HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_09_02 Written communications -appeal
Items 9 – 11: Written Communications Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Saratoga City Council
From: Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk
Date: September 2, 2015
Subject: Items 6: Written Communications
After publication of the agenda packet for the September 2, 2015 City Council Meeting, the City
received the attached written communications for the following agenda items:
‐Item 6: Appeal of Design Review and Variance applications for a new two‐story residence at
21794 Heber Way.
From: Annie Lim [mailto:huoybing1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Michael Fossati <mfossati@saratoga.ca.us>
Cc: Howard Miller <hmiller@saratoga.ca.us>; Manny Cappello <mcappello@saratoga.ca.us>; Emily Lo
<elo@saratoga.ca.us>; Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar
<rkumar@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Comments on Staff Report for 21794 Heber Way Appeal
Dear Michael,
We are the homeowners of the immediately adjacent property to the applicant's proposed
building site at 21794 Heber Way.
We had the opportunity to read the staff report you prepared for the City Council regarding the
appeal of the application. We found a few things in the staff report that could be misleading and
inconsistent, and would like to respectfully bring them to your attention:
1) Under the section titled 'Planning Commission Review' on page 2, it was stated that "the
Planning Commission requested the applicant to address the following design consideration:
establish better consistency with architecture design, propose a smaller structure, and decrease
the mass of the residence by delineating the roof line." However, you have overlooked and failed
to include the most important recommendation given by the Planning Commission on October
22, 2014, which is to minimize the number and the scope of the setback variances. In fact, you
had the same misleading information in the earlier staff report you prepared for the Planning
Commission meeting on May 27, 2015 for the same application, and you were corrected by
Planning Commissioner Tina Walia during the meeting. On October 22, 2014, the majority of
the Planning Commission agreed that design review would follow after variance change.
Commissioner Walia was wondering how the guidance would be so seriously mistaken by the
staff. We were at the meeting and we heard her saying to you that "In 2014 I was on the Planning
Commission in October. I attended the meeting. I want to ask you what the direction was given
by this Commission. Five of the Commissioners are still here from the October 2014 meeting."
She also told you that "The issues you mentioned were brought up by me when my colleagues
did not even want to go into the design discussion. They only want to talk about the setbacks of
the variances, which I agree with by the way." She went on and said "What I heard was all of
us, seven of us, were saying we would like another look at the variance requests to be changed
on all three sides. In fact, a couple of my colleagues were very clear that they were more open to
the front setback variance versus the two side setback variances, and to look at reducing the size
of the house." We think clarifying and correcting the above misleading information is
important to move forward with this appeal before the City Council.
2) Under the section titled 'Background' on page 1, the requirement for the two side setbacks was
erroneously listed as 43 feet. The correct requirement for side setbacks should be 45 feet. You
also have the same typos in the first paragraph of another document titled 'Resolution for Denial'.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Han C. Lin & Annie Lim