible party should inspect the removal o -f all exist.i -ng structures and underground utilities to ensure the site is clear of obstructi.ons. The results of these inspections and the as- bu.ilt conditions of the project shall be described by the gotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: July 22, 1987 APN : 517-19-49, SO, S2, S4, SS, S6, 56, S9, 60, 61, 62. and '63 APPLICATION NO.. & LOCATION: SD -87 -009, LL -87 -003, SO -87- 00.9.1; 20411 Hill Ave. ACTION REQUESTED: Lot Line Adjustment Approval for four (4) lots and Tentative Building Site Approval for three (3) lots in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. Also the applicant requests that the Planning Commis-sio "n recommend the reversion to acreage plan to the city council. APPLICANT: Richard Rivoir PROPERTY OWNER:• Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Reversion to Acreage (SD -87 -009), Lot Line Adjustment (LL -87 -003) and Final Building Site approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA (15303 and 15305) ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (.Low Density) EXISTING LAND USE: Lot 14 - abandoned residence and pool, Lot 15 - vacant, Lot 16 - garage, Parcel G - single family dwelling, Remaining parcels - vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES.: Single family residential PARCEL SIZES: Lot 14: 22,750 sq. ft.; Lot .1S: 31,800 sq. ft.; Lot 16: 34,500 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Mature vegetation occupies the entire site including several large pine, pepper and oak trees. The slopes of each parcel are disussed in the body of the report. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that Pleasant Ave. proposed as a minimum access street will potentially serve five lots where four lots are the maximum number that can be served by a minimun access street pursuant to City Code Section 14- 2S.03.0(g). V SD -87 -009, LL -87 -003, SD -87 -009.1 20411 Hill Ave. Staff Analysis Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 70.040, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Reversion to Acreage plan to establish four (4) lots where nine (9) lots currently exist and to consider granting a Lot Line Adjustment to allow various adjustments between those four lots. In addition, the applicant is requesting Tentative Building Site approval for three (3) existing lots of record in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district pursuant to Section 14- 15.020 and Ar -ticle 15 -12 of the City Code. A. Background The three lots that the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission grant tentative building site approval., are all existing lots of- record, and are part of the Bonnie Brae Subdivision recorded in the early 1900'5. Currently, a total of 12 lots of record exist on the applicant's 5.2 acre site although at least one of these (Parcel 17) could be required to be merged pursuant to Article 14 -6S of the City Code. Approximately one year ago, the applicant submitted a tentative subdivision map attempting to resubdivide the subject property into nine(9) lots. That application was never acted upon because it was determined that a resubdivision would require the applicant to comply with the City's slope density formula, and that no more than 5 lots could be approved on the property. The applicant later withdrew that application. In the months following, the applicant and his representatives meet with staff members of the Planning and Engineering departments and with the City Attorney. It was determined that if the applicant went through the Reversion to Acreage process and then adjusted the lot lines via the Lot Line Adjustment process, the City's slope density formula would not be applied provided all of the resulting parcels met the minimum zoning code requirements including lot area, width, depth and frontage. As a result of those meetings, the applicant has submitted three separate applications, two of which (i.e. Lot Line Adjustment, LL -87 -003 and Tentative Bu-ilding Site Approval, SD -87- 009.1) need to be approved by the Planning Commission. The remaining application. SD -87 -009- Reversion to Acreage, will be processed through the City Council in accordance with City Code Section 14- 70.030. Although the Reversion to Acreage City Council, staff believes it be made aware of the specifics recommendation to the Council. applications is important in applicant's. overall development acre site. B. Proposals application will be processed through the s important for the Planning Commission to of that proposal so it can formulate a Finally, an understanding of all three gaining a total understanding of the plans or master plan for the entire 5.2 1. Reversion to Acreage - The Reversion to Acreage plan submitted by the applicant shows that 9 of the existing lots of record are to be combined into 4 lots. (Please see Reversion to Acreage Plan). Specifically, the plan shows that the applicant proposes to merge Lots #'s 10, 11 and 17, Lot #'s 12 and 13, Lot #'s 8 and 9 and Lot #'s' 6 and 7. As a result a total of seven lots are proposed for the site; 2 less lots than what was proposed a year ago and 5 less lots that what currently exist. 2. Lot Line Adjustment - The next proposal is the Lot Line Adjustment application. The applicant has proposed various adjustments between the lot lines of the "new" lots proposed under the Reversion to Acreage plan. According to the applicant, the proposed adjustments will improve the potential building sites on these four lots, and ensure that these lots meet the minimum zoning code requirements. 3. Tentative Building. Site Approval - Finally, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission grant Tentative Building Site approval for Lot #'s 14, 15 and 16. Incidentally, this application is not directly related to the above applications since a decision on this application is not dependent on the outcome of the Reversion to Acreage and Lot Line Adjustment applications. It is, however, part of the master plan for the site. C. Staff Analysis 1. Reversion to Acreage - Although this application can only be approved by the City Council, 'staff feels that its important that the Planning Commission formulate and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a Reversion to Acreage plan to establish four (4) lots where nine (9) lots currently exist. As stated above, the specific property involved makes -up a significant portion of the 5.2 acre site. The resulting lots will range in size from 24,000 - 52,500 sq. ft. where the minimum lot size is 20,000 sq. ft. To recommend approval of this application to the City Council, the Planning Commission must find that: a) Dedications or offers of dedications to be vacated or abandoned by the reversion to acreage are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes, and b) All owners of interest in the real property within the subdivision have consented to the reversion. In this case, the City Engineer has reviewed the reversion to 13 acreage plan and has determined that no dedications or offers of dedications to be vacated or abandoned are necessary for present or future public purposes, and since the applicant is the owner of record of all the lots, both of the above findings can be made. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to The City Council approval of the Reversion Acreage Plan (SD -87 -009) as submitted by the applicant 2. Lot Line Adjustment - Following the applicant's reversion to acreage plan, is a request to adjust various lot lines between the four lots that are created. This application assumes that the City Council will approve the applicant's reversion plan which would reduce the total number of lots on the 5.2 ac. site from 12 to 7. To recommend approval of the Lot Line Adjustment, the following findings must be made: a) that the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan, the regulations of the zoning and subdivision ordinances; and b) that the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the subject properties. In staff's opinion, the proposed adjustments are not in conflict with the City's General Plan policies. Furthermore, the resulting lots will not violate any zoning code requirements. For example, the 4 lots will meet or exceed all of the zoning code requirements regarding lot area, width, and frontage as follows: *As shown on the applicants Lot Line Adjustment Map. In addition, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and finds that it will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties. Consequently, both of the required findings can be made. Recommendation - Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application by adopting Resolution LL -87 -003 and Findings 3. Tentative Building Site Approval - Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 15.020, the applicant is requesting tentative building site approval Lot Area Frontaae Width Death Slope *Parcel E 26,400 sq. ft. 180 ft. 205 ft. 160 ft. 27% *Parcel F 29,300 sq. ft. 200 ft. 215 ft. ' 160 ft. 30% *Parcel G 56,200 sq. ft. 101 ft. 205 ft. 340 ft. 19% *Parcel H 21,600 sq. ft. 162 ft. 160 ft. 140 ft. 15% Required 20,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 110 ft. 140 ft. N/A (R -1- 20,000) *As shown on the applicants Lot Line Adjustment Map. In addition, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and finds that it will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the subject properties. Consequently, both of the required findings can be made. Recommendation - Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application by adopting Resolution LL -87 -003 and Findings 3. Tentative Building Site Approval - Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 15.020, the applicant is requesting tentative building site approval -'-f,or three lots (Lot #'s 14, 15 and 16 as indicated. on t-he :applicant' -s building site approval plans) •loca'ted . in -the - R- 1= 20,000 zoning district. ' -As indicated earl er.', the three Lots in question are existing lot's 'of recor.d', and' are ,.in the` southwest corner of the S.2 ac. site. The applicant's .t6hi'ati'.ve building =;si.t e• plans -.show, the `foot'pri-nts of a .home 'o'n each'lot end- on. A'ugus:t..; 12; .1987 -Planning Commission w.i11'con'si•der a- Design.- ,R,ev'ie'w app.licaat'ion- for,Lot #16.. The •'three .1•ot5' in.,question are located at th'e'y top of•, H11i Ave-.-'.' Wand access• from, PIeasant St.: ' whi: ch' 01. 1, 1. 6e. i iiprove,dAo�.inini'i+bm,access• road -standards per •the Ci't -y ,Engi.n'ee�.: While all three ;of t-he 'lote exceed the 20.,000 s.q:.f't: iii-nimum lot size requi'rerient ` °Lot. #1'4 :is substandard with re6pect. 'j o hot 'frontage' a'nd•*•uiidt -�h -Howevet-- „..'-s'ince -this is existing lot.of r _ecord•.it's.;_considered.i -'to be a legal non'conforniing: lot:... . The'subject lots' dimensions. and' area:are a's:`fol'lows ;.. S.ite.. Area' . Front'abe`. Width Deat'h.._ Slope Lot” 14 : 22, 700 sq . f t .. 40., ft 104, ft 220'. ft. 1 '2'4% Lot ' 15 31 .,860 sq . f't . 105' f+_. = 160` ft .?` ' 210` ft, :'24% L'ot 16 54 ;500..s.q: ft 160';ft 120,ft 2 40 ft: 2.4 %. Re'quire'd 20,000. sq. ft: 80'.ft:; ' I.IO.' ft 140 ft -N/Al- a. Street -,--Improvements- T.he� ' City Engineer: h'as propos''ed- •that '.t..he' . applican:t`:: submit• an; '`Irrevocable Offer o'f' D'ed�icaa'ion fo• -provide. for.,a 40 ft.- wide :ri'ght of way'- on -HA 11, Ave. fron Mont'a1Vo Rd: ,"to ,��approx-im-ately midw y*b Ween•Vine-•and.•P,leasa'nt,Av -, ue ::`d for �i 30 - •ft: ; righ't= of -iday from. that -point' to., Pleasant •'Aue.nue Hill r Avenu,® is proposed t'o be' improved with a 26 ft , ,p•aved width :from' 1 ''MontalVo'Rd, to whe "re :the right -of -way reduces• •to`30'',ft. th'en,a:22 `. ft i'. .paved- .Widt`h from that point to Pleasant Ave.; As•`sta'ted a'bo've v; i 'Pleasant', Ave., is proposed as a minimum access road with •a.. 18. ft pa:ved width ending' in a hammer head turnaround F.ihally„ the C1t:y r :;'EnO'ineer, , has recommended that the required A ' eet• iriproveme'nts _t o'' k, Ufn6' -•'St be deferred until development of .Lots E 6r-:.. - F: ..occurs. r 6 56610gy The " appaicant'S. p1'ans 'h'ave been f:oi^ warded t'o 't.he City 't Ya _Geologist .-for.• review and comment . At•, this point , .t.he City `.Geologist has not identified a'ny major geotechni.ca.l concerns Which ,iJou,ld restrict. development of the lots in question. • and has ` ;recorimended conditional approval. (see attached letters). C. A'cc•essory . Structure• - The appli'cant's proposal indicates that the e'xi'sting accessory structure (two -car garage and second unit.) on Parcel 6, (as shown'on the Reversion"to Acreage Plan) located at the corner. of Hill Ave. and Pleasant St. is to remain. 'If this accessory 'buildiHg is •permiti-ed to remain, it would encroach into `the •30 ft. - right -o•f -way and not meet the minimum setback requirements for accessory structures. In addition, it could . hinder visibility when travel ,linq along Hill and Pleasant Avenue and thus presents a traffic hazard. Staff is recommending that prior to'final approval this structure be demolished or relocated in accordance with city setback requirements. d. Pleasant St. - As indicated above, the City Engineer has recommended that Pleasant St. be improved to minimum access street standards (i.e. 18 ft. wide paved surface with 1 ft. shoulders on each side.). However, according to City Code Section 14- 25.030(g), a minimum access street constitutes the means of access for not more than four (4) lots. The applicant's plans indicate that Pleasant Ave. will potentially serve 5 lots (i.e. Lot #s 14, 15, 16, and Parcels G & H on LL -87 -003 dated 2/87). The Planning Commission has the authority under City Code Section 14- 35.010 to grant exceptions to any of the design requirements setforth in Article 14 -25 provided the Planning Commission is able to make the required findings as follows: 1) there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property or the exception is recessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and 2) that granting the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property or uses in the vicinity. In this case, staff believes the exception is reasonable and recommends approval of the modification to allow a minimum access street serve five lots. The City Engineer and Fire Chief have reviewed the proposal and find that access and fire safety will not be jeopardized. C. Required Findings - To approve of the Tentative Building Site application for the three lots, the following findings must be made: 1) that the building sites are consistent with the General Plan 2) that the proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan 3) that the sites are physically suitable for the type of development proposed 4) that the sites are physically suitable for the proposed density of development 5) that the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantia environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wild life or their habitat and cause serious public health or safety problems 6) that the proposed improvements will not conflict with easements 7) that the discharge of waste into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements. As stated earlier, the three lots are a part of the Bonnie Brae r subdivision and are shown on the Bonnie Brae subdivision map recorded in 1900's. As such, the lots are considered legal lots of record as defined in City Code Section 15- 06.420(a). The subject area is within Planning Area "I as defined in the City's General Plan. One "Guideline for Area Development" for that area is that "residential development densities shall be as shown on the General Plan Map, however, if significant geotechnical or traffic problems could occur reduced densities may be required ". The General Plan designation for the entire S.2 ac. site is RLD ( low density residential) with a maximum density of 2.18 du's /acre or approximately 20,000 s.q. ft. per lot. The net site area for the three lots under consideration for 'tentative building site approval exceed the minimum 20,.000 sq. ft. net site area an,d therefore comply with the General Plan density and zoning code requirement for the area. In addition, the traffic generated as a result of the development of these lots is not considered significant and given the required street improvements no traffic problems are anticipated. Therefore, in staff's opinion., the applicant 's proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the subject sites are physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed. The proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or pose a serious public health or safety problem and w-J.11 not conflict w.ith existing easements. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission appprove SD -87 -009.1 and grant tentative building site approval for three lots. Conclusion /Recommendation To sum up, the applicant has submitted three applications that indicate the future plans for the en.t.ire 5.2 ac: Parcel ' SD -87 -009 is a Reversion to Acreage application which combines 9 o_f the existing lots into 4 lots. As a result, rather than having 5 lots fronting on Vine St. a total of 3 lots (Parcel E, Parcel F, and Parcel G) are proposed. By way' of the Reversion to Acreage application the applicant is proposes to reduce the total number of existing lots from 12 to 7.. The Lot Line Adjustment application will improve the building site areas on the four logs and ensure that all of the lots meet the minimum zoning code requirements. Finally, the appl.i.cant requests tentative building site approval for the three lots located at the top of Hill Ave (Lot #'s 14, 15 and 16). In staff's opinion, the plans that the applicant has submitted are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All of the required findings necessary to approve each application can be made. Therefore, staff recommends that: 1 - The Planning Commission recommend approval of SD -87 -009 (Reversion To Acreage) to the City Council 2 - Approve the Lot Line Adjustment application by adopting Resolution LL -87 -003 and Findings; and 3 - Approve the Tentative Building Site, approval application by adopt.ing Resolution SD -87 009.1 and Findings. J 0) William Coen and Associates. GEOTECHNICAL ON(- � -ANTS 318 B North Santa GTe, Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354.5542 March 5, 1987 S-1286A TO: Robert Calkins, Planning Department CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue RECEIVED Saratoga, California 95070 IrIAR G 198,7 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geot ca view RE: Lands of Riv it Lo eviously Lot 1) PLANNING DEPT. Hill Avenue At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the subject application using: o Tentative Building Site Plan (1 sheet, 20- scale) prepared by Jennings, McDermott and Heiss, dated February 1987. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from our office files regarding the.Rivoir Subdivision, DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct a single - family residence on a previously developed lot. A pool area is also indicated on the referenced plan. At present, the lot is occupied by a garage and driveway access road. The existing structures are to be removed and the new residence is to be located in the eastern portion of the lot with access to the site from the proposed Pleasant Avenue. In our previous review report (June 4, 1986), we recommended that the applicant submit a detailed site development plan to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and Geologist. Following this,, a geotechnical plan review (letter) should be submitted to the City Engineer fo.r review and approval. prior to issuance 'of. site development and building permits. CONCLUSIONS AND.RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed development is potentially constrained by the presence of poorly compacted artificial fill and potentially expansive colluvium and artificial fill. However, it appears that appropriate, geotechnical design and proper grading practices have been recommended by the applicant's geotechnical consultant to mitigate the apparent site constraints. Consequently, we recom- mend approval of the subject application with the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review -- The applicant's geotechnical consultant shalI review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development ENGINEERING GEOLOGY *'ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCE'S e FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Robert Calkins _ 2- - Planning Department March 5, 1987 51.286A plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations,. retaining walls and roadways) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. A pool area is shown on the referenced plan. The consultant should review and approve pool construction plans if `a pool is included in the subject application. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechni- cal consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 2. Geotechnical Field Inspection -- The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not neces- sarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface improvements, and excavations for foundations, pool and retaining walls, prior to the placement of concrete and steel. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the. project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Q � UAV� e, N—Uv� William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 WRC:BH:la GEOTECHNICAL CON -`YTS fV William C o (. J n 318 B North Santa Cruz Avenue and Associates Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 May 22, 1987 S1286B TO: Robert Calkins, Planning Department CITY OF SARATOGA 6L.1"'E9EE� 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ftiirlY (j 1987 SUBJECT: - Supplemental Geotecfpic evie PAN, h► i was RE: Lands of Rivio , Lots 14 and 15.( reviously Lots and Hill Avenue At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the subject application using: o Tentative Building Site Plan (1 sheet, 20- scale) prepared by Jennings, , McDermott and Heiss, dated March, 1987; and o Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Freeman -Kern Associ- ates, dated May 6, 1986. In addition,, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from our office files regarding the Rivior (Pinn) Subdivision. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct single- family residences on two. lots. Lot 14 has been previously developed, with an existing single- family residence and pool located in the south- central portion of the 0.5 -acre lot. ' The existing pool on Lot 14 extends approximately 15 feet into the eastern portion of Lot 15. In addition, a small shed is located near the east - central portion of Lot 15. The existing structures are to be removed and the new residences are to be located in the south- central portion of Lot 14 and the central portion of Lot 15. The currently proposed building sites appear to be situated more closely to steep hillslopes than the previously approved sites. Access to the residences would be provided by the proposed Pleasant Avenue. In our previous review report (June 4, 1986), we recommended that the applicant submit detailed site development plans to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and Geologist. In addition, we requested that a geotechnical plan review (letter) be submitted to. the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed residential developments are somewhat constrained by the presence of existing artificial fill, potentially expansive co,lluvium and artificial ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FO,UNDATION ENGINEERINC (-''- l 'AV' Robert Calkins - 2- May 221 1987 Planning Department S1286B fill, and the close proximity of steep slopes. However, it appears that the applicant's geotechnical consultant has, in general, recommended appropriate geotechnical design criteria to mitigate the apparent site constraints. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review the current development plans and proposed building sites to ensure his recommendations are appropriate for the. proposed construction. Consequently, we recommend approval of the subject application with the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review -- The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., feasibility of proposed building sites, site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and roadways) to ensure that his recom- mendations have been properly incorporated. Geotechnical design recommendations should be modified (if necessary) to ensure the long- term stability. of the currently proposed building sites and residential improvements. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotech- nical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 2. Geotechnical Field Ins ection -- The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction.- The inspections should include, but not neces- sarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface improvements, and excavations for foundations and retain- ing walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel. In addition, a responsible party should inspect the removal of all. existing structures .and underground utilities to ensure the site is clear of obstructions. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior, to final project approval. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. V TFM William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 WRC:BH:la William Cotton and Associates DAVID S. ARATA JR. 20400 Hill Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 August 24, 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Proposed Revoir Hill Avenue Subdivision Hearing Date: September 2, 1987 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: My wife and I object to the proposed Revoir subdivision located on Hill Avenue in Saratoga as presently planned. We own the property which is directly across the street located at 20400 Hill Avenue. It is our understanding that Mr. Revoir proposes a reversion to acreage with subsequent lot -line adjustments and in so doing would end up with a seven lot subdivision, five of the lots being serviced from Hill Avenue and two of the lots being serviced from Vine Street. We have retained counsel who is advising us on the legal aspects of this subdivision. I will not address these issues here; indeed is may not be necessary to address these issues at all. However if necessary, they will be fully covered at your meeting on September 2, 1987. The concern we will address here is the proposed entrance to the subdivision from Hill Avenue. The entrance as presently planned will provide for a road to the five lot portion of the subdivision which is directly across the street from the entrance to our property. This is to be a small minimum access road. The entrance as proposed will cause traffic to enter and exit directly in front of our driveway. At present there is one large residence and two small cottages on the Revoir property. Traffic is limited to approxi- mately five to ten trips per day. The proposed subdivision will increase traffic to twenty -five to thirty trips per day, not to mention garbage and other large service vehicles which must use the minimum access road. Under the present proposal all traffic will exit and enter at a 180° angle to our driveway at a distance of not more than thirty feet. Our concerns and objections are as follows: Saratoga City Council August 24, 1987 Page 2 1. The increased traffic will adversely affect our privacy; 2. Meeting such increased traffic head -on from our driveway to the proposed subdivision will create hazardous conditions on such a small roadway especially with service vehicles; 3. To enter the subdivision on a 90° angle as proposed is unsightly, poor planning and unnecessary. We have discussed these objections with Mr. Revoir and his planner Mr. Heiss. Mr. Heiss suggested that the proposed entrance to the subdivision be moved some thirty feet east from the entrance of our property. He indicated that such a move would not cost any additional funds and would appear to answer our objections. After an inspection we agreed with Mr. Heiss that this would be an acceptable way to proceed. However Mr. Revoir himself objects to this alternative. He proposes to move the road nine feet east on Hill Avenue thereby necessitating movement of a fire hydrant at substantial additional cost. I am at this point unable to understand Mr. Revoir's position in the matter. I sincerely hope that the City Council reviews this matter carefully taking into consideration all aspects of the proposed subdivision. Thank you for your time and attention. Very ruly o s, DAV _S. A TA JR. DSA:a File No. AFFIbAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF' CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF 'SANTA CLARA being duly sworn, deposes and, says:. that he is a citizen Of the'United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga City -Council on the day of OdP,7, 'he deposited in the United States Post Off --i ce within Santa Clara Countyj Califo ma a, a, N=CE OF HEARL-NG, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid addressed to the .following persons at the addresses shown,, t,c-)--w-It-. (See 'list attached he,•r,etb • and made part hereof. ) that said persons are the o -OPertY' who are entitled �Eo, Notice, owners Pr of Hearing pursuant to Sec . -tiOn Of the Zonj-ng, Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in, that the said persons and their said,addresses are those shown,on the -most recent records of 'the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of proper-,ty wI,-,,t-2I= 500 feet of the Property 'to be affected by the application,; that onzaid day there was regular CORrunication by United. States :Mail to the addresses shown above. I A TEXT CONSISTING OF: NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNESDAY, the 2nd day of September, 1987, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO ALLOW VARIOUS ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN FOUR LOTS (LL 87-003) AND TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR THREE LOTS IN THE R-1-20,000 ZONING DISTRICT AT 20411 HILL AVENUE (SD 87.009.1) (APPLICANT, R. RIVOIR; APPELLANT, A. SMITH) WAS MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS: JEFFS ROBIN E AND FREDA M 20500 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/020 GIVENS VERGIL C AND JANET L 20536 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517%12/026 LINDSTROM CELIA SNOW TRUST NATHALIE B EDWARDS 13 HOLLY LN IRVINE CA 517/12/027 ADAMS DOUGLASS M AND JANE P 20522 LOMITA.AV SARATOGA CA 517/12/028 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY SARAT,OG 20548 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 51.7/12/029 SAN JOSE WATER WORKS PO BOX 229 SAN JOSE CA 517/18/004 MONTGOMERY JOSEPH W JR AND ANITA PO BOX 401 SARATOGA CA 517/18/007 THOMSON CALVIN W AND JOYCE E 14931 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/018 PARSONS MICHAEL T AND ALYCE M 15001 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 517/18/021 PINN ALAN R AND TONI A 15055 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 517/18/022 ALTAFI ABDI AND LEILY 15107 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 517/18/023 NOBRIGA ARLENE P 14941 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/028 BUTLER GERALD D AND JUDITH L 15015 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/029 BUTLER GERALD D AND JUDITH L 15015 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/030 BUTLER GERALD D AND JUDITH L 15015 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/040 BUTLER GERALD D AND JUDITH L 15015 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/041 ARATA DAVID S JR AND ALMA 'R 20400 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/18/048 SAN JOSE WATER WORKS PO BOX 229 SAN JOSE CA 517/18/054 SAN JOSE WATERWORKS PO BOX 229 SAN JOSE CA 517/18/055 MONTGOMERY JOSEPH W JR AND ANITA 14950 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/001 CANCELLIERI ROBERT V AND SHIRLEY 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 517%19/015 KATHERMAN HAROLD P AND VIRGINIA C 20316 CALLE MONTALVO SARATOGA CA 517/19/021 LUSTIG FRED AND ANITA J PO BOX 21461 RENO NV 517/19/022 STACK GEORGE T AND SUZANNE V 20292 CALLE MONTALVO SARATOGA CA 517/19/023 FREDERICKSON ROBERT M AND ANNABEL 20270 CALLE MONTALVO SARATOGA CA 517/19/024 MILLER KEITH D 14900 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/027 HULME RUSSELL L TRUSTEE 15000 LOS GATOS BLVD STE 200 LOS GATOS CA 517/19/028 SMITH AUDREY S 20301 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/033 SMITH AUDREY S 20301 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/034 COHEN JAMES R 14920 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 5.17/19/042 GORD ELAINE P ET AL 14910 VICKERY LN SARATOGA CA 5.17/19/043 RIVOIR RICHARD A AND LAURIE A 19 A N SANTA CRUZ AV LOS GATOS CA 517/19/049 EMIL RIVOIR R AND AUDREY S TRUSTE 2131 DRY CREEK RD SAN JOSE CA 517/19/050 RIVOIR RICHARD A AND LAURIE A 20411 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/052 RIVOIR RICHARD A ET AL RICHARD A RIVOIR 19 B N SANTA CRUZ AV LOS GATOS CA' 517/19/054 RIVOIR EMIL R AND AUDREY S TRUSTE 2131 DRYCREEK RD SAN JOSE CA 517/19/055 RIVOIR EMIL R TRUSTEE & ET AL 2131 DRY CREEK RD SAN JOSE CA 517/19/056 RIVOIR EMIL R TRUSTEE & ET AL RIVOIR REALTY 19 B N SANTA CRUZ AV LOS GATOS CA 517/19/058 RIVOIR EMIL R TRUSTEE & ET AL RICHARD RIVOIR 20411 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/059 RIVOIR RICHARD A 20411 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/060 RIVOIR RICHARD A AND LAURIE A RIVOIR REALTY 19 B N SANTA CRUZ AV LOS GATOS CA 517/19/061 RIVOIR RICHARD A AND LAURIE A RIVOIR REALTY 19 B N SANTA CRUZ AV LOS GATOS CA 517/19/062 RIVOIR EMIL R AND AUDREY S TRUSTE 20411 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/19/063 RIVOIR RICHARD A AND LAURIE A 20411 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/1.9/064 LENAHAN JOHN H AND JEAN D 20261 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 517/20/018 FULDE WALTER J AND CATHERINE D 15164 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 517/22/103 METZ LEONARD J AND SYLVIA R P 0 BOX 60112 SUNNYVALE CA 517/22/104 CALL DONALD R AND SHEILA S 14930 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 517/22/105 PROVIDENT CENTRAL CREDIT UNION 1825 MAGNOLIA AVENUE BURLINGAME CA 517/22/109 BILLAWALA NOORUDIN A AND H C P 0 BOX 187 SARATOGA CA 517/22/110 FINNEGAN RICHARD AND BARBARA L TR 20501 LOMITA AV SARATOGA CA 517/27/001 HENDERSON ARNOLD R AND 'MARY C 14830 VICKERY AV SARATOGA CA 517/27/002 CONE BETHEL M ET AL 14801 BUTANO TR SARATOGA CA 517/27/003 HARRIGAN WILLIAM J AND RENEE 14791 BUTANO TR SARATOGA CA 517/27/004 HULME RUSSELL L TRUSTEE 14780 BUTANO TR SARATOGA CA 517/27/005 PORTER EDMUND K AND L C 14790 BUTANO TR SARATOGA CA 517/27/006 OHREN IRVING R AND SHIRLEY F 14800 BUTANO TR SARATOGA CA 517/27/007 MADSEN BONNY R 14700 VICKERY PL SARATOGA CA 517/27/015 PAUL DENNY K AND DIANE A 14711 VICKERY PL SARATOGA CA 517/27/016 TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED: 59 BILLING FOR THIS MAILING: $47.98 Date Received: Hearing Datc7�w7y Fee A50, no CITY USE ONLY APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Audrey S. Smith Address: 20301 Hill Ave. Telephone: 867 -3051 Name of Applicant: Richard Rivoir Project File No.: SD -87 -009; LL -87 -003; SD -87 -009.1 Project Address: 20411 Hill Ave. Project Description: aG per item #13 7/22 Planning Commission' meeting Agenda - Staff Outline Decision Being Appealed: Sae attached latters dated July 19, 1987, July 25, 1987 and cover letter dated 7/29/87 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Cover letter dated 7/29/87 attached with letters dated 7/19 and 7/25. 4 Appellant's gnature *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. TIIIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HI: D. \'fE OF THE DEC SION. ak .�et c.(., AUDREY S. SMITH 203.01 Hill Ave. Saratoga, California July 29, 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor and Council Members: REF: R. Rivoir property 20411 Hill Ave. SD -87 -009 LL -87 -003 SD -87 -009.1 I wish to formally appeal the Richard Rivoir applications referred to above and indicated on the attached executed Appeal Application form. I am also enclosing copies of two previous letters addressed to*you from my son, Stuart, in which he outlines our concerns and opposition to the actions taken by the Saratoga Planning Commission on July 22, 1987. We are seriously concerned with items #2 and 3 as outlined in my sons's letter of July-25, 1987 regarding the proposed access that may serve two possible sites fronting on Vine Street and the adverse impact on my property. It is not our intent to cause the applicant undue delay, but our desire to settle this access issue prior to further govern- mental processing of the Rivoir property applications. We are confident we can reach a fair and equitable solution to this problem and are convinced that it can be resolved through the realignment of Vine Street at the intersection of Hill Ave., easement adjustments, and partial abandonment of Vine Street. We kindly request a meeting with representatives of your planning staff and Mr. Heiss, the applicant's engineer, to discuss the basis of our appeal and our proposal in more detail. In addition, we also stress the necessity of a field trip to view our property with myself or members of my family. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention. Sincerely, Audrey S Smith ASM /p Enclosures Stuart S. Smith 6 Lawridge Road Santa Cruz, Ca. 97060 Citv Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. July 25, 1987 Saratoga Ca. 95070 Ref: Land Development of a Mr. Rivoir, Hill Ave. Gentlemen: I am writing as an interested party in opposition to reference development on the grounds of improper planning of the 5.2 acre parcel as well as its effect on the surrounding.undeveloped parcels of the Aratas and of my mother, Mrs. S. N. Smith (Audrey) -an elderly widow,- who has owned and resided on the adjoining nine acres for some forty years. At the Planning Commission meeting of July 22 it was evident to us that there was insufficient understanding of the proposed building program and of its negative effect on one of the few remaining beautiful close -in hillside areas. All too readily the Commission "rubber- stamped" staff recommendations -- perhaps in part due to the lateness of the hour or to the absence of one of its members Ovir. Ziegfiied). Basically, the points which need to be addressed in further depth are: 1. Total Area Development: The beauty, terraine, and peace of this area leind themselves to at least acre':;development instead of the existent arbitrary half -acre. For example: Mrs. Smith's larger'parcel to the east, when eventually developed, would result in acre -plus lots although technically in half -acre zoning. Access would be via Niontalvo Road and not Vine St. 2. Access to the Development via Hill Ave. and Vine St. Not only is the legality of improving Hill Ave. in ouestion, but access to two -laots at the foot of and facing Vine St. has been left unplanned. If the present request is approved and improvements made to the four lots'on top, this would preclude an orderly development of the remaining two, which would then be "stranded" from cohesion with the others. In a future petition for access to these two lots via Vine St., the impact on Mrs. Smithts property would be devastating, probably resulting in lenthy and costly legal wrangling. -2- 3. The clever manipulation of the parcel by excessive lot- line - adjustments thus avoiding slope- density requirements which a normal subdivision of the property would require, not only sets a bad precedence but reflects on the ethics and intents of the developer. Reference to "legality" of 1906 recorded lots may not apply to what is morally right for Saratoga today. In summary, I feel the whole proposal has been ill- conceived and attended by impatience, exasperation, and misunderstanding on the part of the petitioner and planners. If not corrected, the present plan would result in a horrible mistake which would surface again when access to the two "lost lots" facing Vine St. is considered. As trustees of the integrity and beauty of Saratoga, I earnestly request that you familiarize yourselves with the entire plan prior to your August meeting, with the object of taking a stand for deferral of the whole matter for further study and its negative impact of the adjoining property owners. P.S. You are cordially invited to personally view and feel this area, preferably by foot (bring walking shoes) or by helicopter. Mrs. S. r.. 0"mith 201,01 Hill Ave Saratoga, Ca. 95070 July 19, 1087 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Gentlemen, I am writing in response to notific- .it,ion by you of the nroposed land development by my neighbor, a Mr. Rivoir, of his nr6perty cronsistin:q, of some six acres adjacent to and to the west of mine. My concerns lie primarily in the lay -out, quality, and environmental impact of the project, as fell as its effect on my use and enjoyment of buildings on my property abutting the dividing line between our respective properties, namely, that right -of -way Labeled "mine St." on Subdivision lap Bennie Rrae #1&2. On that map -dated 1906 -my Parcels are #1 (4 acres - improved) and #-s 2,3,4 and 5 (one rlus acre each-unim- proved). P[r. Rivoir owns lots 6 through 17 of random sizes from very small to about one -half acre. I believe all lots were c;;ri.r inall y ]_aid out in an arib- trary manner, and that later the General Plan also arbitrarily placed the dividinrr line between acre and one -half acre zoning, between my lots 1. and 2, l eavina my lot #1 in one acre zoning* and the remain.in? 16 Lots on the half acre side. It is important to me that these final. contifruous parcels in this most desirable foothill area be f*iven the utmost attention not only as to legality of development and zoning, but to the character of layout and improve- ment that would result in a real asset to our community. My specific oomments after viewing* Mr. Rivoir's proposed plan are as follows: 1. It appears there has been an effort to manipulate the mriginal twelve odd - shaped lots, through the device of excessive lot- line - adjustment, to seven of poor configuration and access - -this perhaps in order to avoid corrforming to the slope- density formula ordinance and five hots if the property were subdivided anew. This technique not only sets a bad precedent but is out of keeping with this hillside area of largely estate -type homes. -2- 2. The proposed two lots facing "Ville at." with access from Hill Ave. via "Vine ��t. ", if allowed, would not only require an extensive private driveway with the attending traffic impincring on my peace and safety, but would render my FaraFe bui,ldinrr on the corner of Vine and Hill virtually useless due to the dangerous blind corner thus created reouiring backing out into on- cominrr traffic. Also, there would be restricted access to my Truest house. Both huildinF -s were built some fifty years ago without reference to present day set -rack renuirements. Possible alterna- tives to this unacceptable situation could he (1) access to all. buildin7 sites via "Pleasant St." or some other way from Hill Ave. or (2) If and when my own property is developed by me or my heirs, access throurrh my present lots 4 and 5 at the foot of "Vine Lt.", which right -of -way could then be ahandomed. It is to be noted in this respect that "Vine Ot." would not he used in any future devel.opme.nt of my property- -the logical access being? from T.'ontalvo Rd. 3. It, is requested that any widening.: of Hill. Ave . be done in such a manner that will not inter - fere with structures or Landscaping- in that area passing; my property. In conclusion, I wish as a longs time resident of some forty years to cooperate in any way which will. result in an eventual harmonious development of the entire area, and request the present plan not be accepted in its present piecemeal. form. Sincerely_ .z r� RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS OFFICIAL RECEIPT (ARTY ®f SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 PHONE: (408) 867 -3438 DATE 19 -�� AUDREY S. SMITH ' 20301 HILL AVE. 667 -3051 ' SARATOGA, CA 95070 Pay to the; i _ 10-678 I 7 11 -24 1210 (8) +' w I�� Order of �!L7.1. - _ Dollars C---- SARATOGA OFFICE BANK WELLS FARGO LOS GATOS RO:, SARGA, CA'95070 20510 SAAA70GA- ATO .'w+;"•�„hn 1110 lop, 7811', -i: 12 1000 2 L,8i:0 50 1 2 L8 2 5911' - BUS TICKETS 0001 1012 TRANSIT ASSIST 0001 1013 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS 0001 1045 - BLDG RENTALS 4041 9812: ' PARK RENTAL FEES 4041 9813 HAKONE DONATIONS 4437 9833 - _ SECURED PROPERTY TAX 9000 7010 SALES TAX 9000 7510 DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX 9000 7520 BUSINESS LICENSE'TAX 9000 7550 ZONING APPLICATIONS_ FEES 9000 9510 INTEREST 9000 9810 dFINES &FORFEITURES 9000 9860 ALE OF MA'P.S & PURL 9000 9890 MAPPING REIMB, 9000 9890 XEROXING 9000 9890 li RAT BAIT 9000 9890 . FALSE ALARM FEES 9000 9890 VEHICLE CODE FINES 9130 9865' �aAla- ice'/ I S S APPLICATION NO. OR�0` •'' = ADDRESS OF PROJECT: /� � b TOTAL: $ ' RECEIVED BY 1972 DEPT- NORMAN PALLS PRINT CENTER: CAMPBELL. CALIF. 269294-C -�� AUDREY S. SMITH ' 20301 HILL AVE. 667 -3051 ' SARATOGA, CA 95070 Pay to the; i _ 10-678 I 7 11 -24 1210 (8) +' w I�� Order of �!L7.1. - _ Dollars C---- SARATOGA OFFICE BANK WELLS FARGO LOS GATOS RO:, SARGA, CA'95070 20510 SAAA70GA- ATO .'w+;"•�„hn 1110 lop, 7811', -i: 12 1000 2 L,8i:0 50 1 2 L8 2 5911' - Planning Coiu ,ion Agenda July 22, 1987 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - CONSENT CALENDAR cont. 9. DR -87 -049 - Brown, (Winklebeck)' 13917 Albar Ct., request for o SM -87 -006 - design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,853 sq. ft. two story home and site modification approval for construction of a swimming pool in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 14 and 15 of the City Code (cont. from 7/8/87) - - -- --------------------------------------------------------- 10. UP -87 -011 - Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way, ---- - - request for use permit and DR -87 -052 - design review approval of plans to construct eight condominiums and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in the C -V zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City --------------------------------------------- Code (cont. from 7/8/87) ---------------- - - - - -- PUBLIC,HEARINGS (THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES AND OTHER SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES) 11. City of Saratoga - Saratoga Senior Housing Report, review report on Senior Housing issues in Saratoga and make recommendations to the City Council ------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. DR -87 -047 - Leverett, 13946 Damon Ln., request for design review approval for a 6,016 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling in the NHR zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. SD -87 -009 - Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request that the Planning LL -87 -003 - Commission recommend approval to the City Council for SD -87- 009.1- a reversion to acreage plan'to establish four (4) lots where' nine (9) lots currently exist and to consider a lot line adjustment application to allow various adjustments between the four (4) lots. In addition, the applicant is requesting tentative building site approval for 3 lots in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from County of Santa Clara re: Quarries Recommended Action : Read and file 2. Planning Commission Committee -of -Whole minutes dated 6/30/87' Recommended Action: Read and file 3. Heritage Preservation Minutes dated 7 /8/87 Recommended Action: Read and file 4. Letter from Don Peterson, Mayor, re: City -owned Parcel at Cox Ave. and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Recommended Action: Read and file Oral by Commission - City Council Report ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: July 22, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. TYPE: Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Minutes - 7/8/87 Regular Meeting Deletions to the Agenda ORAL COMMUNICATIONS THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS RESERVED FOR PERSONS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER NOT ON-THE AGENDA. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES, A MAXIMUM OF 15 MINUTES WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THIS ITEM. ALL STATEMENTS REQUIRING A' RESPONSE WILL BE REFERRED TO STAFF FOR FURTHER ACTION. IN MOST CASES, STATE LAW WILL PROHIBIT THE COMMISSION FROM MAKING ANY DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO A MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting 'was properly posted on July 17, 1987. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR (THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS OR ANY INTERESTED PARTY.) 1. SD -87 -011 - Cunningham, 14226 Paul Ave., request for building site DR -87 -048 - and design review approval of a new 3,080 sq. ft. two - story single family dwehling in the R-1-10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14..and 15 of the City Code (cunt. to 8/12/87) ---------7 ------- 2. DR -87 -034 - 7 ------------------------------------------------- Rivoir, request for design review.approval of plans to construct a new 4,800 sq. ft. two -story home in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the ------------------------------------------------------------------- City Code (cont. to 8/12/87) 3. DR= 87- 027.1 - Casabonne, 14435 Big Basin Way, request to modifyy three conditions of a previous design review approval of plans to expand an existing commercial building in the C -C zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The three conditions relate to the restriction of vehicular access through a rear roll -up door, a requirement- to install fire sprinklers along a side wall, and the specification of a rear driveway arch --------------------------------------------------- height and width (cont. to 8/12/87) 4. DR -87 -072 - ------ ---------- J.. Lohr Properties, 13049 Glen Brae Dr., request for design review approval for a new 3,645 sq. ft. single story home in the R -1- 12,500 zone, general plan designation 'medium density per Chapter 15 of the City Code 5. DR -87 -075 - J. Lohr Properties, 19538 Chardonnay, request for design review approval for a new 3,951 sq. ft. 2 -story home in the R -1- 12,500 zone, general plan designation medium density residential per Chapter 15 of the City ------------------------------------------------------------------- Code 6. DR -87 -006 - Hobbs, 19413 Lisa Marie Ct., request for design review approval of a new 4,840 sq. ft. one -story `family single home in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district - ------------------------------------------------------------- per Chapter 15 of the City Code 7. SM -87 -005 - McCormick, 21424 Tollgate Rd., request for site DR -87 -059 - modification and desicp review approval of a new 4,864 sq. ft. two -story single family home and pool in the NHR zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City - Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. DR -87 -058 - Sinsley, 21273 Diamond Oaks Ct., request for design review approval of plans to'construct a new 5,032 sq. ft. two -story residence in the NHR zoning district per ------------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 15 of the City Code - - - - - -- cont. on other side 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 13 ? -( MEETING DATE: September 2, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning AGENDA ITEM F E, CITY MGR. APPROVAL �W SUBJECT: Revision of Design Review Regulations for Single - Family Dwellings Recommended Motion: Approval of negative declaration and introduction and adoption of proposed ordinance. Report Summary: After lengthy discussion, public hearings and numerous revisions, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council the adoption of a proposed ordinance establishing new regulations for design review of single - family dwellings. The ordinance is explained in the memorandum from the City Attorney dated August 25, 1987, submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council dated August 25, 1987. (b) Proposed ordinance. (c) Negative declaration. (d) Minutes of following meetings: City Council meeting on October 29, 1986; joint meeting of City Council and Planning Commission on March 24, 1987; Planning Commission meeting on May 13, 1987; Planning Commission Committee of the Whole meetings on May 19, 1987 and June 2, 1987; Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 1987. Motion and Vote: Continued to 9/16; public hearing remained open. ATHINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL S. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) ERIC L. FARASYN P.O. BOX 279 L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04048 ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. (415) 967 -6941 STEVEN G. BAIRD MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney RE: Design Review Ordinance DATE: August 25, 1987 After devoting numerous regular meetings and study sessions to the subject of design review regulations for single - family residences, on July 8, 1987, the Planning Commision unanimously approved a proposed ordinance and recommended the same to the City Council for adoption. In general, the ordinance will abolish the Site Review Committee, reduce the height limit on single - family dwellings to 26 feet, change the method of determining allowable floor area to a calculation based upon lot size instead of zoning district, and will change the list of structures subject to design review approval. Specifically, the changes are as follows: I. ABOLISHMENT OF SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission informally discontinued the operation of the Site Review Committee some time ago. The Commission and the staff both agreed that the SRC did not serve its intended purpose of simplifying the design review process or saving the expenditure of time on the part of Commissioners, applicants and the City staff. Applications which previously were handled by the Site Review Committee are now being sent directly to the Planning Commission and typically appear on the public hearing consent calendar. The discontinuance of the SRC has not unreasonably increased the workload of the Commissioners or the length of Commission meetings. Section 1 of the proposed ordinance repeals Article 2 -16 of the City Code which establishes the Site Review Committee. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance eliminates a paragraph from § 14- 05.040 of the Subdivision Ordinance which designates the Site Review Committee as the advisory agency for building site approvals relating to single - family residential lots. The designation of the Site Review Committee as an approving authority has similarly been deleted from the revised Article 15 -45, pertaining to design review, and the reference to the Committee has been deleted from § 15- 70.020 concerning the authority to grant variances, S 15- 80.030 concerning approval of certain accessory structures, and S 15- 90.020 and 15- 90.070 concerning appeals (see Sections 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of the proposed ordinance). -1- II. DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND MULTISTORY STRUCTURE Sections 3 and 4 of the proposed ordinance revise the definition of gross floor area as contained in S 14- 10.100 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance and § 15- 06.280 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission determined that exterior roof overhangs and exterior unenclosed balconies should be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area because they frequently serve as architectural features that mitigate the appearance of bulk. The definition has also been revised to exclude areas underneath exterior decks or balconies which are not used or capable of being used as living space. On the other hand, the existing practice has not been changed of "double counting" interior open space which is the equivalent of two stories in height. In addition, some language has been added to codify the actual method currently followed by staff for calculating the floor area of a structure having a sloped roof or ceiling. Section 5 of the proposed ordinance adds a new S 15- 06.665 to define the term "story." The existing definition of "multi- story," as contained in Paragraph (c) of § 15- 06.670, has been revised and relocated as Paragraph (b) of the new § 15- 06.665. The term "multi- story" should not be confused with the calculation of floor area. For example, an attic with an interior height of 7 1/2 feet would be included in the calculation of floor area, but would not necessarily constitute a second story. III. REDUCTION OF HEIGHT LIMIT Sections 7, 9, 11 and 13 of the proposed ordinance respectively reduce the height limit for single- family residential structures in the A, R -1, HC -RD and NHR districts to 26 feet. However, in order to provide some flexibility with respect to this limitation, the ordinance further states that a portion of the roof, not exceeding 25% of the total roof area, may extend up to a height of 30 feet. Accessory structures in the A district may still be constructed to a height of 30 feet, but the height limit for accessory structures in the R -1 district has been reduced to 12 feet. Current regulations already restrict the height of accessory structures in the HC -RD and NHR districts to 12 feet. It should be noted that the ordinance still provides for a 30 -foot height limit in the case of other types of main structures within the residential zoning districts. This language was intended to cover nonresidential structures which might be allowed as conditional uses, such as schools, community facilities and institutional f acilities. IV. REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE The cross - reference to design review, as contained in the regulations for each of the residential zoning districts, has been slightly reworded (see Sections 8, 10, 12 and 14 of the proposed ordinance). The language now contains a reference to both Article 15 -45 and Article 15 -46, whichever may be applicable. -2- Section 15 of the proposed ordinance contains the revised Article 15 -45, concerning design review of single - family dwellings. The main features of this revised article are as follows: (a) General Comments. Under the existing regulations, the allowable floor area is determined strictly by zoning district and represents a guideline which can be exceeded upon approval by the Planning Commission. Under the proposed ordinance, the allowable floor area for lots which are 40,000 square feet or less will primarily be determined by the size of the lot. Thus determined, the allowable floor area becomes a standard which cannot be exceeded except upon the granting of a variance. In terms of process, single -story main structures and additions thereto which are not located upon hillside lots, will generally be reviewed by staff. The term "major addition" has been totally eliminated from the ordinance. Under the present code, a major addition in size is an addition which, when added to the square footage of all existing structures on the site, will equal or exceed the allowable floor area. However, there is no need to preserve this definition since a variance will now be required for any development which exceeds the allowable floor area. (b) Purposes of article (S 15- 45.010). This section has been slightly reworded to eliminate the reference to "major additions" and to substitute the word "standards" in place of "criteria" and "objectives." (c) Compliance with development standards (S 15- 45.020). All structures must now comply with the allowable floor area standards contained in S 15- 45.030 and the setback requirements contained in S 15- 45.040, regardless of whether the project is approved by the Planning Commission or administratively approved by staff. As noted above, any departure from these regulations will require the granting of a variance by the Planning Commission. (d) Allowable floor area (S 15- 45.030). The allowable floor area is now defined as the maximum gross floor area determined according to the table set forth in Paragraph (b) of this Section. Both main and accessory structures would be counted, as in the case of the existing ordinance. Specific language has been added for double counting interior space having a height of 15 feet or greater, which is the practice currently followed by staff. At this point, some background comments might be appropriate before discussing the specific regulations recommended by the Planning Commission concerning allowable floor area. An earlier draft ordinance contained a provision for a slope penalty which operated to decrease the allowable floor area on a sliding scale based upon the average slope of the lot. Correspondingly, there was no fixed ceiling to control the size of structures independent of the size and slope of the lot.. In other words, the philosophy of the earlier draft was that the slope penalty would automatically impose a means of control in the hillside areas, but the ordinance would have allowed an exceptionally large home to be constructed on an exceptionally large lot having an average slope of less than 10 %.After reviewing this proposal, the Planning Commission ultimately decided that there should be a stated limit on square footage and the Commission restored the existing limit of 6,200 square feet for a lot which is greater than 40,000 square feet in size. However, recognizing that it would be difficult to make variance findings for homes which exceeded the standard but would be located on lots having sufficient area to -3- accommodate the greater size, the Commission modified the ordinance to allow for the approval of such projects based upon an ability to make the design review findings as opposed to the granting of a variance. With the restoration of a ceiling on allowable floor area, there was no longer any need to include a slope penalty in the ordinance and this provision was therefore deleted. Under the proposed ordinance, allowable floor area would be calculated according to the table set forth in Paragraph (b) of § 15- 45.030. The starting point is the net site area of the lot (as defined in § 15- 06.620 (b) of the City Code). The table would then be applied to this net site area, regardless of the zoning district in which the lot is located. For example, in the case of a lot having a net site area of 25,000 square feet, the allowable floor area would be 4,910, calculated as follows: Table: for 15,001 to 40,000 sq. ft. — Net site area: 25,000 less 15,000 4,050 sq. ft plus 86 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq. ft. 10,000 divided by 1,000 = 10 86 x 10 = 860 sq. ft. (addition) Allowable floor area: 4,050 + 860 = 4,910 sq. ft. Although the size of a home will generally be determined by the size of the lot (subject to the overall ceiling of 6,200 square feet), Paragraph (b) of § 15- 45.030 has a built -in limitation applicable to oversized lots in an R -1 district. This language states that the net site area to be used in determining the allowable floor area under the table is either: (1) the actual net site area of the lot, or (2) twice the minimum net site area for the district in which the lot is located, whichever is less. For example, in the case of a 20,000 square -foot lot within an R -1- 15,000 district, the 20,000 figure would be used. But in the case of a 50,000- square -foot lot within an R -1- 20,000 'district, the figure of 40,000 would be used as the net site area (or twice the minimum net site area for the R -1- 20,000 district). This provision has the effect of preventing exceptionally large structures on oversized R -1 lots. Although the owner can build a larger home, there is an upper limit on the extent to which a credit is given for lot size alone. It should also be noted that where a large home has been allowed on the basis of an oversized lot, and where such lot is capable of being subdivided, the owner must record a restriction against further subdivision in order to preserve the size of the lot which constituted the basis for calculating the allowable floor area. See Paragraph (c) of § 15- 45.030. The proposed ordinance will generally reduce the size of homes on lots which are equal to or less than the minimum site area prescribed for the zoning district in which they are located, as shown by the following comparison of the existing and proposed regulations as :applied to a lot which is exactly equal to the minimum site area standard: -4- Allowable Floor Area Zoning District Existin Proposed R- 1- 10,000 3,500 3,200 R -1- 12,500 4,000 3,625 R- 1- 15,000 4,300 4,050 R -1- 20,000 4,800 4,480 R -1- 40,000 6,200 6,200 The ordinance will also establish for the first time a separate classification for lots which are 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet in size. In these cases, the floor area standard will be determined by the Planning Commission on a case -by- case basis. (e) Setbacks (5 15- 45.040). Under the existing code, an additional setback may be required for a structure which exceeds 22 feet in height. Under the proposed ordinance, the additional setback now becomes mandatory in the case of any new structure or any addition to an existing structure. The increased setback would be required "from each property line of the site," but would be applied only with respect to that portion of the new structure or the addition that exceeds 22 feet in height. Also, the Planning Commission would have authority to grant a variance from the setback requirement. (f) Additional standards and guidelines (S 15- 45.050). The items listed in Paragraph (a) of this Section are intended to replace the general language of the existing ordinance requiring utilization of a stepped pad where the average slope underneath the proposed structure is 10% or greater. These mitigation measures would now become a standard instead of a finding or merely a guideline. The considerations listed in .Paragraph (b) of this Section are the same as now set forth in S 15- 45.050 of the existing ordinance. (g) Requirement for design review. The following represents a comparison of the situations requiring design review under the existing code versus the proposed ordinance: Design review required under existing code Single -story main or accessory structures in excess of 22 feet in height. Multi -story main or accessory structures in excess of 26 feet in height. -5- Proposed ordinance All single -story structures to be approved by staff, except main structures on hillside lots and any structure exceeding 26 feet in height. Design review required for all multi -story main or accessory structures. Structures exceeding allowable floor area. Main or multi -story accessory structures on in -fill lots. Accessory structures on double- frontage lots. "Major addition in height" (i.e., conversion of single -story to multi- story). Expansion to second story, with 100- square- foot exemption. Main structure on hillside lot. Design review as condition of project approval. Referral by Planning Commission. Deleted. Exceeding the allowable floor area will now require a variance. Deleted. Multi -story structures already covered above. Deleted. Staff approval, unless multi- story. Design review approval still required. No change. No change. No change. Included in proposed ordinance, but language has been revised. Main structure on lot having net site area of less than 5,000 square feet. It should be noted from the foregoing comparison that the proposed ordinance will both expand and reduce the types of structures subject to design review approval by the Planning Commission. Under the existing code, design review for a multi -story structure is only required if the structure exceeds 26 feet in height, whereas the proposed ordinance will require design review on any multi -story structure. Conversely, the proposed ordinance will allow the review of a single - story structure by staff, but only if the structure is not located on a hillside lot and does not exceed 26 feet in height. (h) Application requirements (S 15- 45.070). The provisions of this section are substantially the same as the existing code, except: aerial photographs may now be required for a hillside lot; additional information showing the calculation of total roof area will now be required if the structure exceeds 26 feet in height; irrigation plans will not be required until the time of application for a building permit; and a preliminary title report will now be required as part of the application. (i) Design review findings (S 15- 45.080). The language for certain of the findings has been slightly revised (with no change in substance) and the number of findings has been reduced from 7 to 5. The existing ordinance contains a number of findings for in -fill lots and a separate finding relating to preservation of natural contours. However, the substance of both findings is already stated in one or more of the other findings so they are essentially redundant. A specific change has been made in Paragraph (d) relating to compatibility. The existing ordinance refers to structures located within 500 feet of the site, whereas the proposed ordinance refers to structures located within the immediate neighborhood. This change is intended to -6- avoid the legal argument we are now dealing with in the Hwang case that a structure may be compatible with other residences in the neighborhood yet may be incompatible with structures located within 500 feet from the boundaries of the site. (j) Expiration and extension of design review approval (S 15- 45.090). The provisions of this section are the same as the existing ordinance. (k) Replacement of destroyed structures (S 15- 45.100). This section has been revised to reflect the new development standards set forth in S 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.040. We have also eliminated the provision that a replacement structure may have the same percentage of impervious cover and may be constructed to the same height as the original structure. The proposed ordinance specifically requires compliance with current regulations concerning impervious cover and height. (1) Appeals (S 15- 45.110). This section is the same as the existing ordinance. V. HEIGHT OF UNENCLOSED GARDEN STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED YARD Section 18 of the proposed ordinance is a "cleanup" amendment to correct an apparent oversight in the existing code. S 15- 80.030 (e) now allows unenclosed garden structures such as gazebos to be located 6 feet from a side or rear property line if the height of the structure does not exceed 8 feet. The height may be increased by 1 foot for each additional foot of setback, up to a maximum height of 10 feet. The amendment will add the following language to the end of this Paragraph: "if the structure is still located within a required side or rear yard." This addition is intended to clarify that the 10 -foot height limit applies only to unenclosed accessory structures located within a setback area and the normal height limit would apply if the structure is located elsewhere on the site. As mentioned above, the proposed ordinance would establish a 12 -foot height limit for accessory structures within any single - family residential zoning district. VI. ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Section 22 of the proposed ordinance will amend S 16- 55.060 of the City's grading ordinance to provide that all grading permits shall be issued by the City Engineer. Under the present code, permits for "engineered grading" (i.e., grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards, or cuts and fills in excess of 10 feet, or where 30% or more of the vegetation is to be removed) are issued by the Planning Commission. The staff has suggested, and the Commission agreed, that such permits are essentially technical in nature and should be handled by the City Engineer. However, where grading plans are required as part of the application for design review approval (or as part of any other form of application), these plans will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and will be subject to its approval. -7- VII. GRANDFATHERING OF PRIOR APPROVALS AND CUTOFF DATE During the public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission, numerous developers expressed their concern over the effect new regulations would have upon completed design review applications which had been submitted to the City prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Questions were also raised concerning the application of new regulations to design review approvals granted by the City prior to the effective date. To resolve or clarify these issues, Section 24 of the proposed ordinance specifically states that the new regulations would not apply to any unexpired design review approval granted prior to the effective date of the ordinance, nor would the ordinance apply to any application for design review approval which is filed with the City prior to the effective date. In those cases where the applicant may determine that the new regulations are actually preferable to those which are now set forth in the existing City code, the applicant may voluntaril,y elect to have the project governed by the new regulations. D S. ffm ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ABOLISH THE SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ELIMINATE THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO SAID COMMITTEE, TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND MULTI -STORY STRUCTURE, TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF SINGLE , FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND TO MODIFY THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Article 2 -16 of the City Code, entitled "Site Review Committee," is hereby repealed, including each and every Section thereof. SECTION 2: Section 14- 05.040 in Article 14 -05 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S14- 05.040 Designation of advisory agency (a) The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the advisory agency for all decisions and determinations under this Chapter. . (b) There is hereby delegated to the advisory agency the power to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove tentative maps and building sites, together with extensions and modifications thereof, the power to determine consistency or lack of consistency of a proposed tentative map or building site with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and without limiting the foregoing, the power to make the determinations prescribed in Sections 66473.5, 66474 and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act." SECTION 3: Paragraph (b) of Section 14- 10.100 in Article 14 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: r "(b) Gross floor area means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and including also interior courts with or without a roof, but excluding basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unenclosed balconies and areas underneath exterior decks or balconies which are not used as or capable of being converted into living space. The floor area of a covered structure, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the Rev. 7/8/87 -1- roof or floor above. Gross floor area includes all areas having. an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet, except that in the case of a sloped ceiling, roof or . ground surface, the floor area shall be measured from the point at which the interior height is five feet if any portion of such area also has an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet." SECTION 4: Paragraph (b) of Section 15- 06.280 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) Gross floor area means the total, floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and including also interior courts with or without a roof, but excluding basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unenclosed balconies, and areas underneath exterior decks or balconies which are not used as or capable of being converted into living space. The floor area of a covered structure, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. Gross floor area includes all areas having an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet, except that in the case of a sloped ceiling, roof or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured from the point at which the interior height is five feet if any portion of such area also has an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet." SECTION 5: A new Section 15- 06.665 is added to Article 15 -06 of the City Code, to read as follows: "S15- 06.665 Story; multi -story (a) Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling or roof next above. (b) Multi -story means any building having one or more stories physically located or projecting above a story, or any portion thereof, constructed and located beneath the same. Basements shall not be considered a story. "Multi- story" includes a one and one -half story (split level) structure, having the floor level of the upper story located at approximately the center height of the lower portion of the structure. SECTION 6: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 06.670 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 7: Section 15- 11.100 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as Lf ollows: "S15- 11.100 Height of structures (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height;. provided, however, upon approval by the Planning Commission granted pursuant to Article 15 -45 of this Chapter, a portion of the roof, not exceeding twenty -five Rev. 7/8/87 -2- percent of the total roof area, may extend up to a height of thirty feet. No other type of structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No structure shall exceed two stories." SECTION 8: Section 15- 11.150 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15-11.150 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an A district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 9: Section 15- 12.100 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 12.100 Height of structures (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height; provided, however, upon approval by the Planning Commission granted pursuant to Article 15 -45 of this Chapter, a portion of the roof, not exceeding twenty -five percent of the total roof area, may extend up to a height of thirty feet. No other type of main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No accessory structure shall exceed twelve feet in height. (c) No structure shall exceed two stories, except that pursuant to a use permit issued under Article 15 -55 of this Chapter, a three -story structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi - public facilities (QPF) in the General Plan, where the average slope underneath the structure is ten percent or greater and a stepped building pad is used." SECTION 10: Section 15- 12.150 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15- 12.150 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an R -1 district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this. Chapter." SECTION 11: Section 15- 13.100 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 13.100 Height of structures (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height; provided, however, upon approval by the Planning Commission granted pursuant to Article 15 -45 of this Chapter, a portion of the roof, not exceeding twenty -five Rev. 7/8/87 - -3- percent of the total roof area, may extend up -to a height of thirty feet. No other type of main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No accessory structure shall exceed twelve feet in height. (c) No structure shall exceed two stories." SECTION 12: Section 15- 13.150 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 13.150 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an HC -RD district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 13: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 14.110 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(c) A single - family dwelling not limited by Paragraphs (a) or (b) above, shall not exceed twenty -six feet in height; provided, however, upon approval by the Planning Commission granted pursuant to Article 15 -45 of this Chapter, a portion of the roof, not exceeding twenty -five percent of the total roof area, may extend up to a height of thirty feet. Any other type of main structure not limited by Paragraphs (a) or (b) above, shall not exceed thirty feet in height." SECTION 14: Section 15- 14.160 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: ''. "515- 14.160 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in the NHR district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 15: Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Sections: 15- 45.010 15- 45.020 15- 45.030 15- 45.040 15- 45.050 15- 45.060 15- 45.070 "ARTICLE 15-45 DESIGN REVIEW: SINGLE - FAAULY DWELLINGS Purposes of Article Compliance with development standards Allowable floor area Setbacks Additional standards and guidelines Requirement for design review; public hearing Application requirements Rev. 7/8/87 -4- 15- 45.080 Design.review findings 15- 45.090 Expiration of design review; extensions 15- 45.100 Replacement of destroyed structures 15- 45.110 Appeals to City Council s s s S15-45.010 Purposes of Article It is the policy of the City to review the proposed construction or expansion of single - family dwellings and certain accessory structures under circumstances where such structures might constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light and air, and create adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. The purpose of this Article is to establish standards and procedures to be followed with respect to the design review of single - family dwellings and certain accessory structures to ensure that new development occurs in a manner which is consistent with the objectives of this Chapter and the policies of the General Plan. S15-45.020 Compliance with development standards No single - family main structure or accessory structure shall be constructed or expanded within any A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district unless the proposed structure or expansion complies with the floor area standards contained in Section 15- 45.030 of this Article and the setback requirements contained in Section 15- 45.040 of this Article. The Planning Commission shall have authority to grant a variance from such regulations pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. S15-45.030 Allowable floor area (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "allowable floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof) plus any accessory structure on permanent foundations, as determined under Paragraph (b) of this Section. For the purposes of calculating allowable floor area, any space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be doubled: (b) Standards. The allowable floor area with respect to any site shall be based upon the size of the lot and calculated in accordance with the table set forth below; provided, however, that in the case of a site located within an R -1 district, the size of the lot to be utilized from the table set forth below shall be either: (i) the actual net site area of the lot, or (ii) twice the minimum net site area for the zoning district in which the lot is located (as specified in Section 15- 12_.050), whichever is less. The standards contained herein are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article, including, but not limited to, a reduction based upon the average slope of the lot or the slope underneath the proposed structure. Rev. 7/8/87 -5- Size of Lot (Net Site Area) Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5001 - 10,000 sq. ft. 10,001 - 15,000 sq. ft. 15,001 - 40,000 sq. ft. Greater than 40,000 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area To be determined by Planning Commission 2,400 sq. ft. plus 160 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. plus 170 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq. ft. 4,050 sq. ft, plus 86 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq. ft. 6,200 sq. ft.; provided, however, the Planning Commission may approve a larger floor area if the Commission is able to make all of the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. In making such findings, the Commission may consider the size of the lot or the fact that abutting the lot is an area which has been permanently restricted and preserved as open space. (c) Restriction against subdivision. Where the net site area required under this Section for all structures on the site is greater than the minimum net site area prescribed for the district in which the lot is located and such lot is otherwise capable of being subdivided, the owner shall execute and record a restriction against any subdivision of the property in such manner as to reduce the net site area below the amount required under this Section for all structures on the site. §15- 45.040 Setbacks Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure will exceed twenty -two feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each foot of height in excess of twenty -two feet, such increased setbacks to be imposed only with respect to that portion of the new structure or addition that exceeds twenty -two feet in height. A variance from this requirement may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. Rev. 7/8/87 -6- S15-45.050 Additional standards and guidelines In addition to the standards set forth in Sections 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.040 of this Article, the following standards and guidelines shall be satisfied before approval is granted for the construction or expansion of a single- family main structure or accessory structure: (a) Standards. The proposed structure shall contain architectural and design elements which serve to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk. Such elements may include: (1) Multiple floor levels which follow natural, slope so as to reduce the underfloor clearance to not more than five feet; (2) Multiple roof lines; (3) Decks and balconies; (4) Foundation types that minimize cut and fill and the need for retaining walls; (5) Fence lines, walls and other features which blend with the terrain rather than angle against it. (b) Guidelines. (1) Variety in design should be encouraged in order to avoid monotony of regularly spaced buildings of uniform height. (2) On wooded hillside lots, multi -story structures may be encouraged in order to minimize grading and vegetation removal. The use of decks should be encouraged to provide usable open space, but the decks should not encroach on adjoining properties in terms of privacy. (3) The proposed structure should be designed to optimize the use of natural elements, such as solar radiation, wind and landscaping for heating, cooling and ventilation. §15- 45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single- family main structure or accessory structure in any .A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any multi -story structure. (2) Any conversion of a single story structure to a multi -story structure, except where such conversion does not result in any exterior modifications to the existing structure beyond the installation of skylights in the roof. Rev. 7/8/87 -7- (3) Any expansion in size to the second story of a multi -story structure; provided, however, if the proposed expansion does not exceed one hundred square feet and design review of such expansion would not be required under any other provision of this Section, the proposed expansion may be reviewed by the Planning Director and approval thereof given if the Director is able to make the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (4) Any main structure to be constructed upon a hillside lot. (5) Whenever design review is specifically required under the terms or conditions of any, :tentative or final subdivision map, building site approval, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning. (6) Any main structure io be constructed upon a lot having a net site area of less than 5,000 square feet. (7) Any single - family main structure having a height in excess of twenty -six feet. (8) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,200 square feet. (9) Whenever, in the opinion of the Planning Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory structure may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may adversely affect the natural environment. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. §15-45.070 Application requirements (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall' prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing property lines, easements and dimensions, structure setbacks, building envelope, topography, location of all trees over twelve inches in diameter as measured two feet above grade, and areas of dense vegetation and creeks. (2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space heating, passive solar Rev. 7/8/87 -8- building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices-.'- Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Planning Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross ' sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if requested by the Planning Director.. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. If any portion of the roof exceeds twenty -six feet in height, the plans shall delineate such portion and shall include a calculation of the total roof area and a calculation of the roof area in excess of twenty -six feet in height. (8) Landscape plans. (9) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encumbrances and restrictions which benefit or burden the property. (10) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Planning Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty eight inches in size and eleven reduced sets on sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. (b) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. §15,45.080 Design review findings The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site 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. Rev..7/8/87 -9- (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. S15-45.090 Expiration of design review approval; extensions (a) Design review approvals granted pursuant to this Article shall expire twenty -four months from the date on which the approval became effective, unless prior to such expiration date a building permit is issued for the improvements constituting the subject of the design review approval and construction thereof is commenced and prosecuted diligently toward completion, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for such improvements. (b) Design review approvals may be extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty -six months. The application for extension -shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall 'be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. A public hearing shall be conducted on the application for extension and notice thereof shall be given in the same manner as prescribed in Subsection 15- 45.060(b) of this Article. Extension of design review approval is not a matter of right and the approving authority may deny the application or grant the same subject to conditions. 915- 45,100 Replacement of destroyed structures In the event an existing single- family dwelling having a gross floor area in excess of the standards set forth in Section 15- 45.030 of this Article or setbacks which are less than required under Section 15- 45.040 of this Article, is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, act of God or other calamity (except for landslide, earthquake, earth movement, soil instability or flood), the structure may be replaced with a new structure having a maximum gross floor area no greater than the original structure and setbacks no less than the original structure. Design review approval pursuant to this Article shall be required for the proposed replacement structure, but the requirements of this Section shall be applied in lieu of the standards set forth in Sections 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.040 of this Article. In all other respects, the replacement structure shall comply with the regulations of this Chapter, including the regulations pertaining to structure height and impervious cover. Rev. 7/8/87 -10- S15-45.110 Appeals -to City Council Any decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter." SECTION 16: Section 15- 70.020 in Article 15 -70 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 70.020 Authority to grant variances The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the approving authority under this Article with power to grant variances from the regulations prescribed in this Chapter with respect to the site area, site frontage, width, depth and coverage, setbacks for front yards, side yards and rear yards, allowable floor area, height of structures, distance between structures, signs, off - street parking and loading facilities, fences, walls and hedges, and alterations or expansions of nonconforming structures, in accordance with the procedure and requirements set forth in this Article." SECTION 17: Paragraph (d) (1) of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 11(1) Upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 15 -55, cabanas, garages, carports, recreation rooms, hobby shops and other similar structures may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each three feet of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard." SECTION 18: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(e) IInenclosed garden structures. Subject to approval by the Planning Director and the provisions of Paragraph (i) of this Section, unenclosed garden, ornamental and decorative structures such as gazebos, lattice work, arbors and fountains may be located no closer than six feet from a side or rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the side and rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within a required side .or rear yard." SECTION 19: Paragraphs (j) and (k) of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: "(j) Referral to Planning Commission. With respect to any accessory structure requiring approval by the Planning Director, as described in Paragraphs (d)(2), (e) and (f) above, the Director may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for action thereon whenever the Director deems such referral to be Rev. 7/8/87 -11- necessary or appropriate. If the application relates to an 'accessory structure described in Paragraphs (d)(2) or (3), the Planning Commission shall follow the same procedure as set forth in Paragraph (i) of this Section. (k) Modification of standards. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the regulations set forth in Paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of this Section pertaining to the size, height or required setback of an accessory structure in a side or rear yard, through the granting of a use permit for such accessory structure pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 20: Section 15- 90.020.,;in Article 15 -90 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 90.020 Appeals from decision of Planning Commission An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the applicant or any interested person from the whole or any portion of a decision made by the Planning Commission pursuant to any of the provisions of this Chapter." SECTION 21: Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 15- 90.070 in Article 15 -90 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: "(b) Conduct of hearing by City Council. The City Council shall conduct a de novo review on the appeal, but no public hearing shall be required unless the decision by the Planning Commission was made in connection with a proceeding which required a public hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the City Council, in its discretion, from receiving testimony or other evidence from any person pertaining to the subject matter of the appeal. (c) Decision by City Council. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back to ..the Planning Commission for such further action as may be directed by the Council. Where an appeal has been filed pertaining to only a portion of a decision by the Planning Commission, the City Council shall have authority to review the entire matter and may affirm, reverse or modify all or any other portion of the decision notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been taken therefrom." SECTION 22: Section 16- 55.060 in Article 16 -55 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "516- 55.060 * Action on application The application for a grading permit shall be reviewed by the City Engineer, and if he finds the application is in conformity with all the provisions of this Article, the City Engineer may thereafter issue a permit with such reasonable conditions as he may deem necessary in order to comply with all the provisions of this Article. The City Engineer may refer any application to the Planning Commission for a decision thereon." Rev. 7/8/87 -12- SECTION 23: 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 24: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. This Ordinance shall not apply to any unexpired design review approval granted prior to the effective date hereof; nor shall this Ordinance apply to any application for design review approval which is filed prior to the effective date hereof unless the applicant submits, at the time of filing, a written election for the project to be governed by the regulations contained herein. s s* s e 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 held on the day of , 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 7/8/87 -13- MAYOR . EIA -4 -.. File No: AZ_0_87_ -003 Saratoga - DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality.Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code',:and.Resolu- tion 653- of the 'City of Saratoga.,. that the following -described *:proj ect will have rio significant effect - (no s-iibs:t.antial -. adverse impact) on . the•- environment within the terms and meaning. of said Act..: PROJECT DESCRIPTION - Zoning ordinance amendment to design review regulations. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga - 13777.Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga; CA, 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE - DECLARATION The proposed.ordinance incorporated various changes to the design review regulations which will not significantly change the impact of the regulations. The proposed ordinance will both - expand and reduce the types of structures subject to design review by the P1;anning Commission. No environmental impact is associated with this amendment. Executed at.Saratoga, California this day of Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director DIP=TOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF M&MBER , 19 - J 4 MINLYIES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, October 29, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. . PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting _ The meeting was called to order at 7:42 p.m. Roll Call: All Councilmembers.were present. Staff present: City Attorney, City Manager, Planning Director, Associate Planner Valerie .Young 1. Resolution of Self- Designation, Hazardous Materials Regulation . The pros and cons of adopting the resolution were presented to the City Council by the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Manager recounted the telephone conversation he had held with Dr. Monell of the County Executive's Office on County intentions to adopt standards for current and future self- designation by cities as provided by State law and the fact that these standards would not be adopted by the Board of Supervisors for several weeks; the issue of ability to self- designate revolving around various legal interpretations as to whether the deadline for self - designation had already passed *or was November 1, 1986. It was the consensus of the City Council that the resolution as written would maximize the City's options and at the same time confirm that authority for regulation had previously been delegated to the County under Chapter 8 of the municipal code. It was moved and seconded by Councilman Moyles and Councilwoman Clevenger to adopt Resolution 2385. The motion passed 5 -0. 2_ Second Unit Ordinance After extensive discussion and review of the proposal by the Good Government Group which had been presented to the City Council at its meeting of October 15, 1986, the Council, by a 3 -2 vote with Councilman Moyles and Councilwoman Clevenger dissenting, agreed to allow new second units in the R -1- 10,000 zone on the following basis: Minimum lot sizefor a new attached unit 1.25 times the minimum lot size; minimum lot ,size for a new detached unit 1.6 times the minimum lot size. It was the consensus of the Council to incorporate the suggestions proposed by the Good Government Group into the second unit ordinance as appropriate with current findings.-The City Attorney was directed to amend the ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission to include the decision made by the Council for introduction at the November 5, 1986, City Council meeting continued public hearing on this matter. The City Council also directed' the City Manager to study the requirements, processes and fees under the current ordinance for legalization of existing second units with the intent of simplification with an emphasis on public health and safety standards rather than zoning standards and return with a proposal for modification for review by the City Council. The City Council also discussed the problem of compliance and enforcement of the - law and. directed the City Manager to study and report on •requiring a pre -sale inspection for all real property sold in the City to insure that all property being sold complies with the zoning and building regulations of the City at the time of sale. 3. Design Review The City Council held extensive discussion on the various proposals made by staff on the establishment of new residential property development standards. It was the consensus of the City Council that the staff should prepare a conceptual proposal for the Planning Commission and the staff to develop into a Q nom- � ;.:�, � ��► 2- 10/29/86. comprehensive recommendation which would contain the following features and standards: A. Adopt staff proposal "B" in a modified form, B. Standard roof height for house size limits to be set at 18 feet above grade. C. Maximum house size to be based on a sliding scale of lot size by zoning district using the minimum lot size as the standard for the zone. .Scale to adjust house size for lots both above and below the minimum. D. House size in terms of space to remain constant regardless of house height. E. Maximo roof, height allowed to be 26.feet above grade.. F. Establish a slope penalty as far as allowable house site is.concerned similar to• that contained in staff proposal G. Establish maximum house size -for a- 10,000 square foot lot at somewhere between 3,000 and 3,200 square 'feet using footprint and height formula from staff proposals. H. Create design guidelines booklet similar to that of City of _Tiburon for hillside lots. I. Place limits on cut.* and fill slopes',and height of retaining walls to five feet -to encourage stepped . building pads on steep lots. J. ;Establish maximum house size for one acre lot at 6,200 square feet using staff-proposed-formula.. K. Increase setback-,requirements for houses with roofs which exceed a height of 18 feet, l L. Leave coverage standards, lot dimensions and standard setbacks as they currently exist. r Adjust. impervious coverage limits to'fit overall proposals: N. _Minimize Planning Commission need to review residential development on a lot ."by lot, .basis by re- establishing the need to seek•a variance i'f any of the _ .,new :standards are sought to be exceeded. Maximize role of planning staff in approving all residential development which meets new standards. There. being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully'sutmitted,' Harry R' ea cock Gity Cl. k SARAT= CITY COUNCIL TIME; Tuesday, March, 24, 1987 PLACE: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Committee of the Whole /Adjourned Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 6:14 p.m. 1 Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Peterson and Mayor Hlava were present; Councilmember'Moyles.was absent, Planning Commissioners Burger, Guc�, Pines, Siegfried and'Tucker were present; Commissioners Callans and Harris were absent. Staff members present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Tioppel, Planning Director Hsia, Associate Planner Young. Second Unit Ordinance - Consensus was not reached between the Council and Cxmissico that changes to the treatment of pre - existing second units need to be made. Several Commissioners felt that enforcement should be. stepped up, but no consensus was reached on that matter either. Commissioners did not agree that reducing fees.and relaxing zoning standards would make non - compliers come in to get permits, but some of the members of the Council did. Council will further deliberate -on this matter at an upcoming-public bearing, Design Review Reform - The staff report and-the draft ordinance were discussed in some detail with the following conclusions: 1. The Site Review Committee should be abolished, 2. There needs to be a clear definition of what is meant by double counting- 3. New proposed height limits are satisfactory. 4. The concept of the slope penalty is acceptable, but may need technical adjustments. 5. Lot size versus home size - floor area ratio allowed for R -1- 12,500, 'R -1- 15,000 and R -1- 20,000 need to be reduced slightly as was done in the R -1- 10,000 which was reduced from 3,500 sq. ft, to 3,200 sq. ft. 6. Upper limit cap on house size in R -1 zones acceptable. 7. Proposed yard setbacks acceptable. 8. Setbacks of second story additions on existing units needs further study as to whether they should be standards or only guidelines. 9. Scope of design review - staff to research last six months' activity and compare impact of various proposals for commission versus staff review and compare outcomes under new standards. 10. The subject of simplification of variance findings to be more reflective of State law wording was discussed and will be ermined. Committee of the Whole Me�etin�s_ - Opinions varied on whether these Mould Be use to review projects be e'there had been a public hearing on the project. It was generally agreed that in some cases this might be advisable, but only if a formal application bad been filed and fees paid. It was to be left up to staff to make the :initial determination as to whether a project should go to a Committee of the Whole prior to going to public hearing. It, was also suggested that the department staff take notes of Commitee of the Whole meetings and have them approved by the Commission just like regular minutes so decisions made would be properly recorded and acknowledged. Establishment of General Policy on Second Story Additions - This matter will be iim�r in the changes to design review. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 MAY 13, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Novakovich, Applicant, agreed to plant trees on the side of his property adjacent to the bam and to cleanup the property; however, he was not agreeable to:removing the barbed wire. The barbed wire was to prevent children from trespassing on his property and damaging his equipment. Commissioner, stated that on a land use visit, it was noted that only three strands of barbed wire had been added to the top of the chain link fence; she noted that,such was unobtrusive and concurred that it prevented vandals from trespassing. The City Attorney stated that if the Commission elected to allow the.barbed wire, it would be a non conforming structure and would not necessitate an immediate removal. He added that the Commission could review the Fence Ordinance and build into the Ordinance the ability to grant exceptions. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 :21 P.M. Passed 6 -0. SIEGFRIED /CALLANS MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -87 =002 AND DR -87 -038 WITH DELETION OF CONDITION 6,.EXHIBIT ''A" SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TI-IE'FENCE ORDINANCE: Passed 6 -0. I 11. AZO -87 -003 Revision of Design Review Regulations, an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending. the City Code to abolish the site Review Committee and eliminate the authority delegated to said committee, to amend the definitions of gross floor area and multi-story structure, to reduce the height limit for single family dwellings and accessory structures in residential districts, to modify the standards and procedures for design review of single family dwellings and- .accesson, structures in residential districts and to modify the provisions concerning issuance of grading permits. A negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum. of May 8, 1987. The City Attorney noted changesin the Ordinance and called attention to the Memorandum of May 1, 1987, which outlined these changes. Design. Review Standards, formerly called guidelines, would now become standards and the Site Review Committee would be abolished. Areas left open for determination by the Commission included: Section 15- 45.040 Setbacks if a structure was more than 18 ft. in height, an additional • foot of setback would be required for eachfoot in.beight Differences between paragraphs: a) a mandatory requirement for setbacks applying to any new structure, whereas paragraph b) only applied to an existing structure wherein the setback requirement was discretionary with the Commission. This was the latest position taken by the Commission, the Ordinance had been drafted on the basis of this position. Staff recommended that setbacks requirements be made mandatory as opposed to being merely guidelines. - Section 15- 45.050 Additional guidelines, was intended to replace language in the existing Ordinance; Staff recommendation was that paragraph a) be,made a mandatory requirement rather than a guideline. - Section 15- 45.060 Requirement for design review: public hearinz, a); he referred the Commission to the applicable table presented in the Memorandum and stated that one of the major issues was that design review would now be required on any multi, story structure; Staff questioned whether such would increase the number of. applications to be presented to the Commission. In addition, Staff questioned whether any home (whether multi story or single story) if build on a hillside lot (any lot built in excess of 10% average slope) should be subject to design review. He noted the wide variation between the present Ordinance and the draft Ordinance. Planner Young reviewed the procedures used to complete the Staff Analysis-, such procedures were used to apply retroactively, draft Ordinance.requirements in order to assess the impacts on these Applications. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 'MAY 13,1987- - PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 4 Planner Young noted the following issues: Height.and Setbacks -for single story residences, which could be considered together, she noted that designs for single story residences appear to be two story residences. She cited the concern of the Commission regarding bulk and compatibility rather'than.setback per se. Application of a stricter standard at 18 ft., rather than at 22 ft., may not be the best approach; she suggested that- enforcement of the existing standard (22 ft.) may be more effective in; addressing the concerns of the Commission. Questioned whether the proposed floor areas would indeed be significantly less than approvals granted in the past year; Staff found that approximately two - thirds of these applications were under that which would be allowed.in the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Burger added that approval on a Staff level of one -story residences, not in the hillside areas, was of concern to her and she asked that the Commission discuss this issue. Commissioner Guch requested clarification on Staffs recommendation for mandatory requirements rather than guidelines. Commissioner Siegfried noting that only one third of applications exceeded that which would be allowed in.the draft Ordinance, cautioned against overreaction by the Commission; he suggested that the Commission make clear that there were guidelines for R -1- 40,000 zoning districts, especially for visible, hillside lots. Planner Young noted that there were incremental increases in the chart of Proposed Allowable Floor Areas. Chairwoman Harris noted that aesthetics of buildings had not been addressed_ Commissioner Clay asked for information regarding factoring of'uregularlyshaped lots. Members of the Commission complimented Staff on a comprehensive.and well executed draft Ordinance and the Staff Analysis presented, The Public Hearing was opened at 8:07 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss presented a letter regarding Design Review Ordinances.proposal; he: noted that in projects where open space was created, the draft Ordinance put such projects at a distinct disadvantage. He recommended consideration of'a bonus forprojects with allotted open space. Secondly, the penalty was determined by the average'slope of the entire lot „rather than by the building.site; he questioned the :equityof such situations, the-visibility of some sloped lots and added that degree of the slope on a property did not necessarily address the issue of visibility. Mr. Wendell Roscoe concurred regarding comments on hillside lots; he stated that he: - Favored freedom of choice vs. the encroaching government intrusion in building - Favored guidelines over mandatory requirements Questioned recently approved hillside housing that appeared bulky and ugly; he suggested that the Commission promote education for professionals to avoid such•developments. Ms. Janet Kline stated that Dividend Development Corporation, owner of a 55 lot subdivision at Prospect Rd. and Stelling Rd., Saratoga, felt it had vested right to the particular zoning, and design review regulations under which the subdivision was approved; approval of the entire subdivision was based on present statute and the City was obligated to comply with,approved zoning standards for R- 1- 20,000 and Code Regulations relative to design.review in place at the time of the subdivision. The City Attorney disagreed with the above statement; in his opinion, any vested right may have been created under the Subdivision Ordinance, not the'Zoning Ordinance. The City had the right to review it's Design Review Ordinance and felt that.ihe speakers comments were incorrect. He suggested consideration of a provision stating that when design review approval .had been granted, the,proposed Ordinance would not negate such approval. Mr.. Edward O'Farriell noted the following: - Questioned the use,of the term penalty and suggestedlanguage.such as "slope adjustment” - The significant impacts on the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district as noted in applications reviewed from the previous year and as shown in Allowable Floor Area chart. Mr. Doug Singsley questioned the impact of the proposed Ordinance on applications submitted but not yet approved, The City Attorney.suggested the Commission consider the concern expressed an make a recommendation to the City Council. 'He suggested the addition of a provision to the draft Ordinance stating that "Applications accepted as being complete at the date of adoption of the Ordinance could be processed under the current Ordinance." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 13, 1987 C PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Don Coffey concurred with the concept of averaged slope and noted concern regarding setback requirements on smaller lots; he asked that Staff recommendation on this item be followed. In the 12,500 and 15,000 zoning districts square footage would be lost under the draft Ordinance; he asked that this square footage remain as it currently existed Mr. Gregory. Sterling questioned annexation policies.of the draft Ordinance. The Public Hearing remained open. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with statements made by Mr. Reiss and questioned penalizing-property owners on non visible, flat sites; he:asked that the Commission address this issue. The City Attorney noted the issue of open space,also addressed by Mr: Heiss. Application AZO -87 -003 Continued to Study Session on Tuesday, May 19, 1987. Chairwoman Hams recessed the - Meeting from 8;50 - 9:05 P.M. 12. UP -87 -004 Caudle, 20360 Blauer Dr., request for use permit approval to legalize an existing 400 sq.ft. addition (recreation room) to a detached garage and modify the setback requirements to allow a rear yard setback of 2 ft. 6 in. where 6 ft. is required and to allow an 11 ft: .4 in.high structure where 8 ft. is allowed in the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner. Burger reported -on the land use visit.~ Planning. Director Hsia presented the Report.to the Planning Commission of May 13, 1987. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:05 P.M. Mr. Robert Caudle, Applicant, stated that he received incorrect information regarding the need •for .a;Use Permit to modify an existing building. He•noted the following: • -. - An existing 4-5 ft. extension to the garage had been incorporated into the 20 ft. addition - His calculations on impervious coverage were inaccurate - Modification was not intrusive to adjacent neighbors BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:08 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney stated that this was a setback issue, normally addressed through a variance process; under the Use Permit process of the City Code, the Commission could approve accessory structures in a rear yard, having, less setbacks than required by the Ordinance. This structure was currently a non- conforming structure and would remain so if the Use Permit were denied. The City could demandremoval of the structure; there would be no amortization with respect to the addition since it had +not been legally constricted Commissioner Burger noted her difficulty in.granting a use permit for a structure already built and stated that she could not make the necessary findings. Chairwoman Hams, noting that the roof line extended to the adjacent property, commented on the potential fire hazard. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO DENY UP -87 -004. Passed 6 -0. 13. DR -8.7 -031 Dalton, 20558 Beauchamps Dr., request for design review approval of plans to construct anew 4,967 sq. ft, two -story residence where 4,800 sq. ft, is the standard. Property located on the ".Fremont School property" in the NHR zoning district. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, May 13, 1987, recommending that the Commission continue this Item to a Study Session to order to address the issues of height and bulk ",It Minutes Saratoga Planning Commission TIME: Tuesday, May 19, 1987 PLACE: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga TYPE: Committee of the Whale /Adjourned Public Hearing on AZO -87-. 003, Revision of Design Review Regulations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to�order at 8:15 p.m. Commissioners Harris, Guch, Burger, Clay, Siegfried, Callans,and Tucker were present. Councilman Don Peterson was`present. Staff members present: Planning Director Hsia, City Attorney Toppel, Associate Planner-Young. There were approximately 10 members of public present., AZO -87 -003 - Revision of Design Review Regulations Planner Young distributed a.memorandum to the Commission that outlined issues brought up at the May 13, 1987 meeting still needing discussion and resolution. The Commission decided to go through each item first, with questions to staff, then open the public hearing:-. ....:._ _.._...� _ :.... . ..- _.. Item' #1: Allowable Floor Area The Commission discussed the fact that the proposal had the greatest impact in reducing floor areas in the R- 1- 10,000, 12,500 and 15,000 districts. - Commissioner Burger noted her support of the proposed-reductions because of the cumulative impact of remodels and expansions in existing built -up neighborhoods. Chair Harris had questions about the location and. type of applications (new house or remodel) in the R -1- 12,500 district analyzed in the Staff Analysis, to get a better understanding of the impact of the proposed reductions. There was consensus among the Commission that the proposed reductions were acceptable. The Commission discussed the possibility of an upper limit on floor areas for the NHR /HCRD districts. Commissioner Siegfried expressed his concern that it appeared that the City was suddenly encouraging much larger homes, and that instead of requiring variances for houses over the limit on large, hillside lots, there should be a separate set of special findings. The City attorney noted that the slope penalty was the main factor that would reduce house sizes in hillside lots. There was consensus that the proposed allowable floor area of 8,400 sq. ft. for .2 acre lots should be reduced and that special findings should be developed. 1 C Item #2: Slope Penalty C The City Attorney clarified that using the average site slope would reduce the allowable floor area to a much greater extent than using the building site slope. This issue was discussed in light of Bill Heiss' concern about the impact of the slope penalty existing hillside . subdivisions with permanently designated common open space areas. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the slope penalty would be a disincentive for developers to create common open space areas and would instead encourage developers to keep the open space easements as part of individual lots. There was discussion on allotting extra floor area to parcels.-abutting open space areas; there was consensus not *to develop a specific formula, but"to devleop a guideline or finding to be used under those special circumstances for which individual lots are 'not'now given credit. Item #3: Setbacks There was consensus that the setback increase should be applied at the 22' height level rather than 181, and that it should be a standard for both new residences and existing residences that add second stories.. Item #4: Additional Guidelines There was consensus that the paragraph (15- 45.050(a)) regarding the use of architectural and design elements to reduce bulk and mass be•a standard rather than a guideline.. Item #5: Processing The City .Attorney clarified that all applications submitted to and deemed complete _by the Planning Department prior to the effective date of the ordinance would be processed under the existing rather than new regulations. There was discussion on how applications were to be "deemed complete ".' Commissioner Burger expressed concern about allowing staff review of all one -story residences, especially the loss of public input.,. Commissioner Guch concurred. Commissioner Siegfried suggested" the regulations not be changed in that regard at this time, but that the Commission consider it again in six months. There was consensus that the regulations remain as is (that Planning Commission review one -story houses over 22' in height) and that there not be a height limit for one -story structures. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Kurt Anderson, And'arch Associates, had technical questions on the timing and treatment of applications and when they would be deemed complete. He also suggested that the bulk problem could not be addressed by numbers., but by design guidelines, particularly to address second -story setbacks and setbacks for the downhill elevation of houses. He expressed concern that a decrease in height would limit-the creative use of interior space. He- noted that, the City of Campbell. used an outside architect to help in design,review decisions, and asked that the Commission-consider deleting the requirement for irrigation plans in the design review application; it was more appropriate at the building permit stage. Bill Heiss reiterated 'his:.concer,n about the impact on subdivisions with common-permanent open space areas. He stated that restricting house size is not the answer,' but developing design guidelines is Commissioner Guch stated that if there were no floor area guidelines, people would push house sizes to the limit; Commissioner Siegfried agreed. Wendell Roscoe, architect, felt that there are other ways to control bulk besides numbers and that the 26' height limit would restrict design. He' said people'spend a lot of money on a lot and` feel they have the right to build a big dream house. Commissioner Siegfried said the Commission did not want to dictate style, but need to address neighborhood-issues. Kurt Anderson suggested that a task force of architects and designers beset up to provide professional input on"the design manual. Bill Day, developer, noted that there were two separate issues to be addressed, hillside vs.. infill development. He also said that the color of a residence has a"big impact and that the Commission should address that in-design guidelines. Jerry Lohr, developer, supported the idea of designers helping on the manual. He showed the Commission examples of house styles that might result from the imposition of additional side yard setbacks, indicating that the styles might not be appropriate for Saratoga. He could not support the setback increase at the 18' height level. He also did not favor the 26' height limit,- = stating that a 30' height was necessary to support a 6,000 sq. ft: house. He agreed that infill and new subdivisions needed to be addressed differently. Marty Oakley, architect, noted that everyone perceives bulk in a different way and showed examples of two different house designs. He said that the 30' height is necessary to create the type of house that people are asking for, and the 30' height only has significant impacts when a large percentage of the rooflines is at that level. 3 C � Kurt Anderson, And'arch Associates, had technical questions on the timing and treatment of applications and when they would be deemed complete. He also suggested that the bulk problem could not be addressed by numbers., but by design guidelines, particularly to address second -story setbacks and setbacks for the downhill elevation of houses. He expressed concern that a decrease in height would limit-the creative use of interior space. He- noted that, the City of Campbell. used an outside architect to help in design,review decisions, and asked that the Commission-consider deleting the requirement for irrigation plans in the design review application; it was more appropriate at the building permit stage. Bill Heiss reiterated 'his:.concer,n about the impact on subdivisions with common-permanent open space areas. He stated that restricting house size is not the answer,' but developing design guidelines is Commissioner Guch stated that if there were no floor area guidelines, people would push house sizes to the limit; Commissioner Siegfried agreed. Wendell Roscoe, architect, felt that there are other ways to control bulk besides numbers and that the 26' height limit would restrict design. He' said people'spend a lot of money on a lot and` feel they have the right to build a big dream house. Commissioner Siegfried said the Commission did not want to dictate style, but need to address neighborhood-issues. Kurt Anderson suggested that a task force of architects and designers beset up to provide professional input on"the design manual. Bill Day, developer, noted that there were two separate issues to be addressed, hillside vs.. infill development. He also said that the color of a residence has a"big impact and that the Commission should address that in-design guidelines. Jerry Lohr, developer, supported the idea of designers helping on the manual. He showed the Commission examples of house styles that might result from the imposition of additional side yard setbacks, indicating that the styles might not be appropriate for Saratoga. He could not support the setback increase at the 18' height level. He also did not favor the 26' height limit,- = stating that a 30' height was necessary to support a 6,000 sq. ft: house. He agreed that infill and new subdivisions needed to be addressed differently. Marty Oakley, architect, noted that everyone perceives bulk in a different way and showed examples of two different house designs. He said that the 30' height is necessary to create the type of house that people are asking for, and the 30' height only has significant impacts when a large percentage of the rooflines is at that level. 3 c r M/S Guch /Callans to continue the public hearing to the June 2 Committee of the Whole meeting. Passed unanimously. The Commission asked staff to prepare another summary of issues for that meeting. - Meeting adjourned at'9:40 p.m.. Respectfully submitted Valerie Young Associate Pla ner CITY OF SRRATOGR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE_ Tuesday, June 2. 1987' 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Saratoga, CA TYPE: Committee -of- the - Whole /Rdjourned Regular Meeting on 003. Revision Revision of Design Review Regulations The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Harris, Burger., Tucker. Clay and Siegfried were present. Staff members present- Planning Director Hsia, City Attorney Toppel, Associate Planner Young. Five members of the public were present. M -07 -003 Revision pf Be-sign Review Reg_q. a�kians City Attorney Toppel briefly discussed the summary memo he prepared. The Commission decided to go through the items that still needed discussion and resolution. Commission Harris had a question on whether or not areas underneath deck and balcony projections were counted into the floor area. Mr. Toppel clarified that only areas that were "usable" or capable of being converted to living space were counted. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he didn't want the definition to penalize people for using second story decks and balconies to provide visual and architectural interest. ITEM D: Heioht limit Commissioner Siegfried said he still supports the 26' height limit, particularly in flat and infill areas, but does not want to have to make variance findings for houses above 26 feet. He suggested special findings or standards that must be met in order to go above 26', i.e. that only a small percentage of the roofline be at the 30' limit. Commissioner Clay said there were too many variations in building sites in Saratoga to impose a strict height limit. Commissioner Burger concurred with Commissioner Siegfried on the difficulty in -making variance findings. Planning Director Hsia reminded the Commission that the average height of approved residences in the past year was 28 ft., and suggested the Commission may want to consider a 28 ft. rather than 26 ft. limit. - Commissioner Harris noted that experience had.shown that 30' was too high and added to the bulk. Commissioner Clay said that many components add to the bulk of a houses not just height., Commissioner Tucker supported the 26' limit, noting that .variations in height could be used up to that limit. Planner Young noted that Commissioner Guch had called her with her comments, that she supported the 2G' height limit. ITEM E= Floor, area City Rttorney Toppel briefly summarized the issues. Commissioner - Siegfried expressed, support for keeping the G200 seq. ft. .floor area standard for R- 1- 40,,:000. NHR and HCRD districts, but could not support the use of the variance procedure to exceed the limit. He suggested special findings be developed so that applicants would know under what circumstances floor area could be -increased or decreased. Planner Young expressed staff's concern in trying to interpret the Commission's policies on floor area to the public. There was consensus among the Commission that the floor area standard for 40,000 sq_ ft. lots should remain at 6200 sq. ft_, and that special, detailed findings or criteria should be developed for exceeding the limit. ITEM F= Slope penalty City Attorney Toppel and Planner Young discussed the original. , intent of the slope penalty, i.e. that it would reduce the new floor area standards proposed for larger lots. They concurred that if the Commission decided to delete floor area standards for, lots _ larger than one acre, and decide each application case -by -case based on special findings, there was no need for the slope penalty after all. Commissioner Harris expressed concern at deleting the slope penalty altogether, because the Commission still needs a way to convey to the public that house size can be reduced if the slope is.'' significant. Commissioner Siegfried suggested putting the intent• of the slope penalty idea into words instead of numbers. 2 ih ITEM G- Setbacks Commissioner Harris noted her support of increased setbacks at the 18' height, especially for additions to existing structures. Her concern was for single -story homes adding height but not necessarily going to a second story. There was consensus-that, Commissioner Harris' concern was on infill situations and could be '.addressed kn the design manual, and that the increased setback should occur at the second story level, and that it should be a standard-, not a guideline. ITEM K- Findings Commissioner Harris asked that staff provide additional language to elaborate on and clarify the finding relating to perception of bulk. ITEM L= Replacement of destroyed structures Commissioner Harris read a letter.she received from an insurance company regarding this.: iteM_._- There was. consensus -that no additional changes were necessary. The public hearing was opened at 8 :10 p.m. Bill Heiss discussed the "floor area credit for open space" issue, and showed maps of two subdivisions to illustrate his point. He distributed a chart showing how the credit could be calculated...He reiterated that the slope penalty idea was a disincentive for the provision of common open space. Commissioner Siegfried and Mr. Heiss concurred that his concerns were moot if the slope penalty idea was deleted. Richard UVIe distributed a letter from Jerry Lohr, who could not attend the meeting. The letter opposed the 30' height limit, asked that the increased setbacks be a guideline rather than a standard and be required only'at the second story, suggested infill be . treated differently from new subdivisions,- and offered to participate in deoelopi.ng the design manual. � C Kurt Anderson, architect, expressed concern about the Commission taking a reactionary stance. He suggested developing the design manual first, then develop guidelines and standards after reviewing the ramifications of each proposal. He supports the use of an increased setback at the second story, regardless of the height of the house, and suggested that the slope penalty be applied only to the "buildable" area of the lot within the setbacks. He offered to help on the design manual,.. Wendell Roscoe., architect," suggested that architects, staff, and the Commission work together on-developing design standards. He emphasized that it was an education process of City officials letting the public know what kind of houses were acceptable. Commissioner Burger expressed her pleasure at finally receiving positive input on this issue from architects and developers. Kart Anderson also suggested that an aerial photograph be an application requirement, to better assess the relationship of the new structure to the neighborhood. Mr. Wyle stated this would be more appropriate for individual hillside lots rather than subdivisions in the flat areas. „ There was consensus among the Commission that the slope penalty issue be addressed in words rather than numbers, and-that it be backed up in the design manual.. There was also consensus that the increased setbacks should occur at the second story level. The Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare a revised ordinance incorporating areas of consensus and leaving open items still to be resolved.* Proposed ordinance will next be heard at a regular meeting. _. M/S Burger /Siegfried to continue the public hearing to the July 8, 1987 regular Meeting. Passed unanimously_ Meeting was adjourned at 9= 05,p.m. Respectfully Submitted, vw)A� Ualerie Yo n Associate P anner 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 12. DR -87 -073 J. Lohr Properties, 19569 Chardonnay Ct.; request for design review approval for a new two -story single family home -in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, July 8, 1987. The Public Hearing was opened at 7 :43 P.M. Mr. Steve-Lohr, Project Manager, reviewed the Application and noted that the proposed house would be built on an approved two -story lot and that height limitation of 26 ft. had been met. Dr. Wood, 19661 Junipero Way, Saratoga, .stated that he. had previously expressed the concern that too many two -story houses were being zoned for this area. This Application would exceed the one third limitation on two -story houses promised by Mr. Jerry Lohr during the zoning process. In addition, the house would appear massive from the Glen Brae side. Mr. Steve Lohr responded that the one -third limitation on two -story houses applied to the entire Congress Springs subdivision; a total of ten two -story houses on.twenty eight lots only slightly exceeded the one -third limitation promised. Commissioner Siegfried noted approval of the 682 sq. ft. garage with a first floor footprint of only 2400 sq. ft; he noted the appropriateness of the design presented for the,lot in question. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -073. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 13. AZO- 87-003 City of Saratoga, Revision of Design Review Regulations. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. Continued from May 13, 1987. The City Attorney, presented a revised Ordinance, June 30, 1987; he noted that f. Scope of Design Review, "the various circumstances requiring design review approval have not been changed" referred to the circumstances as compared to the previous draft Ordinance. He reviewed the draft Ordinance and noted that while there was a consensus that a mechanism be`included in the Ordinance to allow a height range of between 26 -30 ft., there was no specific agreement on the mechanism itself; he suggested.that roof area rather than roof line be used as the mechanism. A figure of 20% of total roof area extending to the 30 ft. height was suggested as the trigger for requiring a Variance application. Commissioner Siegfried favored allowing up to a 30 ft. height to accommodate design variables. Commissioner Burger favored the suggested made by the City Attorney since it allowed for architectural.interesL Architects were asked to address the acceptable percentage of roof area during the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing was opened at 7 :57 P.M. Mr. Wendall Roscoe, Architect, was pleased with progress made on the Design Review Ordinance and favored a 30% figure. He noted his objection to a massive.roof at the 26 fL height and would rather see an A -line roof which exceed the 26 ft height limitation in parL Mr. Bill Heiss,.Engineer, noted approval of draft Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and felt that any concerns he had were addressed in the draft presented Mr. Ray Cobb, Architect, favored the 30% figure. A letter from Mr. Kurt Anderson was submitted for consideration. V PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 8, 1987 . Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8iO4.P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried wished to defer to the Architect's-request for the 30% figure and noted that numerous variance requests would be requested if an.inadequate percentage were allowed; Planning Director Hsia suggested a compromise at 25 %. Commissioner Guch was not favorable to the 30% figure and stated that she strongly favored' a 26 ft. height limitation; she fclt that applicants would consistently seek the maximum height allowed. Commissioner Siegfried was agreeable to a 25% compromise; consensus reached that 25% was acceptable. Commissioner Clay noted the potential cumulative impact of a row of large homes, even though all requirements were met, which would result in '-a negative effect. He questioned whether the proposed Ordinance adequately addressed the relationship between bulk of a house, the property and the required setbacks. The City Attorney responded that other than the setback requirements imposed, it was at the discretion of 'the Commission in the design review process to require additional setbacks. Commissioner Burger concurred with the validity of the concern expressed by Commissioner Clay; she suggested that the issue be addressed by reaching a consensus on increased setbacks imposed on structures in excess of 26 ft. in height; Commissioner Guch noted that designs currently being submitted often had'stepped back fronts. Consensus reached by the Commission that initial work on the Handbook would begin immediately. SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -87 -003 WITH THE CHANGE THAT THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT ON STRUCTURES BE REDUCED TO 26 FEET AND THE 20% OF TOTAL ROOF AREA BE INCREASED TO 251k. Passed 6 -0. 14. V -87 -004 Imperial Savings, 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., request-for variance approval of plans to install a monument sign and increase the size of lettering on the existing fascia signs at -the -above location in the C -C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 10, 1987. Planning Director Hsia reviewed,the Report to.the Planning Commission, July 8, 1987 The Public Hearing was opened:at 8:22 P.M. Mr:- .David Uman, Federal Sign, Inc., made himself available for questions and questioned whether the 5 ft. limitation on height of the sign would include the bar and posts. He was agreeable to lowering the sign about a foot. He added that the sign would be illuminated with mercury vapor floodlights of 500 watts located at the ground level on either side of the sign; this lighting would be regulated by a time clock. Ms. Marlene Dippell, Imperial Savings, stated that the conference facilities were used,an average of 25 times a month. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the community's use of these - facilities was one of the reasons he,favored illumination of the sign during early evening hours. Ms. Dippell stated.thatthe illumination on the proposed sign could be coordinated with other illumination which went off at.9 P.M. The City Attorney noted that a special Permit for an externally illuminated sign was required; he added that the Code limited such illumination on signs to 200 watts. SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8 :30 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Staff recommendation. that the sign be.reduced to 5 ft. in height, measured to the top of the crossbar, excluding the posts. • t UTZW (Do 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: August 2 8, 1987 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava To: City Council David Moyl es Donald Peterson From: City Manager Subject: Design Review I have reviewed the final draft ordinance on design review amendments as submitted to the Planning Commission. Generally, I believe the changes being recommended will do much to remove the inconsistency of decision making which was Dart of the genesis for this project. I also believe it adequately addresses many of the concerns expressed by the Council in the past that the size and bulk of many homes was proof that design review was not working. As the City Attorney points out, there are several aspects of the Droposed ordinance which deviate substantially from the original draft put together by the staff and received by the Council a year ago. Some of these changes seem to be for the better; but, in my view, some do not. These are the items I wish to highlight. 1. Limiting house size to 6,200 square feet. Two differing standard are !eing aped, one for lots under 40,000 square feet and one for lots which are larger. On smaller lots a variance would be needed to exceed allowed house size; on larger lots no variance would be required. As I recall the Council's concern, it was to make it more difficult to place a big house on hillside lots. I don't think this objective will be achieved unless a) the slope penalty is restored or b) unless a specific finding is added to the general findings that the size of the lot and the terrain of the lot are consistent to accommodate the proposed size of the home, and that finding (d) in Section 15- 45,080 include size as well as height and bulk as criterion of compatibility. 2. Added setback for heights more than 22 feet. Council originally had t5is requirement go into efT—ect at 18 feet. Staff's experience with additions to existing homes and the concerns of neighbors was the original basis for the 18 foot limit. That concern has not changed. r To: City Council Subj: Design Review Page 2 8/28/87 3. Height limit of 26 feet except that uD to 25% of roof area can extend up to 30 feet. My concern here is tFie potential—for wrangT-Ing between aDplicant, staff and /or commission as to how the roof is measured, etc. 4. Requirement for Design_ Review by the Commission. I continue to believe that more of this wor- cou1-T`ano -s on a3Tbe done at the staff level. I would require design review by the Commission only for the following: 1) Houses which exceed 26 feet in height 2) Houses which would exceed 6,200 sq.ft. 3) Houses which are in the hillside zone and are two story 4) Houses on lots less than 5,000 sq.ft. 5) Conversion of single story to two story home 6) When it is a condition of Droject approval If these four changes are made to the proposed ordinance, I think we will have a reasonable, workable document. P. - jljorz*�/, 'Harry Peacoc jm