Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2001 Planning Commission Packet• • ITEM 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: DR-00-056 and V-00-022/ 14800 Bohlman Road Applicant/Owner: JOHN M. Est ABBY SOBRATO Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Date: June 27, 2001 APN: 517-13-018, 517-13-019 Fst 517-12-001 Department Head: ®OQ~~ ~ r vvv ~vlLUllatt l~~au File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: November 2, 2000 June 13, 2001 June 13, 2001 June 8, 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STAFF ANAYSIS The applicant has requested approval of a Design Review, Variance and exceptions to grading and fencing requirements. The applicant desires to construct a dwelling that has 6,205 square feet on the main Iloor, 820 square feet on the lower floor for a total living area in the main house of 7,025 square feet. Additionally, there is 724 square feet that is vaulted space over 15 feet 5 inches and the pool house or pavilion is 1,350 square feet. The Variance request is to allow the total Iloor area to exceed the R1-40,000 limit of 7,200 pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 15-45.030 (d). A total square footage of 9,261 is being requested via the Design Review and Variance applications. Condition 24 of Resolution SD-99-003 states, "The fencing enclosure and grading regulation of the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance shall apply to lot 1 and 4. The applicant has requested exception to these requirements. Staff has discussed with the applicant that the fact that the restrictions to grading (1,000 cubic yards) and fence enclosure (4,000 square feet) were made as conditions of approval to the Tentative Tract Map and were not standard zoning ordinance sections or requirements that could be subject to variance or exception request as discussed in section 15-13-050 (f) and Section 15-29- 020. During the discussion with the applicant, it was suggested that the various applications be ~t•ithdrawn and that an application be made to revise the tentative tract map and its conditions. Mr. Sobrato indicated that since it was already advertised for a public hearing that he would like to discuss the house plans with the Commission. He further indicated that he would probably, at the end of the discussion, withdraw the application and resubmit the tentative tract map in order to request revised language to condition 24 of Resolution 99-003. Staff ad~~ised the applicant that a recommendation of denial of the applications would accompany the Staff Report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the application with findings as presented in the combined Resolution DR-O1-056 and V-00- 022. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution DR-00-056 and V-00-022 2. Resolution SD-99-003 3. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2000 4. Letter dated June 7, 2001 from Cindy Riordan 5. Plan set • • • ~E~®~~: File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road PROJECT STATISTICS ZONING: R1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Quasi Public Facilities (Was to be amended to Residential - Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Lot 1 of the Tentative Subdivision is 6.19 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 27% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 4,020 cu. yds. Max. Depth: varies 230 cu. yds. (pool) 2.40 cu. yds. basement Total Cut: 6,590 cu. yds. , Total Fill: 1,100 cu. yds. Max. Depth: varies Proposed Code Requirement/Allowance LOT COVERAGE: Existin 0 0 g Proposed: 3.5 /o Total: SETBACKS: Front: 330 ft. Right Side: 85 ft. Left Side: 95 ft. Rear: 170 ft. HEIGHT: 26 ft (above natural grade) • 000003 C T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. DR-00-056 AND V-00-022 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOBRAT0:14800 BOHLMAN ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review, Variance and exception to Grading and Fence Enclosure requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: ' The proposed project is not in accord with the objectives set forth by the Planning Commission in their approval of the Tentative Subdivision because the Proposed Project does not comply with the Conditions of Approval found in Resolution SD-99-003, condition #24 which limits the total amount of grading to 1,000 cubic yards and the project proposes to grade a total of 6,590 cubic feet and limits the total area enclosed by fencing to 4,000 square feet. And the project proposes to enclose 12,282 square feet. ' That the proposed single family dwelling does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as the building Iloor area is greater than allowed in the R-1-40,000 Zoned District section 15-45-030 (d). NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other ethibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of John M. Sobrato, DR-00-056 and V-00-022 is hereby denied. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 0~~©~S File No. DR-00-056 and V-00-022 -14800 Bohlman Road Chair, Planning Commission ArrEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • • ~®~®~6 Attachment 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur; 14800 Bohlman Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval of 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 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 are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated June 28, 2000 being hereby made for further particulars; 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 approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the En~~ironmental Initial Stud}J pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and finds that with the mitigation monitoring plan required as a condition of approval, there will not be a significant impact to the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council must approve of the General Plan Amendment to change the designation of Quasi Pubic Facilities to Residential -Very Lo~~ Density or this Tentative Map approval will be void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated September 22,1999 and is marked Exhibit "A' in the .herein above referred file; be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibits °A , B ~ • C", incorporated by reference. ~~o®Q~ 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: 3. a. Four (4) sets of complete Improvement Plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. ii. The Improvement Plans shall contain. a note with the following language: "In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to inspect the discovery. In the event that it is demonstrated that the discovery comprises an archaeological deposit which has not been historically disturbed, it will be the responsibility of the project manager to conduct necessary evaluative archaeological testing to demonstrate the potential scientific significance of any such discovery before any plans for mitigation of impacts are adopted by the City of Saratoga." b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ii. The grading plan shall contain a note with the following language: "In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to inspect the discovery. In the event that it is demonstrated that the discovery comprises an archaeological deposit which has not been historically disturbed, it will be the responsibility of the project manager to conduct necessary evaluative archaeological testing to demonstrate the potential scientific significance of any such discovery before any plans for mitigation of impacts are adopted by the City of Saratoga." i. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. c. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement for the pedestrian pathway, landscaping, irrigation and wall located within the public right-of-way shall be executed and recorded on a form prescribed Planning Division staff. d. T~vo copies of a re«sed landscape plan showing the columns at the entry to the cul-de-sac to be not more than eight feet in height measured to the top of the cap. The revised plan shall show the utility and pedestrian access easement between Lots 7 and 8 to be 25 feet wide. The Saratoga Cemetery District shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping fronting the existing Madronia Cemetery. C7 ®00008 4. Onsite construction trailers shall be sited near the project center away from existing neighborhood residents. All construction equipment, vehicles, and vehicles of workers, contractors, and subcontractors will be parked onsite. No construction related equipment, material, or vehicles shall be stored on Norton Road, Bohlman Road, Sixth Street or Oak Street. S. The parking of standby trucks for concrete, hauling, or any other construction related activity is not allowed on Norton Road, Bohlman Road, Sixth Street or Oak Street. _ 6. Construction, alteration or repair activities(for subdivision improvements as well as the construction of the residences) which are authorized by a valid Ciry of Saratoga permit, or which do not require the issuance of a Ciry of Saratoga permit, may be conducted only on weekdays between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM so long as the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA at Project property boundary. No such construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Construction noise should be reduced whenever possible. The City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. 7. Applicable construction conditions shall be included in any and all contracts with each and every contractor and subcontractor working on the Project. 8. Developer will make available to neighbors 24 hour access to a Project Manager to address concerns during the construction process. 9. Dust and erosion control will be maximized onsite and on streets in the adjacent neighborhoods shall be maintained in a manner to avoid the accumulation of mud and dirt in the streets. 10. Adequate litter and debris control must be provided in the surrounding neighborhoods and streets. 11. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits. Th` plan shall include the name and phone number(s) of the project manager, a plan for coordination of all subcontractors, circulation of construction vehicles, and locations of storage containers or construction trailers. 12. Future development of Lots 1 through 10 shall require Design Review approval. Building sites shall be consistent with the approved building envelopes and based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy. The location of any structures shall maximise tree preservation. 13. Each Design Review application shall include a Storm Water Retention Plan. 14. Each Design Review application shall require review by the Ciry Arborist. Q®009 15. Each Design Review application shall include a landscape plan. Landscaping shall include screening from adjacent residential properties. 16. Building pads shall remain identical from the Tentative Map to each Design Review application. 17. All structures shall designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment, minimize the appearance of mass and bulk and materials such as wood and stone should be used whenever possible to accomplish these design objectives. 18. No grading or building pad improvement work shall take place on the indi~~idual lots until Design Review applications have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 19. Prior to recording of the Final Map, the City Council must approve the General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Quasi Public Facilities to Residential-Very Low Density. 20. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall petition the City's Public Safety Commission to recommend appropriate traffic calming devices at the intersection of Sixth Street, Oak Street and Bohlman Road 21. Prior to completion of subdivision improvements, the applicant shall install any and all traffic calming devices recommended by the Public Safety Commission. In no case shall the cost to the developer exceed $10,000 for these devices. 22. The Final Map shall show the utility and pedestrian access easement between Lots 7 and 8 to be 25 feet wide. 23. Prior to Final Inspection of the subdivision improvements: The applicant shall improve Bohlman Road to a width of 18 feet with one-foot shoulders as required by the Public Works Department. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Public Works Department, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Di~~ision a report from a traffic engineer recommending a road improvement alternative keeping in mind the overall goal of preserving as many trees as possible. The traffic engineer's recommendations may range from no improvement to selective widening to the widening recommended by the Public Works Department. The engineer should also consider the use of traffic calming de~~ices. Planning staff will forward the report to the City's Public Safety Commission for consideration. of the recommended alternative(s). The Public Safety Commission shall notify the residents of the Bohlman Road area and hold a public meeting to discuss the alternatives and recommend a road improvement alternative to the Planning Commission. 24. The fencing enclosure and grading regulations of the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance shall apply to Lots 1 and 4. Q©~~~~ 25. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to prohibit future subdivision of the approved 11 Lots. 26. The Final Map shall indicate a landscape easement within the banks of the drainage courses on Lots 1, 2 and 4. The landscape easement shall require the areas within the banks of each drainage course to be left in a natural state and require any vegetation removed from the easement areas shall be replaced with native vegetation. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a list of acceptable replacement species prepared by a qualified biologist. 27. The existing trees on the east side of Bohlman Road and the remaining trees on the west side of Bohlman Road (after any widening) shall be pruned, watered and fertilized under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist. 28. The final landscape plan for the path along Bohlman Road shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permits. 29. A landscape plan showing primarily native plantings shall be submitted with each Design Review application. 30. If the improvement of Bohlman Road requires the installation of guardrails, the rail shall be limited to a double rail rather than the triple rail shown on the submitted improvement plan. 31. The pedestrian pathway, surrounding landscaping, the fence and gate shall be installed prior to Final Inspection of subdivision improvements. 32. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring plan. The plan shall contain all the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study with a chronological checklist for monitoring compliance. 33. Prior to submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a sample maintenance agreement or C,C~Rs that will bind the owners of the new lots to cooperate in the maintenance of the new private road, the landscaping and the path along Bohlman Road. CITY ARBORIST 34. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated May 20,1999 and June 15, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the improvement plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ~®001.x, b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the improvement plans as recommended by the Arborist with a note 'to remain in . place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or -be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 35. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $73,043 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 36. Prior to Final Inspection, one 52-inch box, five 36-inch box, and four five-gallon native trees shall be planted as replacements for the 41 removed trees. 37. Prior to Final Inspection approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 38. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction and demolition; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the Ciry of these super~~ision functions as they occur. CITY GEOLOGIST 39. In accordance with the City Geologist, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall: Prepare a qualitative characterization of individual landslide blocks within the large landslide complex using aerial photographs. b. Prepare a more detailed grading/mitigation plan (with hydraulic calculations) for the diverted stream channel that conveys water from Norton Road through the subject property. c. Update their regional and site specific geologic -maps and cross sections to show the recently acquired geologic information (borehole locations, geologic contacts, and lithologies along the road, within the subject property, and within the prominent unnamed stream channel located north of the subject property), landslide characterization, and appropriate set-back limits. d. Prepare a minimum of two geologic cross sections {l inch = 200 feet) that depict the regional topography and subsurface structure through the landslide area and through the recently investigated exploratory drilling area. e. Prepare a minimum of three geologic cross sections (1 inch = 60 feet) that depict more detailed surface and subsurface geologic conditions underlying the subject property. f. Prepare several design-level geologic cross sections (1 inch = 20 feet) through the more sensitive areas that show the relationships between proposed building envelopes, set-back limits, and steep slopes, landslides, or other potential geologic hazards. g. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final Tentative Map and related plans to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. h. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the City for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to Final Map approval. i. The geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. Structures should be demolished and areas of loose debris should be removed prior to site construction. Geotechnical field inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, grading inspection, fill compaction testing, roadway pavement section preparation, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project on an As-Built Map and Cross Sections and described in a letter(s) or report(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to finalization of the subdivision improvements. 40. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated v~~ith the Ciry Geotechnical consultant's review of the project prior to Final Map approval. 41. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall enter into. agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 42. Developer shall install five fire hydrants that meet the Fire District's specifications (1,500 gallons per minute). Hydrants shall be installed and accepted pnor to construction of any building. ~®~©g.~ 43. All fire hydrants shall be located within 500 feet of each residence and deliver no less than 1,000 gallons of water per minute for a sustained period of two hours. 44. All driveways shall have a 14 foot minimum width plus one foot shoulders. 45. Driveway curves shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. For some lots the following shall apply: 46. Automatic sprinklers will be required for. some of the new residences. A 4-head calculated sprinkler system - is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 47. Construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33 foot outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the Building Plans and approved by the Fire District. 48. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the Building Plans and approved by the Fire District. For all lots the following shall apply: 49. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. 50. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance v~~ith the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 51. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 52. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. PUBLIC WORKS 53. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 00004 54. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within Winery (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Director. ~5. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the, Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 76. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either rior to recordation of P the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. ~7. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. ~8. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: a. Bohlman Road within the limits of subdivision shall be widened as required to provide 18 foot minimum paved width with one-foot shoulders. Included as part of the road widening, a left turn lane shall be constructed at the ~QD®~.5 entrance to the subdivision with a minimum total paved width of 32 feet and a minimum stacking length of 90 feet. In addition, the City reserves the right to require specific road widening on Bohlman Road beyond the limits of the northerly boundary of the subdivision up to Sixth Street to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. These additional requirements, if required, will be generated during the finalization of the subdivision improvements. b. A five foot wide asphalt concrete pedestrian walkway shall be constructed along east side of Bohlman Road from Norton Road to Oak Street. - A storm drain system shall be designed and constructed to mitigate any existing drainage problems, which currently impact adjacent properties, and so that post development drainage is not increased. The proposed storm drain system shall outfall into Saratoga Creek via Bohlman Road, Sixth Street and Big Basin Way. 59. After storm drain installation, Sixth Street and part of Bohlman Road between Sixth Street and Norton Road shall be overlaid with 2" of asphalt concrete including a layer petromat. 60. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 61. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 62. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 63. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 64. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Director with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 65. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to Public Works Department. 66. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 67. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City Engineer. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval and maintained on site at all times during construction of the subdivision improvements. 68. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 69. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents within S00 ft. of the property at least five calendar days prior to commencement of construction in such form as determined by the Public Works Depamnent. The applicant (owner) shall reimburse the City the full cost of providing such notice prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence work on the project. 70. All requirements of the West Valle Sanitation District San ose Water C y J ompany, County Environmental Health Division, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be met. CITY ATTORNEY 71. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 72. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. • ~®~©~'7 Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, Ciry and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13`h day of September 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • air, Plannin ni ion ATTEST: cr ary, Pl g Commission C~ ~0~®~,8 - ~ Attachment 3 MnvuTEs SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bang, Bemald, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe, and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioner Patrick Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Pearson, and City Attorney Taylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -August 9, 2000 COMMISSIONERS KUR.ASCH/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED,; COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Page 4, paragraph 9, add: "Commissioner Barrv declined to state further comments until she heard fro the remaining Commissioners." Page 10, paragraph 4, line 1: Commissioner Bernal asked if the discussion went further than the read narrawe-~ size of the driveways. Page 14, paragraph 3, line 7: "....save the trees and keep the nature of the properh~." Page 14, paragraph 3, line 10: "....and how much easier it was to for them to accept inconveniences ~~ in other ways...." Page 14, paragraph 5, line 5: "She said she is not stat~g lacin a value on that statement;...." Page 16, paragraph 4, line 4: "....related, not necessarily to how large the building is going to be...." ORAL COA9A1UNICATIONS There was no one from the audience who wished to address any issues not on the agenda. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections to the a ends acket. g P 000019 ,Planning Commission h .utes September 13, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Guidice said he would if somebody like Barrie Coates agreed that the tree had a likeliness to survive after that sort of movement. Commissioner Barry said she would be willing to approve this proposal with the condition that Commissioner Bernald suggested, with Barrie Coates' approval, and if the owners would be v~•illing to move and replace the tree, she would agree to this. Mr. Guidice said that speaking on behalf of the applicant, they are looking forward to getting approval for this, so he would agree to give it a try. Director Walgren suggested that the condition be written so that it is subject to the City Arborist recommendation whether it is preferable to try to remove this tree. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-00-013 WITH THE CONDITION STATED BY DIRECTOR WALGREN THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ARBORIST (BARRIE COATES) BE FOLLOWED. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. SD-99-003, UP-00-001 & GPA-00-001 (517-13-018, 517-13-019, 517-12-001) - SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and the SARATOGA CEMETERY DISTRICT, 14800 Bohlman Road (site of the former Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur) and 14766 Oak Street ('.Madronia Cemetery); Request for Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of the 23.5 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 6.2 acres to 40,913 square feet. Minor road widening and the development of a sidewalk along Bohlman Road are proposed. Use Permit approval is requested to transfer two acres to the Saratoga Cemetery District for the expansion of the Madronia Cemetery. A General Plan Amendment is necessary to change the General Plan designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Residential- Very Low Density. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTIi~'UED FROM 7/12/00) Assistant Planner Pearson presented the staff report, noting that 10 lots would be for residential use and the 1 1 ~' lot would be transferred to the Saratoga Cemetery District, for which a use permit is pending for the expansion of Madronia Cemetery. He reported that all of the components of the application have been presented and discussed at two previous public hearings. The prime issue to be resolved remains the improvement of Bohlman Road. Although traffic will be reduced as a result of the project compared to the previous use of the property by the Sisters of Notre Dame and Montessori School, the applicant has agreed to improve this existing substandard road to a width of 18' with one-foot shoulders on each side. Many neighbors have been commenting at the previous two public hearings that most of them aze in favor of road safety improvements and that as many trees be retained as possible. Mr. Pearson conveyed that the applicant had originally proposed widening the road on the eastside of the property (project side of Bohlman Road), and many lazge mature trees would have been lost under that scenario; however, the current proposal would widen the road on the westside, the opposite side of the project. The difference in tree removal is that 14ordinance-protected trees will be lost in the current proposal, • • • ®~~®~~ Planning Commission Minu. September 13, 2000 Page 4 whereas 44 trees would have been removed by widening the road on the east side. The road improvement plan indicates the trees that will be removed and indicates two significant oak trees that will be retained. He said an adequate right-of--way exists surrounding the property, and a parcel map was recorded in 1978, when the right-of--way was offered to the City. That offer was not accepted by the City, but will be upon improvement of the road by the Public Works. Department. Mr. Pearson stated that some neighbors and citizens would still like to see a downhill lane as previously discussed at meetings, and this would result in the existing road remaining the same and a new dowTtltill lane being created where the existing driveway to where the current facility is located. He said the Public Works Department has recommended against this alternative and the City Attorney has warned against making such a requirement. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan which shows a wooden fence similar to the one installed at the Saratoga subdivision across from Saratoga High School, and shows a meandering path to allow for more landscaping between the path and proposed fence. The plan also shows 9' tall entry columns at the intersection of the new cul-de-sac; staff is recommending those be approved at 8 feet so that no variance is necessary for that height, and the applicant has agreed to that condition. Mr. Pearson noted that the Saratoga Cemetery District has also submitted a landscape plan, which shows the gate columns at 10 %' tall,.and staff is recommending an 8' height; however, the additional height could be approved as part of the use permit application. Staff is recommending approval of the cemetery 7' tall gate and 6 %' tall columns proposed as part of the wrought iron fencing around the cemetery portion of the property. Mr. Pearson reported that staff had received several letters regarding this project since the memo in the agenda packet was prepared. He said a letter dated September 13"' from Keith and Cyndy Riordan indicated they did not wish to see any widening of Bohlman Road. They are in favor of keeping all the trees on the propem and believe that making the road wider would allow people to drive faster on the road. Another letter dated September 12`~ from Frank and Laurie Nemec suggesting that a gated connection from Norton Road through the development to connect the Montalvo Heights be used as an emergency access. They also recommend as an option that a separate downhill lane be created on the existing driveway of the property. They are v~illing to pay part of a fair purchase price of the developer's land to accomplish this alternative. A letter dated September 7~' from Dave Holt supports leaving the existing road unchanged and creating an additional one-way downhill lane. He would want to see the tree tunnel remain and increased safety. Reggie Holt submitted a letter dated September 7~'stating that she believes the widening of Bohlman Road would still not make the road wide enough for two lanes of traffic. Another letter from Gail and Doug Cheeseman expresses a desire to preserve Bohlman Road as it is; protect the oak trees along the road; consider runoff created from widening the road; and note that the Bohlman Road hillside is unstable. A letter dated Septemberl 1`" from Joyce and Vincent Nola supports adding the second lane to carry the downhill traffic for fire safety reasons. Another letter dated September 10`~ from Mr. and Mrs. Williams wishes to see a downhill lane on the other side of the existing trees. They believe that the proposed road widening would create 6-8' retaining walls and question whether there is an adequate easement on the property to accommodate the road widening. They also question whether the proposal would increase the litter along the road. A letter dated September 13`" from David Pearce notes that he brought his property from a developer who developed the property across Bohlman from the project. Mr. Pearce noted that that developer was required to give up one of five lots for the Hakone Gardens parking lot and also required to install a private water system, and questions why one developer on one side of the street was required to make far more substantial concessions than is being asked of the developer on the other side of the street, and for that reason prefers seeing the divided road as a fair requirement asked by the City. However, if the proposed alternative or the applicant's proposal is approved, he would like to see the retaining walls kept to a minimum and guard rails eliminated where possible. ®~~2~ Planning Commission i.__.utes September 13, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Pearson noted this is the third public meeting on this project, and staff is recommending that an action be taken this evening. Staff is recommending that the Commission vote to adopt the Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration; that the Commission recommend approval of the General Plan amendment to the City Council; that the Commission vote to approve the subdivision resolution with one of the road improvement alternatives; and that the Commission vote to approve the use permit application by the Saratoga Cemetery District. Mr. Pearson noted that the Saratoga Fire Chief was present to answer any questions regarding fire safety on Bohlman Road. ~ . Responding to Commissioner Betnald's inquiry regarding the width of the road, Mr. Pearson responded that the road ranges from the narrowest point of approximately 12' and goes to about 17' wide. Commissioner Roupe expressed regret that he was unable to attend the previous meetings; however, he had an opportunity to review both the videotapes and minutes of the June 28`~ and July 12~' Commission meetings. He said he was prepared to act on this application tonight. However, he asked exactly what was the opinion of staff regarding the relative level of traffic on this road arising as a result of this project, and asked for the database reference. Director Walgren responded that first of all, the amount of traffic being generated by this project on the local roadways is typically determined by -and this is completely separate from the road safety issue -how that road traffic impacts the level of service of that road and what percentage of the roadway vehicle numbers the development is generating. In this case, 10 new homes generating approximately 100 traffic trips per day or a little bit more because of the estate home anticipated in the original staff report. The traffic amount that this development is generating onto Bohlman Road is relatively negligible given the volume that the road can cam in a capacity sense. The second way to address the question is the amount of traffic being generated by this project as opposed to what could currently be generated by the property, or the net increase in traffic. He said it is understood that the Montessori School has not been operating for sometime, though they could legall~• reopen the school and recommence class activities, and what the traffic analysis has noted is that with school traffic and with the novitiate traffic at full usage -which it has not been in many, many years -this project is reasonably expected to generate less traffic than would have been generated if the school had continued and the novitiate had continued in some capacity. And that is the baseline under which the city is required to operate. Lastly, he noted the traffic analysis prepared, which was one of the many studies that were done as part of the Environmental Initial Study that was first presented back in June. Commissioner Kurasch asked if that was a typical line of analysis for other projects or if an example was a~~ailable. Director Vl%algren responded that one needed to start with what is the baseline, then what is a particular project generating to that baseline. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it was not something that was not necessarily existing, but perhaps something in the past. Director Walgren responded that it is something that is existent and that is based on the fact that the school facility has the right to continue to operate as a school. If, for example, this application did not go forward, the Montessori school could take up right where they left when they vacated the premises when this application was submitted, so that is a current potential activity. Commissioner Kurasch stated she wanted to get a little perspective on the controversy on the trees, the road, and the placement, and asked if Mr. Coates was present today. ©~®~22 Planning Commission Minut_~ September 13, 2000 Page 6 Director Walgren responded that Mr. Coates was not present today. Commissioner Kurasch commented that she wanted to get a synopsis to better understand the impacts of the proposals on the trees. Referring to the nu-al redwoods along Bohlman, she understood from part of Mr. Coates' analyses that the problem with one or the other proposal is the impact on the tree routes and the placement of the road. She said the existing road is not buildable because the roots is something she would like explored, and the other is the placement of a secondary road. ~ She asked whether Mr. Coates gave an idea of, or whether it was possible for him to give an idea of, the area affected. Director Walgren conveyed that from the outset the desire has been to retain as many of these significant trees as possible. It is known from driving on Bohlman Road, there are sections of the road as narrow as 12' where two cars have to come to a stop to get around each other. It is an unsafe condition. The design objective of the City, and therefore, the applicant, has always been to retain as many trees as possible and to have as little impact as possible. The first go-around of this project, widening the road to 20', which was the absolute minimum acceptable standard, was designed to retain pretty much all of the trees. A handful of trees came out, but when the City Arborist looked at that, it is not possible to build a new road up to the edge of the tree and expect it to survive. Upon a more careful review by the City Arborist, 40 trees in the interior of the development would have to be removed if the road was widened to the interior. One of the several alternatives that were investigated yesterday in detail with the City Arborist was going up Bohlman Road and literally identifying each of 14 trees on the westside that would have to come out, so the comparison based on that very careful review is approximately 40 trees to the east, approximately 14 trees -which the arborist generally feels are of lesser value - to the west and that does not preclude the other alternative of not doing anything if the loss of 14 trees is too great of a canopy loss along Bohlman. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the other altemative of the second road was explored. Director Vl'algren responded that the other alternative that has been discussed is using the existing novitiate drive~vav as a secondary one-way road, and the most immediate constraint to that is that at the north end of the property where the significant redwoods are, extensive roots grow across the driveway into the lawn area. A secondary road would not be able to put out that driveway location. It would have to be put 20-40' interior and then have the merging convergence issues. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether there was any number to quantify that or a particular area that would have to be left for the trees. Director «'aleren responded there was, and the Arborist felt that would be approximately 30-40' to start the road~•ay a~•ay from those redwoods. From where that driveway is visually seen, the new road would then have to be another 10-20' interior before that edge would start to remove significant roots of the redwood trees, which again would destroy the trees, which defeats the purpose. Commissioner Bang reinforced what Mr. Pearson said about the concerns at issue here -the safety concern that was widely stated by the neighbors, and the concern to preserve the trees. She asked if Mr. Coates inventoried the trees on the downhill side prior to yesterday's site visit, and Mr. Pearson responded he had not. Commissioner Barry said she would appreciate it if Mr. 'Pearson would go over in more detail than Commissioner Kurasch the comment that Barrie Coates made about the really large redwood trees that are at the boundary of the Sisters property. She wanted to make sure that every body hears, before getting into the ®~~023 Planning Commission l~. _.utes September 13, 2000 Page ~ public hearing, what 1VIr. Coates said would happen to those heritage trees on the Sisters' property if a second road is put in. Mr. Pearson replied that the point that Mr. Coates tried to convey to the Commission a•as that if the road were widened or a new road built on either side of those redwood trees that were within 20'. it would be degrading the structural components of the tree so that the tree is going to be susceptible to falling do~•n in a windstorm; however, if the road is moved far away enough from the tree so that the structure is preserved, it. could be a problem with the way the roots are growing toward the lawn azea on the other side of the existing driveway. They-aze all rather shallow roots, and even if the road is built at possibly 30-40' away from the trees, a lot of the roots that bring water to the tree could be damaged. He said Mr. Coates' comment w•as that the trees may be in danger even if the road were moved 30' from the trees. Commissioner Barry asked what was the total size and width of the path that the applicant is proposing, and Mr. Pearson responded the width of the path is 4 '/z' and it meanders between the roadway and the proposed wooden fence. He would have to check the cross sections to see exactly what the distance is from the road to the fence. He said the 4 %i' was a total combination to accommodate a pedestrian pathway and a bicycle pathway. Commissioner Barry commented that the main issue to decide tonight is the roadway. However, she feels there are a number of issues about the subdivision itself that also have to be addressed, but she will hold those until later in the discussion. Commissioner Bernald raised two questions. She is curious to know how safe it would be when the two roads merge at Bohlman and 6`" or through the cemetery if there is a good line of sight to create a clear advantage, or would that be a safety hazard. Also, would this still permit the cemetery to attain the land that they had hoped to attain from the purchase of acreage. 1\1r. Pearson responded that the cemetery could still acquire some land, although their portion would be smaller, but it is up to the applicant, Mr. Sobrato, and the cemetery district, if that arrangement is still going to be feasible. Regarding whether the downhill lane intersection has been studied, a traffic engineer has not studied the safety of the road diverging and converging, and although the Public Works Department has been presented ~~ith the idea, they do recommend against it just on the fact that it is a windy road. He said it is a relatively shoe section of road that would be divided that they feel that it would not be a safe situation in this case to have the road separating and then rejoining at the bottom of the hill. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Pearson if he recalled whether Mr. Coates did or did not point out definite signs of diseases on the oaks on the westside that would indicate that the trees might be in a failing situation Mr. Pearson responded there were several, probably half to two-thirds of the trees that are proposed to be removed, which Mr. Coates noted as having poor structure and medium health because a lot of the trees are already being crowded by the road, and due to the fill from this side of the road, the trees are not growing in ideal conditions, and a good portion of the trees were not rated very high. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Pearson if he could agree with her that there were some trees with obvious signs that cars and trucks have already nut into them and have been removed. Chairman Page asked Commissioner Barry whether she had a question of the ~. City Attorney, and she responded she was going to wait until later. • Planning Commission Minti._ _ September 13, 2000 Page 8 Director Walgren said the City Attorney is available to answer any specific questions the Commissioners may have. Commissioner Barry preferred to wait until after the public hearing. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m Phil Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, representing the Saratoga Cemetery District, expressed concern with lowering the height of the pillars going into the historic cemetery. The cemetery has been around since 1856, making it the oldest public institution in the community. It has been recommended that it come do~~n from 10.4' on the drawing to 8'. It presently has a 12' arch on the property, and lowering it dorm is fine and works; however, they think it still makes the representation for the community and the representation for the cemetery significant and attractive. They would have concenn if it went any lower than that. It is important to keep the heritage of the cemetery as much as possible. He requested consideration in that regard. In addition, the gate is also in proportion to the size of the pillars, and he requested consideration to allow use of the pillars. Commissioner Batry asked if there was presently a gate, and Mr. Boyce responded there is a gate and a very large arch, but it is unlrnown when it was put in. Chairman Page asked whether the arch would remain, and Mr. Boyce replied that the arch would come down, and is the reason they are concerned with taking it down so low that there is no representation of the cemetery which contains the historic remains of many folks who had lived in this community for a long, long time. Responding to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Boyce said they have been asked to take down the arch that says Madronia on it, noting it is as much a safety issue as anything else at the present time. It has been there a long time. He said it is not supported as well as it should be in today's world. However, the intent is to put in 10' arches which are two feet lower and put plaques on them identifying the cemetery and its hours of operation. John Sobrato, 14420 Evans Lane, Saratoga, applicant, said he had plenty of questions of staff, beginning with a question to make sure he was accurate. He asked if the 18' width that he proposed to widen Bohlman Road ~~ith the 1' shoulder on each side was the City standard for a hillside road because it was not clear to him from some of the remarks that were made. Mr. Pearson replied that it is actually below the standard, but it was seen as a compromise from what the road currently exists today, and to bring it up to a full standard would probably be 11-12' travel lanes rather than 9' travel lanes, and 9' was agreed on to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Sobrato commented he was under the impression that the hillsides had a different standard for streets than elsewhere. Director Walgren stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requirement is 26' in the hillsides for brand new roads which is two travel lanes and a parking lane, but with 20', 18' with opposing one-foot shoulders is the minimum fire safety code requirement. It is also the minimum requirement for a private access road, and it is an accepted minimum standard that allows two travel lanes, but it is less than the 26' width which is in the subdivision ordinance for hillside roads. ~~0o2J Planning Commission 1\ ...utes September 13, 2000 Page 9 Mr. Sobrato thanked staff for clarifying that. He said in working with City staff, a solution was developed that addresses both the aesthetic and safety concerns associated with the substandard condition of Bohlman. By constructing a 1-3 ''/2' retaining wall, which is relatively small in stature and would not be visible from the street as it will face downhill, he can widen the road where necessary to create this minimum acceptable 18' width road with one-foot shoulders. He said he would be improving the situation even further b~~ the construction of the path as was proposed originally on the eastside of the redwood trees, to remove both bike and pedestrian traffic from the road. He said this is a dramatic difference from what exists today. The present situation has a 12' wide road enforced in places with no provision for pedestrian or bike traffic. and there is talk about changing that from 12' minimum to 18' with song-foot shoulder and there are many, many roads in Saratoga where bike lanes consist of one-foot shoulders, plus he would be providing essentially what is a sidewalk 4 %' which is probably best described as a meandering sidewalk on the other side of the trees, which is also a City standard width for a sidewalk. C~ • Mr. Sobrato said that the solution requires removal of approximately 14 trees as was described in the staff report. For the benefit of those in the audience, a tour was held yesterday with the Planning Commission and the Ciry Arborist and they went tree by tree. He noted that Mr. Coates can very quickly assess the health and the structure of a tree by looking at it, almost instantly he can point out flaws and problems with the growth, and he concluded unequivocally that it was the decision of the Planning Commission to widen the road, leave it as it is. He asked the Commission to make a decision. He said if the road is widened, it should be widened to the downhill side. The redwood trees are more valuable than the oaks which have a variety of problems stemming from the fact that they're adjacent to the power lines and have been hacked back by PG&E, and due to the fact that when Bohlman was constructed or repaved over the years, there is a situation where the trees that exist on the Westside of the road bases are below grade and that is a very poor situation, at least as he understood it listening to Mr. Coates regarding the trees' long-term survival. On the issue of safety, he thinks it is very safe. There are some in the neighborhood who have willingly purchased homes at the end of a long substandard road, knowing that their safety would be compromised over other locations in Saratoga, and nov~, all of a sudden having done that, having elected to purchase a house on anon-hillside road, they come down and cry that their lives are in jeopardy, and while he does not necessarily believe that they are entitled to improved safety at his expense, he has agreed from the very beginning if it was the desire of the communit}~ and the desire of the Planning Commission to improve the safety condition on Bohlman Road, that he would widen Bohlman Road to 18' to do that. He has agreed to do that unilaterally from the beginning, and unfortunately, there are still people apparently in the community that feel that this is not good enough, that they want two roads that will then lead to the same substandard three-mile road up Norton and Bohlman, and he feels this suggestion is nonsensical, and that is why he has refused to study it or consider it, also knowing full well that the City has no legal authority to demand that kind of dedication. What has been most disappointing for him and again, really directed more at the neighborhood than anything else, he frankly expected to be praised for solving the safety problem, and read in the Saratoga News that he is insensitive; inflexible, yet he's taking a 12' road that is clearly a safety hazard and making an 18' road and pulling the bikes and pulling the pedestrians off the road in the process. He said it is very unfortunate for many in the community that that is not good enough. At this point, after three meetings, obviously he has gotten to the point where he has given up trying to please everyone. He said the Commission had before them a subdivision that meets every single requirement of the General Plan and your zoning. He has played by all the Ciry rules, and after 18 months of study, three Commission meetings, he respectfully requests that the Commission finally take action and approve his application with the conditions that have been recommended by staff, all of which he has agreed to. Commissioner Roupe commented that the site visit yesterday was focused on the trees on both sides of the road. It was observed by Mr. Coates that the trees -which everyone is so sensitive about -the redwoods and evergreens along the eastside of the road were suffering apparently from lack of watering or some other ~~0~~6 Planning Commission Minu. September 13, 2000 Page 10 problems. He asked Mr. Sobrato whether he would be willing to accept a condition of the development is that during the construction period that he would initiate a program of irrigation and feeding as would be recommended by Mr. Coates to assure the continued survival of those trees. Mr. Sobrato responded he would, and would need to engage in some sort of periodic watering before the construction occurs, and, as part of his proposal, the landscape path that he is creating will provide the opportunity to install some sort of irrigation system on the trees. Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Sobrato would be willing, as part of this road renovation activity, to have a professional arborist or tree person come in and look after the care and pruning of the trees that v~~ll remain on the westward side of the road. Mr. Sobrato replied he would be willing. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the road, and asked Mr. Sobrato if he had engineer calculations done for the estimated size of the retaining wall that would be necessary. Mr. Sobrato responded that they had been done. He said it had been two months since the last Planning Commission hearing and that was partly because of scheduling and partly so he could take the time to analyze what was requested. In the package of documents in the agenda packet, sections have been created for the road at various stages along Bohlman and from those sections, one can see both the height of the retaining wall as proposed, the amount of fill that would be involved, the increase in the paved surface, as well as the change from the current conditions. They are not engineered plans to build from, but they are very detailed conceptual plans and capture the critical facts and figures pertaining to retaining walls and those kinds of things. Commissioner Kurasch commented that until soils tests and other geologic tests are done, it really will not be kno~~~n and that may change. Mr. Sobrato responded that an extensive geologic study of the entire area has been done. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the staff report, which says that at the last meeting, the Commission concluded that some of the standards that reflect the hillside residential zoning could be applied to the higher sloped lots in one subdivision, and one is over 38 percent average slope. She said Mr. Sobrato was disagreeing or objecting to that and the limited easement around the drainage to the west of lots #1 and #4. She asked him to explain his objections. Mr. Sobrato responded that his objections were based on the fact that they were not applied to all equally. He said the focus appears to be on the two things he has objected to instead of the 65 conditions he has agreed to. He acknowledged that he did object to the divided road and to applying hillside standards. He said the purpose of a scenic easement is for a ridge top or something that is visible from the public, assuring that the public maintains a continued ability to view that area. Here there is no portion of the property that is visible from public rights-of--way. He has proposed not to develop in those areas and very carefully sited the building lots and building envelope so as to avoid any heavily treed, sensitive environmental area. One of the reasons for only ten lots on 23 acres is that he went to great pains from the very first day to lay out this project in such a way as to not impinge at all on the seasonable drainage canal or channel in other areas as well as to make sure he had very significant setbacks from the adjacent neighbors, which is why he had the support of every single adjacent neighbor. The only people who have opposed it are the people that are up Bohlman Road and want him to solve ahundred-year old safety problem. That is the opposition, as he sees it. ®®0®a2"~ .. Planning Commission A ..utes September 13, 2000 Page 11 Commissioner Kurasch noted that the opposition were his neighbors, too, and Mr. Sobrato responded that was the reason he proposed to solve it. Commissioner Jackman, noting the sidewalk is a City standard sidewalk, said it was not wide enough to put bicycles there, too, and asked if Mr. Sobrato would be willing to go another foot or so. Mr. Sobrato replied that one of the problems is that without further study, he is trying to meet all of the City standards for lot requirements and with 48,000' corner lots, 40,000' full lots and the proposed dedicated land, etc. the plan has gotten tight, and as the fence continues to be pushed back, he may not meet Ciry standards. Commissioners Barry and Kurasch thanked Mr. Sobrato for all his effort and work he has done. Commissioner Barry said that hopefully, the Commission will arrive at some conclusion tonight. She was unsure that it would, but it would make a good faith effort to do so. She said there are some issues and it is only natural to bring up those issues to Mr. Sobrato. She asked him not to take offense because the Commission is bringing up what it sees as legitimate issues. She asked him if he had an estimate of the longevity of the trees on the eastside, the downhill side, and the cliff side. Mr. Sobrato responded that Mr. Coates said, for example, where there is a grade that is above the base of the trees, those trees get beetle-infestations and their life expectancy is shorter than those not impacted. .A discussion ensued regarding the trees. It was noted that no one asked Mr. Coates for an estimated life expectancy of the trees, but the scale was 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest. Mr. Sobrato agreed that Mr. Coates was not asked. He said he did not think those trees were in imminent danger of failing. The more critical thing in Mr. Coates' mind was 4 for structure because by looking at the trees. they have been completely hacked up. He said these are not beautiful, graceful oak trees that are in many locations throughout the property that he is proposing to preserve. In many cases, they were stubs of an oak tree from PGSE pruning them back to avoid power outages. Commissioner Barry agreed with Mr. Sobrato that there were some trees that looked better than others. She referred to Commissioner Kirsch's question regarding hillside residential requirements. She said some of the Commissioners hiked up to the subject lot and asked if it would be fair to say it was quite a hike. 1\'Ir. Sobrato replied that there was no question it is a hike to get up there now because there is no road access. But it also has the exact same topography as the Montalvo Heights Court and Montalvo Heights Drive homes that abut it, none of which have hillside zoning. Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Sobrato would be willing to commit to lots #1 and #4 (which may be capable theoretically of subdivision) be subject to no father subdivision. Mr. Sobrato responded yes, noting he had offered that several months ago. He said there were some technical issues about how that would be done, but he is fully willing to record something that would prevent it in the future. Responding to an inquiry from Chairman Page, Director Walgren said if the Commission could simply adopt that as a condition, it would, but there are Subdivision Map Act prohibitions against putting those kinds of conditions on a subdivision. It is something that has been tested in courts previously, so if the applicant is OOU028 Planning Commission Minut. . September 13, 2000 Page 12 agreeable to it, it can certainly be done, but it has to be done through some kind of a development agreement or deed restriction which staff can certainly follow up on if the applicant is agreeable to it. Chairman Page said there was a discussion by staff to reduce the height of the entrance towers of the current road, and asked Mr. Sobrato if he was agreeable to that. Mr. Sobrato answered that he proposed 10' to 8'. He did not think 10' was inappropriate for the entrance to the subdivision, but in the grand scheme of things, that's a minor issue with him. Chairman Page directed a question to City Attorney Taylor. He said since Mr. Sobrato raised the issue of the Commission's ability to take some land for this road, it would have to be at least 30' away from where it is according to what he heard Mr. Coates say. If the project is moved 20' in, there is going to be significant damage to the redwoods. He asked to understand what rights the City has and what the basis for those might be. City Attorney Taylor responded that based on the facts as he understands them it would be difficult to impose that condition. The courts have held in the Supreme Court in the last several years that local government exactions of land from property owners in connection with development approvals have to be roughly proportional to the impact that the project is having on the community, and the data currently available indicates that there is very little impacts with respect to Bohlman Road. It is not as though this project is itself generating the need for expansion of Bohlman Road. It is a preexisting problem, and the courts have • taken local government's to task for asking developers to entirely shoulder the burden of preexisting problems. He said that is not to say that the City does not have the power to look at the extent to which this project is creating problems and to get reasonable dedications, but from his discussions with the Planning staff, it does not appear that there is a sufficient nexus to support a complete dedication. The Ciry would be free to negotiate with the property owners that it would be interested in buying this land, and the City could establish some kind of financing mechanism to do that. It would change the project, but in terms of imposing a condition on the subdivision application, under these particular facts might be difficult. Chairman Page asked from a legal purview, what would be reasonable. City Attorney Taylor replied that the pathway would require going into a whole different set of questions. Focusing only on the roadway, the data that he has seen is that this project increases traffic by 8 percent. That's a starting point. One would need to consider the factors that make the problem maybe a little bit worse than 8 percent, and at the same time, ask if there are there factors that would make it a little less than 8 percent. He said the Ciry would want to go through and engage in a detailed nexus study and typically, local governments require those kind of improvements where there is a clear evidence of an impact. Commissioner Barry asked if it would be a fair statement that before asking the City Attorney about amounts that the Commission ought to on its own decide what it thinks it needs, given health and safety issues and other kinds of issues City Attorney Taylor stated that the question to ask is what are the impacts that the project is having to the community on health and safety and then looking at those impacts, what are possible solutions to those problems and to the extent that those solutions require exactions from the property owner, remembering that the exactions that are imposed have to be reasonably related to the impacts themselves. 000029 Planning Commission I~___.utes September 13, 2000 Page 13 Commissioner Bang asked whether the City giving of the existing quasi-public use of this property be considered a potentially negative impact on the City that in perpetuity if the Commission gives this over to residential property, it has lost the quasi-public designation that it has now. City Attomey Taylor replied that would be a legitimate consideration. Commissioner Bang asked if she was correct that in law, the City is legitimately able to consider things like tree preservation _on at least an equal footing with safety. - City Attorney Taylor responded that yes, the City is entitled -there is a principle of design immunity -and the City is entitled to make judgments that it values this more than safety or it values safety more than something else, and to make those determinations. The City cannot be completely arbitrary in doing it, the City cannot decide that it's going to have a youth bonfire in the height of fire season in the middle of a forest, but the Ciry is entitled to considerable discretion. What the Ciry needs to do is be consistent with whatever policy determination it makes. The City may say it values narrow winding roads, and it recognizes there are safety impacts with that, but that is what the City as a policy judgment have decided to live with. The Ciry then needs to be sure that it manages those narrow winding roads in a way to make them as safe as possible under the circumstances. • Commissioner Bang stated that if the Commission were to decide that it values the tree canopies that many of the neighbors have talked about, and wanted to be responsible about safety, if there were mitigation measures, whether stop signs or warning signs or speed bumps, and with respect to the liability, would the Commission be on firm ground considering those things Cit1~ .Attorne}~ Taylor responded that he was not guaranteeing any immunity, but the general principle is that local go~•emment should be free to make those determinations. With respect to the specific implementing measures. that becomes more of an engineering judgment than a Planning Commission judgment in terms that ~t would ~t~ant to be consulting with the professional engineers, given the circumstances of what is needed to make this road as safe as possible. Commissioner Roupe asked if somebody wanted to buy one of these lots and put a Montessori School on it, ~~~ould there be an}nhing to prohibit or be taken away by making this an R-1-40 and putting up a Montessori School. He asked whether it would have to come back to the Commission and how the underlying provision of an R-1-40.000 from the beginning would impact it. Director «'aleren confirmed Commissioner Roupe's question. He said the property is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residential, with a minimum lot size requirement of 40,000 square feet, as is the case with all schools in Saratoga, the fire station, the library, and public and quasi-public buildings. They are located almost entirely in residential zoning districts and they are permitted in residential zoning districts, subject to a conditional use permit to assure that it is appropriate for that particular residential district. With the community being built out, it is very difficult to go into an established neighborhood and propose putting in a new library, or a new school, but when the Ciry did incorporate, this facility, among most of them, already existed, and the General Plan designation ofquasi-public facility was just acknowledging that is the use of the facility. If the quasi-public facility designation is amended to residential very low density, which it should be to be consistent with this project, and the quasi-public facility designation removed, it would then be very difficult later to re-intensify that back to a school use. Q°®U©~0 Planning Commission Minut._ September 13, 2000 Page 14 s In response to Commissioner Roupe's question, Director Walgren said it would not be precluded; however, it would be necessary to go through the conditional use process and request to amend the General Plan back to aquasi-public institution. Mr. Sobrato commented that he was not the one asking to change the General Plan to quasi-public to the extent Commissioner Bang thinks the City is giving something up. He said he is perfectly happy leaving the quasi-public designation in place, and expressed that a convent is not a very public use. He said it is probably about the most private use he can think of. Comparing it to a library or a public school or a baseball stadium or an arena, which are true quasi-public uses, is not particularly fair. It is a private use, and it is going to remain a private use consistent with the zoning, which is R-1-40,000. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the amount of space between the property line and the redwood trees. Mr. Sobrato said he did not know how the distance there compares with the distance in terms of total width as it meanders, but perhaps Mr. Walgren could help out with that. Director Walgren responded that it is a good comparison and it is very comparable. The example that staff gave the applicant to use as a design objective was the Heritage Oak improvements on Saratoga Avenue. He said the cross sections in the landscape plans in Exhibit B more clearly shows the amount of landscaping that occurs between the roadway and the walkway itself. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Sobrato how he planned to water trees when the building pads are less than 30' from their roots. Mr. Sobrato responded that the root zone ends up in people's back yards so that they could get water to the landscaping in people's back yards, just like they are getting water no~~ through the lawns that are on the Sisters' property. They have to contend with an asphalt road up against them which is going to go away, so it is going to be a much improved situation for those redwood trees. Commissioner Kurasch, noted that from the analysis, 30'- 40' is the critical area for the root. She asked for the measurements of the rear yard setbacks, and Mr. Pearson responded that the area abutting the redwood trees is actually the lot that is being proposed to be turned over to the cemetery district; however, the rear yard setback for the residential lots is 50'. Mr. Sobrato said that the rear yard setback is 50', plus Planner Pearson pointed out that most of the biggest redwood trees will fall on the cemetery land as proposed. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the setback is on lot #8. Commissioner Bernald called for a point of order, noting that the Commission was not talking about the placement of homes tonight, but merely voting on a subdivision. Chairman Page commented that it is a good question and it may answer a couple of other questions Commissioner Bang called for a point of order, stating that this issue was raised at the last Commission meeting with respect to the other subdivision development to be discussed tonight and Commissioners have been given reference material with respect to the map that makes it clear that all of these conditions and potential conditions are appropriately discussed at the Tentative Map stage. She said the reference material ®~®~~, Planning Commission A_ _.utes September 13, 2000 Page 15 clarifies that, and so Commissioner Kurasch's issues are clearly within the bounds of what the Commission is supposed to be considering here. Director Walgren responded that because of the configuration of lot #8, the setback facing Bohlman Road is 25' to the edge of the road right-of--way because of the orientation .of that particular lot. He said it is a side, and not a rear setback, and it is 25' plus the distance from the property line to the redwood trees, v~•hich is beyond the root zone of the redwood trees being considered.. Commissioner Bang asked what the total was if one measured from those heritage redwoods and the walking path, and Director Walgren responded that exact number would be obtained by scaling it off the full-size plans. Carol. Mauldin, 15345 Bohlman Road, stated that she was at the gathering yesterday and saw the tree arborist and heard his opinions on Bohlman Road. She said the Fire Department is convect to say safety issues are a big concern of Bohlman Road, but she wanted to know where the water district is when it is needed. The water is worse than the road. No matter how little the road is, there is going to be no water. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding what she would like to see, Ms. Mauldin responded that she was conveying not t~~ touch the road as it does not need to be done. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the two pine trees Ms. Mauldin referred to Ms. Maudlin responded there are two pine trees the arborist said that are dying, next to the redwoods. It has a big enough opening to go right into the Sobrato development and right out where Norton and Bohlman connect and just make a left tum lane. She proposed putting a stop sign at Hidden View. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Maudlin, as she observed Mr. Coates, did she not observe that his primary judgments were being made as if one had to choose between one side of the road or the other. 1\4s. Maudlin responded with a no Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission would defer to Mr. Coates' judgment. Ted Cheeseman, ?0800 Kittredge Road said that Oak trees can live 350 years or so and redwoods over 1,000 vears, and the arborist should not be contradicted; however, with diseases and all, these are pretty durable trees. He said his main points are safety, aesthetics, and preserving the ecology. He referred to the crush- graveled bike and pedestrian path. He said this is not a bike path, and as a biker, he represents bikers. He said b~• widening the road; cars will travel faster, and the one-foot shoulder is less of a shoulder for bikes to escape on, which creates a more dangerous situation in the end. Road bikes coming down Bohlman Road aren't going to divert to acrush-gravel path because it is not tenable. He said he would rather see it as open space or preserving the school that he attended. Commissioner Kurasch asked why crushed gravel is bad for bikes, and Mr. Cheeseman responded that it takes 2-3 pebbles to make a skid out and a biker is tumbling; although a mountain bike could do it. He said it is a safety thing. Director Walgren clarified that a typical CalTratrs dedicated bicycle path and pedestrian pathway -there are specific standards that would require a much different proposal than what the Commission is considering - is typically about a 6' dedicated bikeway with physical barrier or at least markings in a 4' pedestrian pathway ~®®~~~: Planning Commission Minu~_ . September 13, 2000 Page 16 and that is not what this was intended to do. What this arrangement allows is a 4-6' wide pathway that young bicyclists or casual bicyclists can use or what a serious bicyclist would use is still the roadway. Bicycle planning encourages that if one is a serious cyclist and riding down the roadway at vehicle speeds, the biker would use the vehicle lane David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, read a statement to the. Commissioners: "The issues involved concernine the Sobrato-Bohlman Road situation have become far more critical than anticipated. What is now at stake is not only the beauty of a road, but the health and safety of 130 homes upwards of 400 people who all use this section of road as the only access and egress to their homes. In an emergency, all of our lives may well depend on the ability to vacate the hillside as well as the ability of emergency crews and equipment to access the hillside on Hanford. One accident, fallen tree, or stalled vehicle on this section of Bohlman would not only endanger our property, but possibly our lives. At this junction of the developmental process, we have the ability to meet the needs of the people at minimal cost. If the situation is not resolved now, it will never happen and the problems will compound as more people move on to the hill. I personally Mow of 8-10 homes now in the planning stage. The residents involved agree on the need for another road. Logic dictates another road. The Saratoga Firefighters Local 33875 agree that there is a need for improved egress. The firefighters have also concluded that the widening of Bohlman Road may not be an adequate or acceptable solution to the problem. Hopefully, you as Commissioners, will arrive at the same conclusions. On the other side is the Planning Department, Mr. Sobrato, and Fire Chief. They are of the belief that the widening of Bohlman is an adequate solution. This is not the case. The Fire Chief was one of the most powerful individuals in the City. His decisions and those of his superiors, the Fire Commissioners, are usually accepted without questions. They dictate policies everyone in the City blindly follow. This is neither right nor fair. It is apparent to myself and others that the Fire Chief's opinion regarding Bohlman Road is wrong. The residents involved know this is wrong. His workforce, the Saratoga firefighters, know it's wrong, and the Commission. if just, should come to the same conclusion. It is now apparent that the Fire Chief and the Fire Commissioners are becoming more at odd with the community served and the staff they work with. This situation is unacceptable. They no longer seem to have the best interest of Saratoga residents as their primary coal. The Bohlman Road situation needs to be resolved at all costs. If it takes a petition for a recall election of Fire Commissioners, that is what we will do. We need to have people in office who are willing to work ~~•ithout bias with the community to solve problems such as Bohlman Road. We also need people who are ~~~illing to work with and listen to their employees in an honest and straightforward manner. The community cannot afford a rift in the Fire Department. They are our lifeline in emergency and disaster situations. If the Bohlman Road-Sobrato situation is not resolved responsibly and to every one's satisfaction, we are setting ourselves up for a major disaster. Whose fault will that be? Thank you." Commissioner Bernald suggested that perhaps this might be an appropriate moment for Fire Chief Kraule to be able to respond to what has been heard tonight. Commissioner Barry asked if the second road alternative were not feasible because of the amount of distance that would have to be dedicated to preservation of the redwood and if the junction did not work for safety reason, what alternative would make sense to Mr. Dolloff for a secondary egress. Mr. Dolloff responded there is going to have to be something involved within the planning situation of the Sobrato area that is going to allow that to occur, but he did not know exactly how. The situation of a secondary egress is mandatory for the safety of the residents on the hill, and so this need is going to have to be brought into the planning stage. Commissioner Barry was wondering if he had an alternative, and Mr. Dolloff said he would bring something up through Vickery with a gate or such, but Bohlman needs to be left as a road alone: If it is widened to 18 Of300~3 -- ~_ ,.- Planning Commission i. _,utes September 13, 2000 Page 17 %' the situation is the same as it is now, and it would not work. He said a second road would be best, and more land given over to the second road so it can stay clear of the redwoods might also work. Commissioner Jackman ask Mr. Dolloff what he proposed to do about Bohlman Road above Norton Road, and Mr. Dolloff responded to do nothing about Bohlman Road above Norton Road because it cannot be done. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Dolloff if he would agree to an assessment or district where these types of projects could be paid over a certain amount of time - - Mr. Dolloff replied that if an assessment district were set up with a leeway given by Mr. Sobrato so that this is not an "I'm getting all the money I can" situation, he is sure that the people on the hillside would be very willing to go for such a situation. Commissioner Roupe inquired about another road out the backside, over the hill. Mr. Dolloff said he has lived here for 50 years and the last he saw of that, it was a fire road Director Walgren commented that the Fire Chief could answer that question. Fire Chief Kraule stated he is in charge of the Fire Code that is also the State Fire Code, which he administers. He said he is a sworn Assistant Deputy Fire Marshal for the state and is sworn to uphold the code. In dealing with Mr. Sobrato's property and the questions that were raised at the last meeting, he took it upon himself to look up the Fire Code for what the code actually recommends, and that is a 20' wide road, exactly what the applicant is asking for, an 18' plus 1' for shoulders. It also designates a 13'6" vertical clearance and this is an unobstructed roadway. He is not in a position to go and direct the Commission to come up with either one alternative or another. He asked that whatever the Commission does, that it be a safe dri~•able road. He spoke.of the two major fires in the area, indicating that they had a large potential of becoming open-type hillside fires. The said the firefighters in his district put every effort they could forth to control the first fire which occurred at the corner of Bohlman and Norton, the eucalyptus grove, and they had some assistance from the neighbors to control that fire and it went out. Subsequently, a lot of the eucalyptus trees ~~ere removed and some roads were put in there. They also did some tree removal to lessen the fire danger. The other fire occurred at the comer of Bohlman and on Orbit which was a typical type of fire that started on the side of the road from a truck that started to progress up a canyon. The fire had enough momentum and ~-ind, and it began to crown, which is the worst part of a fire. At that time, they called in the County Mutual Aid Plan and Departrrtent of Forestry who assisted in putting the fire out. He described the orderly evacuation which is done in concert with the Sheriff's Department. He also described the fire road which is about 25-30' wide road, as a fire gate at the end of Bohlman Road is. Keys and lock access it. The road is drivable during the summer and eventually ends on Highway 17, and is an excellent access exit/entrance for the fire department and exit for folks. He said another fire road not used as much is called John Brown's Fire Trail which takes off from the old Boy Scout day camp, goes through the Cinnabar Winery and ends on Highway 17 and is not as improved as the other road at the top. Commissioner Batty said she heard that the fire road is passable in the summer, and asked about the rainy season. Chief Kraule responded it is a dirt road, is compacted, an it is not advised to be used during winter months. Commissioner Barry asked if it could be used as a controlled evacuation in the winter, and Fire Chief Kraule said it could, depending on the weather conditions at the time. He. has mudslides have occurred in the area 0®~~a~~ Planning Commission Minut._ September 13, 2000 Page 18 during the winter months. The road could be used during the winter months but only by a four-wheel drive vehicle. Commissioner Bang asked Fire Chief Kraule is he would object to an alternate route from Norton to Bohlman, and whether he would see that as a gain if it were possible to have one designed Fire Chief Kraule replied that any extra road would be of help, although he does not know how much help it would be in percentage of evacuation. He said his experiences with the folks who live in that area are very well disciplined and are very well aware of the situation they live in. He said that in the last fire, the folks that live in that area were very orderly and evacuated them as asked. He said he did not see it as a road being 100 percent required, but a secondary access road is not a zero percent, so there is some value to it, depending on what is put in as far as how many people are going to get up and down the road. Widening the road and controlling the traffic is what is normally done in a mass situation. Responding to a question from Corrunissioner Barry, Fire Chief Kraule said normally the shoulders are compacted to withstand the same weight as the main road itself. It is only a shoulder, and one does not drive closely. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the existing Novitiate road that comes from Bohlman at Madronia, and asked why that road is now unsafe when it was safe for the Sisters of Notre Dame. Fire Chief Kraule responded he is not a traffic engineer, and to him going up the hill one has clear visibility of both of the roads; exiting from the Sisters property gives one a blind spot to the left because of the way Bohlman intersects there. Commissioner Kurasch asked if a 30,000 pound piece of machinery cantilevered over a side of a hill created a problem, and Fire Chief Kraule responded that any time that something is cantilevered, it is a safety problem, but it is up to the engineers to design it. He gives engineers specifications of weight, dynamic weight, load weight per axle to the engineers and engineering departments will design roads-ays to support his vehicles or the fire district's vehicles. Chairman Page announced that it looked like the Commission would probably not be addressing Item #5 and Item #6 on the agenda due to the late hour and the number of speakers remaining on the Sobrato project. Chairman Page declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present, except for Director Walgren who was checking on an item the Commissioners had asked about earlier. Brad Belleville, 17080 Bohlman Road stated that he has enjoyed the trees at the beginning of Bohlman for many years. He wanted to assure Mr. Sobrato and the Commission that the comments from some of the neighbors do not speak for the whole. He hoped that Mr. Sobrato and the Commission, and his neighbors would hear how much those trees mean to him, and figure out a way where all can win on this issue, the trees included. He said to put the trees first, noting that no amount of money or replanting will ever replace those trees that are cut. He would rather have a narrow road and a wider connection to the Internet, keeping those trees just as they are. Robert Berger, 15550 Wildcat Ridge conveyed that he would~be willing to put up with pretty much anything on that road to keep and preserve the beauty of the trees. He said most of the people he has talked to that live up Bohlman are willing to put up with having the slowdown and having to go through the ups and downs to keep this beauty 000035 Planning Commission R _~utes September 13, 2000 Page 19 David Arnold, 15291 Norton Road, noted he is very interested in preserving one of the last vestiges of he beauty of Saratoga. He has been at all three meetings and there are three main concerns. One is safety v~~hich has been discussed somewhat at length tonight, and two, is preserving the historical beauty of this entrance to the mountains. The third area of concern, which hasn't been discussed tonight is the amount and speed of the traffic out of the mountains, because this is the only way to get in and out of the m_ ountain. The fire road that was discussed is at the very top of the mountain and is gated, blocked, and is not really a way of doing anything other than dire emergency. It seems that the only real way of preserving this tree-lined area is by not removing any of the trees just because the trees on the westside happen to be oak, they still contribute to the beauty of the overall road. The redwood trees are not the only beauty factor of the road. The alternatives that have been discussed are putting a second road through the subject property, a lot of it centered on what it would do to the roots of the trees. It does not necessarily have to come right back out to Bohlman Road It could come out on Vickery or Montalvo Heights Road or one of those other roads. These are things that just haven't been looked into, and he thinks that any one of these things is still just aband-aid for the overall problem because all this traffic still runs through very high density areas of residents on Oak Street and Sixth Street. He said the Commission should take a look at what is happening to the mountain. As has already been mentioned, many more houses are bei.-tg built there, the traffic is going to increase no matter what is done, whether the Sobrato entity increases or decreases the traffic, there is still going to be increased traffic, and over the long run, he would suggest that the Commission look at the possibility of building a new road down in the canyon above Norton Road th2t would exit out around the vicinity of Jack's Road directly on to Big Basin, that way it bypasses all the residential area. Responding to Commissioner Barry's request, Mr. Arnold said that the canyon where they plan to remove trees and build out over it to widen Bohlman Road is pretty steep and there are no houses on that side of the canyon. If the road was built just above Norton Road that would dip down into the canyon and come out above Jack's Road, it would not go through any housing areas, and it could be made as wide as necessary to meet all the safety requirements. \~val McMullin, 2091 Hidden View conveyed that the worst trees that are going to fail are those with the pa~~ement right up to the roots on the eastside. He said there was another solution than making this the Embarcadero Highway of Saratoga. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren said that in the site visit, prior to the June hearing, the developer took a look at the possibility of building a public road on top of the roots, and he indicated that there are means to build the road up 3', perhaps a little bit more, to build it up over those roots, but that would be a condition that would have to be maintained throughout the future. It is not a permanent fix. As the roots continue to grow, one would continue to need to readjust the road to accommodate that, but none of these scenarios have gone to the engineering level as to whether these roads can merge, diverge and converge and meet traffic engineering lines of sites and be that close to the existing driveway. It is unknown if through traffic engineering, the roadway might have to be moved a significant degree interior in any of them, just to get adequate merging of the lanes and lines of sight. It certainly cannot be as acute as they currently are if they are going to be public roads with people traveling at them at much higher speeds than people coming out of that driveway. In response to Commissioner Bany's inquiry regarding the cemetery and its intended use impinging on the feeder roots, Director Walgren said it is unknown how close the plots are going to be. Mr. Pearson commented that one thing to consider is that the plots are going to be randomly dug at different times, and only a few roots would be damaged here and there over many, many years, and the trees would • • • OOU030 Planning Commission Minu, , September 13, 2000 Page 20 have a good likelihood of surviving a little bit of damage. It is not like cutting a trench across like a road where the roots aze crossed all at one time. Commissioner Roupe clarified that all of the trees that are under consideration and the expansion would be within the right of way that is currently an easement to public land. Commissioner Roupe asked if it was private land, and Director Walgren responded it is within roadH•ay right of way. Because it is an old road that has been created in patch-meal manners, parts of it are publicly dedicated roadway, parts of it aze private ingress and egress easements, but it is within the legal right of way of Bohlman Road that these improvements could occur Commissioner Jackman asked if widening the westside meant going into private property of other people. Director Walgren responded it would be within the roadway right of way, but there are portions of it that are private ingress/egress easements, which is an easement on private property, but there is not a standing offer of dedication, which is what Planner Pearson referred to very early in tonight's comments and is referenced in the parcel map in the back boazd. Those have never been accepted, but if the City did widen the road, they would then be accepted to take in this additional roadway width. Richard Crouch, 15668 Bohlman Road said he liked the tree canopy on Bohlman Road; however, he rarely can enjoy it because he is more concemed about running into somebody, and if one is watching the canopy, one is not watching the road. He said that is a significant issue. He said bicyclists and pedestrians certainly cannot enjoy the canopy because they cannot safely be on that road unless they are focusing on their tires and on the pavement. With the proposed 14 trees removed, there is a beautiful mountain. As far as a second lane, that ~~ould be a wonderful thing, it would be great, an ideal solution, but he asked if anyone here tonight, other than perhaps a few people, have actually driven on that road recently. He said it is like a roller coaster and there is no way a road is going to be built anywhere near without probably taking half of Sobrato's propert}•. He expressed his respect for Chief Kraule. He said if this project is not approved, no improvements ~t~ill occur, and no improvements means less safety for all. Property values will be less, and that is important for everybody. Be~~erly Phipps. 1 X270 Norton Road, spoke on three topics. Regarding zoning, it seemed to him that the hillside zoning and slope is a site which is on average about 40 percent slope. The neighbor across the street from there is zoned as a hillside; it is about the same slope. He stated that hillside zoning could not be mitigated by combining one site with another one to get an average slope. Another point he made is that he would like to see the trees on the westside of this narrow section maintained. He said the Commission was focusing on the wrong thing -attempting to destroy those trees to the minimum extent. He would like the Commission to consider restricting the pruning which is done by the utility company. He would like to see a proper discussion of the runoff of the road so that the future life of those trees is sustained, even if some of them are diseased and do die, even if some minor widening is necessary. He noted there is a great body of people who would like to see this road maintained with its natural rural feel. The third thing is really the major issue. Many people aze understandably very concemed about fire safety, and he has a suggestion for a road which could be put in. He described the artist in residence property and proposed road on Villa Montalvo and linking a road to the side entrance to Montalvo, noting that such a road would improve the safety of the people up the hill, and the safety of the residents on the Sobrato development. He said should there be a fire in the redwoods or the roads, it would completely block off the hill, and he believes it would be reasonable to request this of Montalvo. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Phipps whether he had any opinion on a double road or widening the road. oooo~~ Planning Commission 1\_ _.utes September 13, 2000 Page 21 Mr. Phipps expressed that a double road would be needed if there were no alternative way of escaping the hill He proposed a better alternative would be to have an unpaved road going from the trail creek entrance down to the artist in residence road which will be put in. He said it is a minor thing; it is not a steep slope; and its advantage is that it follows the track of the river. Mary Ann Sawyer, 15495 Quicken Road stated that it seems like this issue really comes down to two different points -one is safety. This is something that the residents of the Saratoga Heights share overall, and it is an opportunity as the development of this properly is reviewed to be able to finally fix something that is a huge problem, not only from a safety standpoint as far as getting up and down the road on a normal day-to- day basis, but in addition, if there was an emergency the residents could get off the road safely, or off the mountain safely. She said she would like to not see the trees removed. She proposed stepping back and realize that the discussion is not only about the Sobrato property, but the overall area, and what is done in one place affects everybody else. Commissioner Bemald commented that the City has County development up there as well as Ciry development. It also has individuals who have built there knowing the situation and are now looking to this project to satisfy their needs. The question is where is the appropriate forum for these questions to come, and does the Planning Commission have th~~ authority to answer the questions being asked this evening Director Walgren responded that the City and the County, the City's counterparts at the County work with the Fire Marshall, the Saratoga Fire District, and the County Fire District to insure that improvements are made such as widening roads to get to those properties. Once those properties are built, driveways are constructed without exceeding grade so that vehicles can get there, fire hydrants are installed, fire retardant materials are placed on buildings, early warning alarm systems are installed, so it is looked at project by project. The question is if the County was reviewing a 20-lot subdivision up in the hills that fed down into Bohlman Road, ~;•ould they be responsible for coordinating that review with the City, and he said they should be. Commissioner Bernald reframed her question and asked where do citizens like Ms. Sawyer go and ask for a moratorium, or whether it is essential. She asked if the Council could form an alliance with the County to address these types of issues. Director Vl%algren responded the City does have agreement with the County. It is a joint powers authority agreement with the County for typically major subdivisions, which is five or more lots. There is typically an EIR process and the City is involved with review of that process, which is for the purpose of coordinating primarily Ciry impacts from a County development. Commissioner Bernald asked about the extent of responsibility Mr. Sobrato has for the building that is going on above him, the conditions that already exist now, and the conditions that will exist in the future. Ciry Attorney Taylor responded that the Commission has to look at the changes to the conditions that Mr. Sobrato's project have occasioned to the extent that his project is worsening conditions, is increasing safety problems. It is within the City's power.to regulate his project to alleviate those concerns, so that would be the number of homes, the effect of those homes on the existing circulation system, and the changes in the neighborhood affected by the use that is being proposed compared to the use that is there now. All those are relevant questions for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Bemald asked if the focus was on the homes or conditions that exist above his development. • ., ~~ U ~®~~~8 Planning Commission Minti~ September 13, 2000 ~ Page 22 Mr. Taylor replied that it was only to the extent that this development makes those conditions worse. In other words, it is not this developer's responsibility to the extent that there are problems that have been caused that exist whether his project goes forwazd or not. Those are not conditions that the Commission can require him to resolve. _ Commissioner Kurasch asked whether anyone had approached Ms. Sawyer about a study, a traffic stud}, or any kind of comprehensive look. Ms. Sawyer responded she had ~ not, and that everybody says it is somebody else's problem. Commissioner Bernald encouraged Ms. Sawyer to discuss with her neighbors forming a homeowners association and looking into a homeowners district to explore alternatives. Diane Greene, 17056 Bohlman Road, proposed that the first place to go for land use is the General Plan. She said she has had to evacuate three times due to fires, and her main. point is that this is a City problem. She said the building of this should not be on a developer, and it should not be on the residents living there from the standpoint of this particular development. She said it was not Mr. Sobrato who proposed this plan, it was the City Manager, and she believes that this is a convenient way to correct a safety problem at this end of the road. The neighbors up there have already indicated that they would be willing to be assessed. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Chairman Page asked if the Commissioners had any additional questions of staff or counsel before proceeding «~ith discussion. Commissioner Kurasch asked City Attorney Taylor about the two of the tests of reasonability and asked him for an idea in this case what the test of reasonableness would be. Mr. Taylor replied that the kinds of conditions the Commission is talking about fall outside the area of the types of conditions that are subject to that rough proportionality standard that similar principles apply. The Commission is not talking about exactions of dedications of land for public use, but about conditions that are necessary to protect public health and safety, to protect resource concerns. It is the Commission's job to look at the physical characteristics of the land involved to decide the best way of regulating the land use on that land in light of those characteristics involved. Commissioner Bemald asked that, given the fact that the property contiguous to this area is similar in style and topography and is not zoned hillside residential, would there be difficulty coming to a conclusion that this should be then zoned. Mr. Taylor responded that the Commission has a fair amount of discretion in applying those and just as there may be properties in one district that have characteristics,. there may be individual property that has characteristics more similar to land in another zoning district, the courts give flexibility. Creating an island of hillside residential in an area that is not zoned hillside residential could be problematic, but if there was evidence to support that determination, it could be upheld. ®®0®39 • Planning Commission i. .,utes September 13, 2000 Page 23 Commissioner Bernald asked if the Commission has experienced this in the past, does it have precedence in Saratoga where it has done such a thing. Director Walgren responded they were not talking about rezoning the property, but talking about putting conditions on it that would be consistent with the hillside restrictions Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said that this is the relevant time fo consider putting conditions on the subdivision above and beyond the-zoning regulations. Anything that is outside of the standard zoning regulation should be made clear now so that a future owner is aware of them before a home is designed and plans are completed. He was referring only to special exceptions. Director Kurasch clarified that some of the surrounding lots were hillside residential, and Director Walgren noted it was on the other side of Bohlman Road. He said the parcels themselves are contiguous with R-1- 40,000 and the other side of Bohlman Road is hillside zoning. The zoning designation "hillside residential" because it has the term hillside in it, does not mean that if it does not have hilly terrain, it's an R-1-40 zoning. The hillside residential designation canie out of the Northwestern Hillside Plan that was a result of Measure A, which took in all of the western hills, and then the City developed the specific plan and developed hillside zoning regulations for that specific plan area. Responding to Commissioner Bany's inquiry, Director Walgren said that the fencing restriction, the grading limitation, and the impervious coverage restriction should not be considered because the current hillside impervious coverage ordinance includes driveways which is awkward for lots that have such expansive driveways. Commissioner Jackman commented that when it comes to the individual permits, specifically for lots 1 and 4, the most hill} lots, some discretion should be used on the amount of cut and fill on the safety of those lots. She said it would be okay not to make a blanket rule, but have it come up on an individual basis. Chairman Page asked whether the potential homeowners should not know beforehand what the Commission is going to allow them to build. He said that is why Director Walgren was saying that the Commission has the purview to do that now, and the Commission could give them direction at the time they subdivide as to what the conditions will be. Commissioner Jackman said she would agree to that. Chairman Page asked Commissioner Barry to begin deliberations. Commissioner Barry stated she would like to put a proposal on the table for discussion and a vote that would separate the larger Bohlman Road issue from approval of the subdivision. She says what would stay in the subdivision discussion would be what Mr. Taylor said - impacts of the subdivision on that portion of the road so that circulation, ingress and egress, and those kinds of things would be part of the subdivision discussion - but the proposal is that the Planning Commission not decide one road, two roads, or no road as part of the subdivision discussion or approval, but that it recommend to the City Council that a special task force be formed to have a larger review of the Bohlman Road issue, which might end up in assessment district. If it did end up in an assessment district, then certainly Mr. Sobrato's properties would bear their share of the burden, so if the issue that is of concern to the City and to the Commission that Mr. Sobrato contribute to the solution would not be lost. She said the Commission has heard alot of discussion on the trees, balancing the trees and safety, and what is in fact the best course to make safety on Bohlman Road. She asked whether it was traffic calming or was is it widening the road and potentially increasing the speed. She said those issued • • ®0~~0 Planning Commission Minus. . September 13, 2000 Page 24 need lots of discussion and with respect to the subdivision, not respect to Bohlman Road, more discussion is necessary. She said if the larger Bohlman Road issue were separated from this approval, asking the City Council to form a task force and work out a solution would be the best method. She proposed that that discussion begin and see if a consensus can be reached. Chairman Page asked whether Bohlman Road would be left alone as part of the subdivision. Commissioner Barry responded that the changes on the road itself, whether trees are cut down, whether the road is enlarged or not would be left to the decision that the task force arrived at. Issues such as where the ingress and egress should be, should there be more than one, what should be the internal circulation in that subdivision would stay on the table, because as Mr. Taylor said, there is a direct connection there. Commissioner Kurasch said that as far as separating the issues, she would like to discuss it a bit more. As far as voting, it is not obviously a directive, action item until it is put in some forn•~ of conditions. She would like to talk about the road, but also the subdivision because she feels that the basis of this land use has not been discussed. Commissioner Roupe supported Commissioner Bany's suggestion. A lengthy discussion ensued, and Commissioner Bemald noted that Mr. Sobrato was never given the option to respond to all the speakers and new ideas while the public hearing was still open. S COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6- 1 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) iti4r. Sobrato responded to the various ideas. He suggested that perhaps one way to go, and assuming this would work, if the Commission approves the development and conditions it to widening it to 18' so the Commission has him committed to doing that with the proviso that should this special task force within a penod of time. determine that they want to scale back the widening and approach it in a more selective fashion, that the Commission has a right to reduce what it is requiring him to do. He said the Commission has heard plenn• from public hearings and from him. He said this could be debated forever, and stated he is leery about the subdivision approval tied to a task force process that potentially involves the widening of Bohlman Road all the ~~•ay to the Ciry limits, or even one that studies the Bohlman issue right along the property. He would like to move forward with the subdivision, let the Commission form the task force, take as much time necessary, condition him on the maximum improvement, which is presumably a uniform 18' and the Commission can always scale it back. To the extent it is scaled back, it costs him less, and if it is desirable to preserve a few key trees, and the community is willing to live with less than 18', and the Fire Chief is willing, he would accept be willing also. He said he has always been flexible in terms of what he would do. It is just after three meetings and 18 months, that he is trying to move this process along. He would like to get this subdivision approved and necessarily, if the subdivision is approved, that eliminates the divided two-lane road, because if he proceeds with the subdivision, the construction, the streets, and the lots, that is going to lock him into a full or selective service or none, but some widening program within the existing right of way, and since that is acceptable to him, that might be a good way to go. He has committed to do it. It would not make a lot of sense to let him off the hook on something that he has already agreed to do, unless after the study, there is a reason to cut some of that back. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak again. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PASSED 6- 1 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) ~0~~~~ • Planning Commission 1`._ _,utes September 13, 2000 Page 25 A lengthy discussion ensued and Director Walgren and City Attorney Taylor responded to Commissioners' questions. Director Walgren suggested a framework for a condition. Mr: Sobrato's offer could be accepted to widen the road to 18' with the one-foot shoulders, but defer the final decision until some type of a task force review takes place oi- a neighborhood traffic management review takes place, and then give a timeline that a decision needs to be made prior to accepting the subdivision improvements. He proposed using as much as possible the Public Safety Commission for this purpose and not necessarily try to create a new body to consider this. The PSC is the most diverse in these matters and they will be just wrapping up the. Pride's Crossing neighborhood traffic management program towards the end of this year and early next year. They could then model an apply it to the subdivision in this project vicinity, and hopefully an answer could be available within a 12-month timeframe. Commissioner Roupe proposed that the PSC bring in a few more people such as the Fire Chief and neighborhood people. Director Walgren stated that staffwould provide the PSC with the support they need to fully analyze this. Following lengthy discussion, the Commissioners took the following actions: COMMISSIONERS ROUPEBERNALD MOVED TO PROCEED WITH A SINGLE ENTRY POINT AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSAL. PASSED 4-2 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY AND KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) Follo«~ing additional discussion, Director Walgren read the conditions that would be attached to the resolution. which are: HR fencing and grading restriction for lots #1 and #4; no further subdivision agreement: defer improvement agreement on Bohlman Road per discussion; native landscape plan required ~~~ith each Design Review application; riparian ravine easement investigation subject to further restrictions and easement recordation; redwood tree and all trees along the right of way to be attended to and cared for and a certified arborist to oversee their pruning and cleaning; develop a protection plan for the redwood trees that ~~ould be tied to the conditional use permit (cemetery district); and to vote on a continuous 6' path. CO'~4MISSIONERS ROUPEBARRY MOVED TO HAVE A CONTIMJOUS SIX-FOOT PATH. MOTION FAILED 1-5 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, BERNALD, JACKMAN, ROUPE, AND CH.~IAN PAGE OPPOSED; COMMISISONER PARICK WAS ABSENT.) COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/ROUPE MOVED TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS READ BI' DIRECTOR WALGREN, APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SD-99-003. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP 00-001 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES IN THE ARBORIST REPORT AND THAT AN EXCEPTION BE GRANTED TO THE PILLAR HEIGHTS TO MAKE IT 10 % FEET AS REQUESTED. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) COMMISIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP00-001 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES IN THE ARBORIST REPORT AND • • ®~0~42 Planning Commission Minu. September 13, 2000 ~ Page 26 THAT AN EXCEPTION BE GRANTED TO THE PII.LAR HEIGHTS TO MAKE IT 10 % FEET AS REQUESTED. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ABSENT.) 5. SD-99-014 (503-29-057) - CHANG, 22005 Dorsey Way; Request for Design Re~~ew approval demolish an existing 3,317 square foot residence and construct a new 4,203 square foot, two-story residence on a 40,032 square foot parcel. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is located ~•ithin an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (CON'TINCTED FROM 7/26/00) Due to the late hour, this item was continued to the September 27, meeting. 6. SD-00-002 (397-21-022) -HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMEI\'T, LLC, 20251 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road; Application for Subdivision approval and adoption of a Negative Declaration to split an existing 3.7 acre lot into five lots. The parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/9/00) ` Due to the late }ioui•, this item was continued to the September 27, meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-99-059 (503-30-022) - LUSTENADER, 14220 Pike Road; Request for Modification to an approved Design Review application. The modification involves an increase of 208 square feet of floor area and the addition of 683 square feet of second story decks. Director Walgren stated that this was an informational item, which was self-explanatory in the staff memo in the agenda. Commissioner Bernald stated that at the time this item came before the Planning Commission she had expressed concern that this was a conceptual rather than a detailed presentation, and she said it seemed the Commission was getting more and more applications from Rockwood Design. She said she would entertain any further comments from the Commission that it would like to see perhaps something in greater detail because when conceptual plans are received, it leaves out certain things that call for further scrutiny once building begins. She would request that the Commission send a message to Rockwood Design that it the Commission would like to see better detailed designs to avoid revisiting the project and that they give better thought to what they are doing in their presentations and that they take the City's system and review process seriously. Commissioner Kurasch distributed information oti a housing seminar on October 11-12 DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren reported that the first Housing Element update public workshop is scheduled October 5, 7 p.m. in the Multipurpose Senior Room. He distributed the consultant's proposal for the project to the Commissioners. Director Walgren reported that the Circulation Element drag will be gin to the i g g C ty Council next week, with a revised July 2151 response memo which includes Commissioner Kurasch's June 24`h a-mail letter. He said Commissioners have until September 20`h to submit comments. ~®~~4~ ~. • ,- Planning Commission 1 .utes September 13, 2000 Page 27 COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Page announced that he had received a notice that the Silicon. Valley Manufacturing Group is having a meeting on September 28`~ regarding the Housing Leadership Council, and Senator Byron Sher is hosting a housing summit on September 15`h Commissioner Kurasch requested that a representative or liaison from staff attend at least one of the housing seminars coming up. WRITTEN 1. Public Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting September 27, 2000 -Noted. 2. Library Expansion Community Meetings Announcement -Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT HEFTING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 12:SSa.m. to Wednesday, September 27, 2000, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Minutes Prepared and Submitted by: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk .~ • • • I/ ~~o~~~ Attachment 4 June 7, 2001 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission: I read in the Saratoga Ne-vs about your decision to destroy 15 healthy trees along Bohlman Road, between Madronia Cemetery and Norton Road, where Sobrato plans to build 11 homes. However, there are actuwlly about 30 trees that have been tagged, mostly oak, and some with a circumference of over 6 feet. Why is it so easy for the city of Saratoga to destroy old oaks yet a homeowner cannot remove a single tree from his property? Shouldn't government have to abide by the same laws as its citizens? Sobrato's original development plans did not call for the removal of trees. After residents voiced concerns that drivers drove too fast and often ran the stop sign at St. Charles and Bohlman, the decision was made to widen the road. Having a policeman wait at random times handing out tickets would be a-big deterrent in getting people to observe the speed limit and the stop sign. Widening the road will only make it easier to speed. This stretch of road has served over 100 homes on Norton and Bohlman since the 1950s. Now with the addition of 11 homes the road suddenly is not satisfactory. Why? The Planning Commission also says the road needs to be widened for better fire truck access. Neither the Saratoga Fire Department nor the Department of Forestry has had any trouble getting up Bohlman Road to put out fires. On Memorial Day I saw 3 large fire trucks go up Bohlman for a wild land drill. If clearance is a problem, top a few trees don't chop them down. In November 2000, eight of my neighbors and I sent the Planning Commission a letter expressing our opposition to destroying these beautiful, old trees. We never received a response. If you cut down these trees you will be removing a part of Saratoga's natural charm and you will be creating a road where it will be even easier to speed. Then what will be your solution? Please do not destroy something that brings beauty to everyone. Sincerely, Cyndy Riordan 16960 Bohlman Road ~®0~~5 •:i T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~Q00~~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Commissioner Roupe STAFF: Director Sullivan, Planners Schubert and Knapp, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 13, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 1. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-Ol-003, LL-O1-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road; -Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 12,689 square foot Fire Station. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/13/01) (APPROVED 4-2, GARAKANI AND KURASCH OPPOSED) i y ~ ~. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 22, 2001 PAGE 2 DR-00-064 (397-28-002) - SHAHMIRZA, 20431 Walnut Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,660 square foot, two-story residence and demolish the existing 1,372 square foot, single story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,633 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) 3. DR-00-055 (397-04-60-Lotl) -JEAN, 14906 Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,954 square foot single-story home on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 41,774 in area and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0) 4. UP-00-017 (503-24-034) - RATRA, 14395 Big Basin Way; -Request for Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a 517 square foot carwash addition to an existing 1,615 square foot Union 76 gasoline service station and mini-market at the southwest corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way/Saratoga Avenue. The 26,689 square foot property is within the CH-1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. (DENIED 6-0) 5. DR-00-056 ~ V-00-022 (517-13-018/019) - SOBRAT0,14800 Bohlman Road; -Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 7,036 square foot residence and 162 square foot pavilion on a vacant lot. The applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted by code. The applicant is also requesting two exceptions. One is a grading exception to allow greater than 1000 Cubic Yards of combined cut and fill, and the other is a fence exception to enclose 12,282 feet where 4,000 is allowed. The site is 6.19 acres, and located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. (WITHDRAWN) DIRECTOR ITEMS Memo to Planning Commissioners regarding items to be studied. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 2, 2001 and May 16, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 11, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, June 26, 2001- 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2001 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-055 - JEAN Item 3 14906 Sobey Road 2. DR-00-056 &r V-00-022 - SOBRATO Item 5 s~ 14800 Bohlman Road 3. UP-00-017 - RATRA Item 4 14395 Big Basin Way 4. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT Item 1 TUP-Ol-003 &r LL-O1-003 14380 Saratoga Road 5. DR-00-064 - SHIRMIRZA Item 2 20431 Walnut Avenue LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 13, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The lawgenerally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heazd at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public heazing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heazing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Sazatoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public heazing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 1. DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-Ol-003, LL-O1-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road; -Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 12,689 square foot Fire Station. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/13/01) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JvNE 22, 2001 PAGE 2 • 2. DR-00-064 (397-28-002) - SHAHMIRZA, 20431 Walnut Avenue; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,660 square foot, two-story residence and demolish the existing 1,372 square foot, single story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,633 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. 3. DR-00-055 (397-04-60-Lot1) -JEAN, 14906 Sobey Road; -Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,954 square foot single-story home on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 41,774 in area and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. 4. UP-00-017 (503-24-034) - RATRA, 14395 Big Basin Way; -Request for Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a 517 square foot carwash addition to an existing 1,615 square foot Union 76 gasoline service station and mini-market at the southwest corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way/Saratoga Avenue. The 26,689 square foot property is within the CH-1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. 5. DR-00-056 6x V-00-022 (517-13-018/019) - SOBRAT0,14800 Bohlman Road; -Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 7,036 square foot residence and 162 square foot pavilion on a vacant lot. The applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted by code. The applicant is also requesting two exceptions. One is a grading exception to allow greater than 1000 Cubic Yards of combined cut and fill, and the other is a fence exception to enclose 12,282 feet where 4,000 is allowed. The site is 6.19 acres, and located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Memo to Planning Commissioners regarding items to be studied. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 2, 2001 and May 16, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, July 11, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA :, y-. ,~ • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION /~~ _ S, DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Allison Knapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 9, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of May 9, 2001, were approved with the following amendment to Page 18 -Commissioner Kurasch ... Said that she is not comfortable supporting this request of increasing buildable lots to two when one now exists. (5-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 8, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Tom Sullivan, provided a minor technical correction to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Jackman asked that the Consent Calendar item be pulled from Consent and that staff provide a report. DR-00-062 (397-28-013) - PICO RANCH, INC., 20460 Williams Road: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,275 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 4,057 square foot two-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 7,671 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM.4/25/01) f ~, Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 2 Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • This matter was continued in order to address several site and design issues including the front setback, massing of the structure and privacy issues with the second story. • To resolve these issues, the home is now set back 35 feet, which is 10 feet more than required under the Ordinance and more in keeping with the standards of the neighborhood. • Added that the rear deck has been reduced to one-third the original size and trellis added to provide screening for privacy. • Said that massing was reduced with the reduction of some planter: boxes and trellis at the front elevation. . • Advised that a memo from the neighbors has been provided expressing support for the revised project. Ms. Marsha Manzo, 20471 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that her home is located behind this property and one lot over. • Said that she was under the impression that Ordinances would prevent such negative impacts on adjacent properties. • Asked if Ordinances have changed. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, advised that the Ordinance has not changed. Added that this proposal is just one square foot less than wo~ild be allowed through discretionary review. The proposed impervious coverage is 35 percent whereas 60 percent is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Kurasch reminded that the Commission had sought the reduction in bulk and size of the home. Asked if any square footage reduction occurred. Ms. Allison Knapp replied no. Commissioner Jackman said that the balcony on the left side of the house is of concern and that she finds it inappropriate to have a balcony so close to the neighboring property. Chairperson Barry stated that a compromise seems to have been reached between these neighbors through the addition of trellis and other screening. The signed letter from the neighbors indicates that they are now comfortable with the proposed design, including the balcony. Mr. John Ridder, Applicant: • Said that he has worked with staff to reduce bulk and mass although the internal square footage of the house did not change. • Added that the neighbors are now satisfied. • Said that the several issues were resolved. The first was to increase the front setback by 10 feet. Next the deck was reduced to accommodate the existing redwood tree on site. The porch was also reduced in size. A front elevation trellis and planter box were removed to help reduce mass and bulk. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Consent Calendar Item No. 1 was approved, accepting the modifications to Design Review DR-00-062 in order to allow the demolition of an existing residence and Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 3 construction of a new 4,057 square foot two-story residence on property located at 20460 Williams Avenue . (5-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 TUP-01-002 (397-30-047) -CITY OF SARATOGA. 13724 Saratoga Avenue (Sacred Heart Church and School): Request to temporarily relocate the Saratoga Community Library to a neighboring site (Sacred Heart Church and School at 13724 Saratoga Avenue) during the renovation and expansion of the City's existing library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue. The Sacred Heart Church and School site is in the R1-20,000 zoning district. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Advised that this application is for the temporary relocation of the Library to the Sacred Heart Church and School for an approximately 18-month construction period. • Informed that eight manufactured units totaling 6,720 square feet, will house approximately one- third of the library materials. • Asked that the Commission support this Temporary Use Permit and adopt a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Kurasch asked that "Children at Play" signs be considered to help ensure the safety of children sharing the parking lot with library traffic. Mr. Bob Schubert advised that the signage currently proposed includes one sign at the entrance, directing Library patrons to the temporary Library, and another sign at the existing Library location, notifying patrons of the temporary alternate location for the Library. Said that the Commission could condition additional signs. Commissioner Kurasch added that access to existing paths being used by pedestrians and bicyclists should be retained. This access is useful and helpful to local residents. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the concerns raised by the Commissioners at the site visit have been relayed to the Department Head supervising this project and the issues will be forwarded to the Head of the Library Committee to be addressed. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Ms. Chuck Page, 20790 Norada Court, Saratoga: • Expressed appreciation to Sacred Heart for sharing their facilities in order to accommodate the temporary Library for the community. • Commended Commissioner Kurasch for her suggestion to incorporate safety signage on site to protect children. • Added that "Children at Play" signs are very appropriate. • Suggested a Condition of Approval requiring traffic directional signs on site to help lead people to the temporary Library location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Garakani asked whether these eight temporary units provide enough space to adequately serve as the temporary Library. Ms. Marsha Manzo, Chair of the Library Expansion Committee, advised that they are working with teachers and the schools. Agreed that during this construction period, the Library will not be able to be the sole after-school facility, as they simply will not have the room. Added that they are already overcrowded in the regular Library and often one sees children sitting on overturned trashcans. Said for 18 months, the space they have available will be small but afterwards they will have a wonderful new Library for the Community. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated the need for safety and directional signs on site. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this signage is appropriate and necessary. Added that many community groups that typically utilize the Library for meetings must find alternate sites for their meetings during this construction period. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved TUP-O1-002 to allow the temporary relocation of the Saratoga Community Library into eight temporary buildings on Sacred Heart Church and School property at 13724 Saratoga Avenue during the renovation and expansion of the City's existing Library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue, with the added condition that adequate directional and safety signs be posted on site. (5-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that this approval is final in 15 days, following the appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 DR-O1-005 (386-06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 Brookview Drive: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story home and construct a 636 square foot second-story addition. Total addition would be 701 square feet for a 3,049 square foot home. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 2 inches. The property is 9,376 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants are seeking approval to add a second story to an existing single-story residence, including a second story deck. • Said that 636 square feet will be added to the second floor to create a master suite and 65 square feet will be added to the ground floor. Minimal windows will be used on the second story, one on the right elevation, one on the left and one door leading to the second story deck area. It is believed that any privacy issues resulting from the deck can be mitigated with the use of trellis. • Informed that a letter in opposition has been received from a resident on Woodside Court. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 5 • Advised that the properties on Woodside Court were granted a Variance that sets their homes back just 16 feet from the rear property line rather than the typica125 foot requirement without issuance of a Variance. • Added that other neighbors have provided a letter of support. • Concerns have been raised about the potential for future change out of the approved windows that will increase privacy impacts. The requirement to retain these windows can be strengthened within the Conditions of Approval to mitigate that concern. • Staff is recommending approval of this request with the use of screening trellis for the deck feature. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:05 p.m. Ms. Cynthia Eikhorn, Project Designer: • Distributed a board with photographs taken from the roof of the subject property, offering a panoramic view of what is visible of the adjacent properties from this residence. • Said that the photos clearly demonstrate that views of other homes, yards and windows are limited. • Advised that the home has been designed so as not to inflict privacy issues on the neighbors but rather to focus views on its own backyard. • Added that the second story windows and door to the balcony are necessary features to provide light, air and egress from that part of the home. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification about the ingress/egress requirements. Ms. Cynthia Eikhorn advised that the door to the deck provides a necessary egress option. The other windows on the second floor are too high and too small to serve as a means of egress. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern for privacy impacts from this balcony. Ms. Tina Gross, 12508 Woodside Court, Saratoga: • Said that this project site does not abut their own home but is visible from their home. • Advised that she and her husband bought into asingle-story neighborhood. Since approximately eight homes abut their home, the potential is there for a number of second-story additions that could greatly impact their privacy and could greatly reduce their ability to enjoy use of their huge backyard in privacy. • Said that while she does not share a fence with this subject property, she also does not want to look up at a second story. • Expressed fears about a domino effect, with the potential for numerous second story additions in the future. • Said that she has two giant sycamore trees in her yard to help with screening. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Gross how many two story homes she can see from her home. Ms. Tina Gross replied that there are two visible from her home. One is located kitty corner from her home. The other is visible from her rear yard. However, on her street, Woodside Court, there are no two-story homes. Ms. Melanie Karren, 12515 Woodwide Court, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 6 • Advised that she had submitted a letter to the Commission expressing her concern for a loss in privacy with this second-story addition. • Said that her home is located directly behind this site. • Advised that they have just completed asingle-story addition to their home and this second-story addition will overlook a great part of their home and yard. • Said that a Landscape Architect she consulted with has advised that the trees existing on the subject property will lose leaves and during that time screening by these trees will be limited. • Said that she has a Variance on her property for two and a half feet into the side yard setback, which was approved because it was an existing structure. • Added that atwo-story was constructed in a house located behind their bedroom. At the time, they did not object to that project. • Said that they have looked at the plans, find them to be of a nice design but want to protect their investment and privacy. Mr. Eric Escola, 19224 Brookview Drive, Saratoga: • Said that his home is situated to the right of this project and he has lived there for 10 years. • Said that he installed double paned windows to mitigate the noise from Highway 85. • Advised that he likes the privacy offered by single-story homes with six-foot fences and mature landscaping. These features drew him to purchase in this neighborhood. • Said that his main issue is privacy. Two proposed windows for this addition will face his house. Said that the designer has assured him that access to these windows from the home will be limited since there are built in bookcases that are two feet deep. • Distributed photos taken from his residence. One showing the view from his family room and the other taken from his backyard looking toward the roofline of the Palumbo home. • Expressed concern with the potential for modifying any required mitigation measures by future owners. • Asked that a Condition of Approval ensure that these measures remain in effect. • Clarified that he signed a letter showing that he had reviewed the plans for this remodel but that his signature does not reflect support for the proposal. Ms. Cynthia Eikhorn, Project Designer, encouraged the neighbors to review her panoramic photos. Said that her clients are willing to add evergreen landscaping to help screen this site from adjacent neighbors. Assured that they are being sensitive in their design to the architecture and to the neighbors. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the relationship between the need for the balcony and desire for a view. Ms. Cynthia Eikhorn advised that having a balcony allows the feeling of being up in the treescape. There is a sense of the mountains just being there. The balcony is just a nice feature to have. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:18 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that the balcony is a big issue with the neighbors and wondered if it was really a necessary feature. Commissioner Kurasch: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 7 • Said that she appreciates the efforts to be sensitive in designing this project. • Said that it was a disadvantage not having a plot plan to see this house in relation to the property. Without, it is hard to see if there are alternatives and/or other options. • Said that is appears there are adverse impacts on neighbors. • Stated that the 21-foot height is not unreasonable even for asingle-story home let alone a two- story. • Said that it is bad practice to rely on vegetation to deal with~design issues. • Expressed her reticence to approve asecond-story addition in a predominately single-story neighborhood. Commissioner Jackman said that this is a tastefully done addition. Agreed that 21 feet is not that high for atwo-story residence. Asked if it is possible to place the balcony toward the front of the house. Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is leaning toward moving the balcony to the front elevation, strengthening the Conditions of Approval regarding the retention of the approved windows and requiring additional screening landscaping. Asked Ms. Eikhorn if her clients are willing to consider these requirements. Ms. Cynthia Eikhorn replied that she believed so. Said that they prefer the front elevation has they have proposed. Said that either an alternative balcony design at the rear elevation or a change to windows instead of a balcony could be considered. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:26 p.m. Mr. Mike Palumbo stated that he would support either a reduction in the size of the balcony or go to the use of windows instead. These options are preferred rather than moving the balcony to the front of the house. Chair Barry pointed out that the Commission wants to ensure that the approved windows are retained in the future, that the deck be screened with a trellis feature, that additional evergreen landscape screening be added and that opaque glass in the bathroom window be used. Mr. Mark Palumbo said these requirements are fine with him. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:27 p.m. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:28 p.m. Mr. Eric Escola, 19224 Brookview Drive, Saratoga: • Asked for clarification as to whether the balcony stands to be redesigned or relocated to the front of the home. Director Tom Sullivan advised Mr. Escola that right now the Commission is discussing its options. The ultimate proposal will be made clear when a motion is proposed. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps the redesigned project should come back to the Commission for a second look. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 8 Chair Barry said that she would prefer to have specific Conditions of Approval prepared so that this project can go forward. Added that the Commission is very sensitive to the neighborhood compatibility issues. Said that the Commission hears of the privacy impact issues from the rear neighbors and that additional landscaping is a reasonable option. Commissioner Garakani stated that since the bedroom is used for sleeping, the privacy impacts should be minimal. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed, stating that the room can be used as a sitting room or for some other purpose other than as a bedroom. Said that the desire for a_view is the clear reason for the inclusion'of a balcony feature. Added that use of windows instead of a balcony might be a better option. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-005 to allow a 701 square foot addition to a residence on property located at 19208 Brookview Drive with the added Conditions of Approval: 1. That the window provision be strengthened within the Conditions of Approval; 2. That the balcony either be reduced in size or eliminated; 3. That the windows at the rear be reduced; and 4. That the applicants provide additional screening landscaping to provide year- round screening. (4-1-1; Commissioner Kurasch voted against and Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. Director Tom Sullivan instructed the designer to provide revised plans to the Planning Department before the conclusion of the appeal period so that the neighbors can be invited to review the revised plans and determine whether or not they feel an appeal is warranted. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.3 UP-O1-004 (397-24-012) - MARKWITH, 20253 La Paloma Avenue: Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 462 square foot garage and remove an existing 297 square foot garage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 7,491 square feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to allow the reconstruction and enlargement of a garage located within rear and side yard setbacks. • Said that this is an existing non-conforming structure that will be demolished and reconstructed. • Said that the Use Permit is required since this is a legal non-conforming structure. • Informed that during the site visit, it was determined that the installed driveway was just 8 feet wide rather than the required 11.5 feet in width. The proper width was depicted on the plans but the contractor incorrectly installed the drive. It will be corrected. • Suggested placing a Condition of Approval to require the widening of this drive to the approved 11.5-foot width per the plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 9 • Advised that the backup distance between the garage and house is just 20 feet. However, moving the garage closer to the rear setback is not feasible. Options considered included reducing the length of the garage from 22 feet to 19. However, the applicant wants the longer garage. Another option is to construct a garage and a half. This option would require approval of a Variance and require further public noticing. Another alternative is a tandem garage but this is not in keeping with the area. • Staff is recommending approval of the proposal as submitted. While the 20-foot backup space is tight, it is possible. • Added that this reconstructed garage eliminates anon-conforming structure. • Provided a minor correction to page 1 of the Resolution, striking pool house and replacing with garage. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the impervious coverage will change with the correction to the driveway. Director Tom Sullivan said no. The plans reflected the 11.5-foot wide driveway and that was what was calculated when determining the impervious coverage. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:41 p.m. Mr. Jim Markwith, Applicant/Owner, 20253 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Expressed his support with the proposal but asked that the driveway be allowed to be widened following completion of construction to avoid damage. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the requirement would be that the driveway be completed prior to issuance of final occupancy. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:44 p.m. Commissioner Garakani stated that most houses in this area seem to have a similar driveway/garage setup. Joked that perhaps smaller cars will be in order. Commissioner Zutshi wondered why this garage was not a part of the original remodel. Commissioner Jackman questioned whether the garage is aone-and-a-half or two-car garage. Chair Barry replied two car. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved UP-O1-004 to allow a 462 square foot, two-car garage within the rear and side yard setbacks on property located at 20253 La Paloma Avenue, with the requirement that the driveway be modified to meet the approved plan for an 11.5 foot width. (5-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this approval is final. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 UP-O1-009 & DR-O1-005 (392-22-035) - SCHUPPERT, 20350 Orchard Road: Request for a Use Permit to construct a new 418 squaze foot gazage and remove an existing 323 square foot gazage. The Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within the rear and side yard setback. The property is 6,250 gross squaze feet and 5,250 net squaze feet in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a similar application to the previous one. -The applicant seeks. approval for a new 418 square foot gazage within a side and reaz yard setback as well as a 593 square foot addition to the home. • Added that were the Use Permit not required to have the gazage within the setbacks, this addition is small enough to have been approved as an Administrative Design Review. • Said that the FAR is 2,025 squaze feet or 500 squaze feet less than permitted. The addition is within the requirements of Code and will reduce anon-conforming sideyard setback by two feet. • Staff is recommending approval. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:50 p.m. • Mr. Rich Schuppert, Applicant, 20350 Orchard Road, Sazatoga: • Said that he has owned this home for 20 yeazs and is trying to stay within asingle-story structure while still obtaining the needed additional living space. • Reminded that a letter of support from all of his surrounding neighbors was provided to the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that this is a logical addition and that she likes to see hidden garages. • Said this is an appropriate application. • Expressed concern for the amount of impervious coverage and asked why there is so much. Mr. Rich Schuppert: • Replied that one reason is because they are staying with asingle-story format. • Added that they are trying to achieve a Spanish courtyard effect. • Agreed that they don't need to use concrete but rather could use some sort of pervious material. • Reminded that this is a very small home with just about 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Jackman suggested use of pervious pavers for the patio. Mr. Rich Schuppert agreed to do so. Commissioner Gazakani mentioned the limited back up space from the driveway. Mr. Rich Schuppert agreed but said that it is a similaz setup to the other homes in the neighborhood. Chair Barry said that this is a charming neighborhood and this design looks nice. Assured Mr. Schuppert that he will be happy with a brick courtyard as she has one that she really enjoys. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 11 Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:52 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved UP-O1-009 and DR-O1-005 to allow a 418 square foot garage within the rear and side yard setbacks on property located at 20350 Orchard Road with the use of pervious pavers in the courtyard. (5-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. Chair Barry called for a break at 8:55 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 9:04 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 5 DR-O1-006, UP-O1-002, TUP-O1-003, LL-O1-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road: Request for .Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use Permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet, 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the application before the Commission is for Design Review and a Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing Fire Station and the construction of a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, a Lot Line adjustment is required to retain the new structure within the property line. Currently, the existing building encroaches into the Plaza next door. • Said that the property is zoned for Professional/Administration and the General Plan Land Use designation is PF (Public Facilities). The parcel is 9,274 square feet and the site is flat. The zoning requires 12,000 square feet but this is an existing non-conforming structure. • Proposed materials include off-white stucco. The attempt has been made to match the architecture of the Federated Church, a Julia Morgan influenced design. • Advised that the Municipal Code allows the City to adjust setbacks, heights and lot coverage with the issuance of a Use Permit. • Said that Findings can be made to support this application since it is replacing an existing facility with nearly the same size footprint. The proposal only slightly expands the footprint and the project will be consistent with the adjacent properties. • Advised that this Fire Station is centrally located within the Saratoga Fire District. • The project will include improvements to the Memorial Plaza and the protection of Olive trees (including the transplanting of some and with their replacement should the trees not successfully transplant). • Said that the Fire Station is located within Historic Downtown, the Gateway to the Downtown. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 12 • Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the proposed design with a 6-0-1 vote with one abstention. • Staff is recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and advised that mitigation measures proposed include the improvements to Memorial plaza and the relocation of two bus stops. • Advised that two emergency generators will be installed. • Informed that the applicants purchased the adjacent Contempo building in order to provide additional parking. This added 22 parking spaces for a total-of 32 with the 10 on site. • Added that the Use Permit process allows the Commission to grant a Use Permit with variations to the standards if necessary findings can be made. • The Lot Line Adjustment is for 513 square feet in exchange for 529 square feet needed at the back of the building. • Reminded that Council has the final authorization. • Said that a review of the General Plan allows the transfer of City-owned property for compensation. In this case the improvements to Memorial Plaza represents the compensation. • Said that the Temporary Use Permit is to allow the temporary location of the Fire Station. Usually such applications are for small uses such as pumpkin or Christmas tree lots. This TUP will allow the use of the alternate facility to provide continued fire services during the construction of the new Fire Station. • Suggested that a Covenant should be recorded that requires the maintenance of permanent parking for the Fire Station, even should the Contempo building property be sold in the future. • Pointed out correspondence, including a letter from Santa Clara County Fire District Chief Spoorleader, which states that this facility would also meet their requirements should they end up the provider of Fire Protection Services for Saratoga. • Staff is recommending approval. Chair Barry asked how the vote on this application should be handled. Director Tom Sullivan advised that unless there is a major issue that comes up for one aspect of the proposal, one motion and vote can be taken for the entire proposal. Commissioner Kurasch said that she recalled that it had been recommended that public comment be taken at a first meeting but that the matter be continued for final action to another date. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the reason for that had been to allow Council to meet and discuss the future of fire services for the City. That Council meeting has occurred and the result was that no action was taken. The Fire Commissioners were to have meet last night (6/12/01). At this point, the Planning Commission should review this application based on Land Use issues. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are too many unknowns. Suggested that there might be a change in the disposition of this facility based upon the outcome regarding who will provide fire protection services. Director Tom Sullivan reiterated that the County Fire Chief has said that this facility's design meets with their approval. Commissioner Kurasch insisted upon the importance to achieve the maximum in public comment and asked what outreach efforts were made to the community. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 13 Director Tom Sullivan replied that this application was advertised and posted consistent with the Municipal Code and State Laws. The noticing was sent to owners within 500 feet, the postings occurred in three public places. An ad was placed in the local community newspaper. There was no lack of public notification. Commissioner Jackman agreed that this was one of the best-advertised projects in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked if public comments were received. Director Tom Sullivan advised that all correspondence received was provided in the packet or as table items this evening. Commissioner Garakani said that he did not understand how any approvals could occur prior to the necessary land being officially made available to the project. Director Tom Sullivan replied by conditioning the project. Chair Barry said that she understands that the land trade is necessary and justified. Commissioner Garakani asked under what circumstances a zero setback can be allowed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Municipal Code Section 15.55.030 is where the provision to allow for variations from standards is found. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the actual provision of parking on site. Director Tom Sullivan advised that one space per employee is required. There are 10 on-site spaces. The Fire District bought the Contempo property with 22 spaces. They will record a Covenant to retain the right to use these spaces for the Fire Station. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Ernest Kraw, Fire Chief, Saratoga Fire District: • Informed that their existing building was constructed 80 years ago and was originally used as an auto repair garage. Space was rented for the storage of fire equipment and then the building was purchased for use as a Fire Station in 1956. In the early 60's the building was redesigned and upgraded, including changes to the front elevation. • Said that seven and a half years ago, a Citizens' Committee was formed and a consulting firm hired. It was determined that the building is not seismically safe. • RRM was hired. They specialize in designing Fire Stations. • Said that they are excited with the design of this new building. • Introduced the team working on this project. Ms. Mary McGrath, RRM Design Group: • Said that she started working with the Fire District in 1998. • Introduced Mr. Chris Ford who will discuss design issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 14 Mr. Chris Ford, C3 Design Alliance: • Provided a background, which includes site and building design issues. • Said that an Initial Study was prepared seven and a half years ago. At that time the building report was completed, the Citizens' Group formed and an architect hired to study feasibility and budgeting for a new Fire Station. Later the acquisition of the Contempo building occurred and Measure F was passed. The proposed design was refined and went before Council for a preliminary review, using an informational presentation. A traffic study was completed by Fehr & Peers regarding the intersection. A refined design is now before the Commission. • Described specific design features. The new building is 53 percent larger with the addition of a lot of firefighter living space, medical support functions and workstations. The building has been designed to meet the present and future needs and is flexible as the mission of the District evolves. The building can be reconfigured. There are double deep apparatus bays; full service fire and medical emergency services and bunkrooms have been replaced with individual bedrooms. The internal configuration can be adapted. The entrance is on the west side, facing the Village. With the addition of the Contempo building, there will be classroom space available to the Community, the Sheriff and to other West Valley Fire Districts. • Issues regarding the overall site include: To the left of the site is the new building. To the right of the site is the Contempo building, which will serve as the Fire House during construction of the new Fire building. The temporary site will be aself-contained, relatively secured site (with fencing rather than as an enclosed building. In the future, the Contempo building will provide visitor parking and classroom space. • Site Design Issues: The Plaza Design, relocation of Olive Trees, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, revisions to the site lines (as the new building will eliminate an existing encroachment into visual site line at the corner) and intersection layouts. • Building Design: The floor plan includes three apparatus bays, two of which are double deep. The general orientation of the building is to the west side. The upstairs will be used for living quarters with eight individual bedrooms, ten workstations, a larger kitchen and dayroom. The second floor will be pushed to the back and not be on the street. They will use Villa Montalvo design features including a the roof, arches and divided light windows and tower features. • Form/Massing: The main entrance will be on the west side. The materials include clay the roofs, copper gutters, ceramic tile, wood screening and 14-foot doors. The building height will be 35 feet from the Plaza level. However, the Plaza is below the grade of the sidewalk and street and so the appearance of height from the sidewalk/street is actually 28 feet. The apparatus doors will be reduced to 17 feet from 22.5 feet. • Pointed out the study model available. • Stated the goals for a project design that meets public safety needs of the community; compliments the Memorial Plaza and Village of Saratoga; and is inspired by the building's history and the history of the surrounding area. • Made himself available for questions and asked the Fire District's Attorney to make some remarks. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District. • Stated that the District has no intention of disposing of the Contempo building. It was acquired to keep. They have no objection to the requirement for a Covenant to ensure the availability of parking. This is appropriate and acceptable. • Said that Condition of Approval No. 16 is illegal and unconstitutional and has no relationship to the development of the new Fire Station. The City has no authority to impose this Condition. No Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 15 traffic impacts were identified with the Traffic Report. The only mitigation measures required of the project were for concerns other than traffic. • Said that the Land Use and Design issues should be evaluated for now rather than later. Operational issues should not be in question. • Pointed out the letter from the County Fire District that states they have no problem with the design of this Fire Station. Added that a cooperative arrangement with County Fire seems to be the direction the City will pursue. • Said that they support all Conditions of Approval but No. 16, which requires improvements to the intersection. Commissioner Kurasch said that there is a potential for vehicle conflicts. Added that Condition No. 16 is not asking for major road re-alignment but rather the addition of a right turn only lane, restriping and the modification to the curb to help pedestrians. The connection is there between these requirements and the construction of a new Fire Station. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District, said that this is an existing condition (poor line of site/visibility). They are moving the building back from the street. This will improve circulation and line of site. Mitigation measures can be imposed when there is an adverse impact. However, per the CEQA analysis, no traffic impacts have been identified. The effect of this project is a net improvement in the situation. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Fire District initiated the review for street improvements. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District, replied that it was never their intention to have the improvements imposed as a condition of their proposed project. Director Tom Sullivan stated that Condition No. 16 is a Public Works requirement. Chair Barry added that she was not comfortable removing this Condition without the City Attorney available to provide counsel. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can either remove the Condition or leave it in. The applicant then has the option to appeal that Condition to Council. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District, said that these improvements add a six figure cost to the project. This has a negative impact and was not budgeted. Chair Barry asked if the Public Works requirement includes installation of a new signal. Director Tom Sullivan replied just adjustments to the signal and restriping. Mr. Bill Sousa, 13830 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Reminded that it is taxpayer money paying for this project. • The Fire District is not telling the public what the total cost of the project will be. • Said he wanted to know the total construction cost, the demolition costs, the temporary site, furniture and fixtures costs and the site costs for a maintenance garage. Chair Barry reminded the audience of the purview of the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: S • Said that the building was constructed in the 1920's and that its replacement will need to serve the community for the next 75 or so years. Along-range perspective is necessary, including planning for future need. • Said that despite that vote to work with County Fire, the future for Saratoga Fire services is unsettled. • Expressed concern for the reduction in apparatus bay doors from four to three. • Said that the City will pay about six million dollars for a less capable Fire House. • Added that the need for leaving the ambulance parked outside"the new building shows that it has been outgrown before it is even built. • Said that this is a bad plan for the new century. Commissioner Kurasch asked what Mr. Farrell's involvement is in this matter. Mr. Ed Farrell replied that he is both a citizen of the community and a member of the FACT Committee. Mr. Aaron Katz, P.O. Box 116, Saratoga: • Said that he provided a letter and is a local resident. • Said that this proposal violates all requirements and is improper. • Questioned the noticing as even the adjacent Post Office was unaware of this meeting. • Said the he did not receive notice from the City but did receive something from the Chief. • Said that three weeks ago he requested that pole netting be installed to demonstrate the proposed building height. • Suggested atwo-week continuance to allow the placement of the pole netting. • Said that the Fire Department should get the necessary 529 square feet of land from the City before proceeding with their application. Added that the 513 square feet being provided to the City in trade is worthless. • Disagreed that there are 10 parking spots on site. • Suggested that there is potential for many more people on site when you factor in the volunteer firefighters and support staff. Said that there should be a limit to the number of employees based upon the number of provided parking spaces. • Suggested a Covenant prohibiting the sublet of the Contempo building. • Said that a 13,000 square foot Fire Station is not needed. • Said that the Argonaut Shopping Center is neither in character nor compatible with the area. Mr. Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Saratoga: • Informed that he spoke with Project Designer Chris Ford about a year ago and got some questions answered. However, when he tried to make contact a second time, he was advised by Mr. Ford that he would be unable to answer any further questions. Said that he has had problems getting any information about this project since. • Said that the public has not had input and should have that chance. • Requested the placement of story poles with netting. • Added that this is an immense structure that is out of scale and with too much mass. Mr. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 17 • Said that he had worked with City Planner, Mark Connolly, in the past getting information about this project. • Advised that he has a degree in Architecture and that he is flabbergasted at the size of this enormous building. Called it outrageous. Said if it is allowed to be built, it needs to be sized back. • Stated that four apparatus bay doors are mandatory, especially with a zero setback project. • Said that the Fire Department is creating a building three times its original size while reducing available equipment space by 20 percent. This makes no sense. • Said that the public has not had the opportunity to provide necessary input. • Said that the building will need to fit the needs of the future when it is incorporated with County Fire. • Said that this project is the taxpayers' money at work. They will run short and may end up needing another bond issue, which he will not support. Reminded that there are only about 4,000 taxpayers to pay for these bonds. Mr. Kevin Schot: • Expressed concern for firefighter safety when they need to back up engines on busy streets, standing in traffic to do so. • Said that two other fire stations in the area had similar problems. One (located on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino) ended up solving it by incorporating a drive through building. The other placed their building at the far back of their site and could therefore use their own parking lot to back trucks into the apparatus bays. • Opined that this situation will not get better and needs to be dealt with now. Commissioner Garakani asked whether the applicants have been copied with all letters on this matter. Mr. Chris Ford replied yes. Said that he has no rebuttals to the comments made but would make himself available to address.any questions. Commissioner Kurasch asked why fewer bays are proposed while more equipment will be used. Mr. Chris Ford said the determination is based upon the function of the first response apparatus. The goal is to have a number of apparatus bay doors that meet standards. The three proposed bays are pulled back from the street as much as possible, about eight feet. They are confident that three apparatus bay doors will meet both current and future needs. Chair Barry asked about the potential jeopardy of firefighters having to stand in the street to back equipment into the apparatus bays. Asked if adrive-through design had been considered. Mr. Chris Ford said that a drive through was not considered on this site. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether alley circulation was considered. Mr. Chris Ford pointed out the problems due to the differences in grade between the alley and street frontage, about seven feet, which prevent this option. Commissioner Jackman asked staff about adequate noticing. Director Tom Sullivan replied that notices were sent to 102 property owners per the affidavit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 18 , Commissioner Jackman asked why the story poles were never installed. Chief Kraw, Saratoga Fire Department: • Replied that he had never been informed of such a request before this evening's meeting. Said that he was unsure how to go about having them installed but that he was willing to do so. • Elaborated on the equipment proposed including first line engine, engine 30, engine 31, a back up engine, an ambulance and rescue truck. This building will accommodate equipment for two engine companies with eight bedrooms. There will be a maximum of 10 employees on duty during any 24-hour period.. Twenty-two parking spaces will be provided. Commissioner Kurasch asked about expanded training in the future. Chief Kraw replied that additional training is a necessary feature of a Fire station. Added that they will be able to control the traffic signal from the Fire Station and that they have gone 30 years without a firefighter being involved in an accident while directing the trucks onto the site. Commissioner Zutshi asked what the greatest number of people on site would be at any time. Chief Kraw said eight firefighters and two paramedics (working 24 hours) and five support (working 8 hour shifts) and the potential for eight to 15 volunteers. Chair Barry asked Chief Kraw what he thought of the restriction to prohibit the subleasing of the Contempo building. Chief Kraw replied that they pulled the training room and storage space from the new building which will have to go in to the Contempo building. There will be no space available to sublet. Commissioner Jackman questioned the need for 10 workstations. Chief Kraw said that the firefighters work on special projects, performs record keeping duties, does training and research. This is an essential part of a Fire Station. Commissioner Jackman agreed that the current Murphy bed sleeping accommodations are inadequate. Chief Kraw agreed. Chair Barry asked Chief Kraw if he thought that there may be too much response capability and whether this station is being overbuilt. Chief Kraw replied that the building is being designed to house two engines and eight firefighters. This compares to one engine and three firefighters at both Cox and Quito Stations. The newer standard is to have four firefighters per engine rather than three. The building has been designed to meet today's needs through 10 years out. Current needs include coed facilities. Chair Barry clarified with Chief Kraw that the Lot Line Adjustment or land trade is contingent on Council approval. Asked Mr. Chris Ford whether the copper being used is for decorative or functional purposes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 19 Mr. Chris Ford advised that the proposal includes copper gutters and wall flashing. Pointed out a current remodel of the City Hall in Santa Cruz where 75 plus year old copper gutters will be reinstalled as part of the renovation because they remain in excellent condition. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the need for two beds per room. Mr. Chris Ford pointed out that there are two beds and three lockers per room. There are three people assigned for each room. In other words, the two beds are shared amongst three firefighters . on. a rotating basis. This is actually a space saving measure. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Garakani said that this should be a win-win situation. There is a need to rebuild the Fire Station. Citizens have concerns. Agreed that story poles should be installed. Chair Barry asked Commissioner Garakani if he is suggesting a continuance. Commissioner Garakani said that there are concerns that need to be addressed. Said that the Contempo building perhaps should be used for administrative uses thereby allowing greater setbacks for the new building. Commissioner Zutshi supported a continuance. Commissioner Jackman said that she too su orts a continuance based upon the need for the land Pp switch. Said that she wanted to be sure this goes forward before going any further. Stated that this is one of the biggest projects for the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch said that she too supports a continuance and that she still wants more information regarding the needs and how the new building will meet those needs since it will be used for the next 50 or more years. Reminded that she had expected two hearings anyway and that perhaps a Study Session is warranted. Said that there are still unanswered questions. More time and the placement of story poles will be helpful. Said that height and massing are concerns as well as the utilization of space. Commissioner Jackman said that there are constraints based upon the size of the property. Chair Barry stated that four Commissioners have expressed support for a continuance. Suggested that the Commission specify what new information it would like provided when the matter comes back before it. Commissioner Garakani said that there are many sensitive issues. Director Tom Sullivan informed that the next agenda is substantially lighter than this evening's and this item can be placed at the start of the meeting. Chair Barry said that a Public Hearing is preferable to a Study Session and suggested a continuance to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 20 Commissioner Garakani said that the hard issues need to be solved and that this project needs to be considered like any other project is considered. Chair Barry: • Listed the areas of concern as: setbacks (although in a Public Service District the normal setbacks don't carry much weight); bulk/mass/roof line issues; and limits to how much the Commission can tell Fire regarding what they need in their building in order to function effectively. Added that she is not prepared to tell the Fire Department how many workstations and/or bedrooms they need.. Another key concern is the provision of parking and how it will be accommodated. • Suggested that the City Attorney work with Fire's Attorney to straighten out any differences about the applicability of Condition No. 16. • Asked the applicants if they are willing to return to the next meeting of if they would prefer some sort of vote tonight. Chief Kraw said that they are willing to come to the next meeting to continue. Said that a lot has been accomplished this evening and they have learned a lot. Asked for direction on the installation of the story poles as he has never done such a thing. Director Tom Sullivan said that the poles need to be in place minimally on the Tuesday before the next Planning Commission meeting and preferably even before that to allow members of the public to view it in place prior to the Hearing. Commissioner Kurasch asked what specific concerns members of the Commission have. Commissioner Jackman stated that she does not want to redesign the building but rather wants to see that the land exchange is actually approved, that parking is provided and that the building height is acceptable. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that there has not been enough information regarding the size and bulk of the building. Chief Kraw advised that the size and heights of the fire trucks dictate the size of the bays and doors. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a very large structure for the site and that she does not know how to qualify that fact. The needs should be justified. The question to be answered is what is essential to in order to provide public safety. Chair Barry added that any functions that could be moved to the Contempo building or addressed iri some other function should be done. Said one question is whether there is any way to make the Fire House smaller. Chair Barry continued the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 2001. She thanked the audience for their participation and directed staff to renotice the next meeting. *** • DIRECTOR ITEMS ., Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 21 Blackwell Properties, Lot 54, Alta Vista Subdivision. Modification of Approval Director Tom Sullivan provided an update and recommended approval of the proposed modifications. The Commission expressed support and the modifications were approved. Joint CounciVPlannin~ Commission Retreat: Director •Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that the Mayor has proposed a joint retreat between Council and the Commission for July 14, 200.1, for a barbecue. Families are invited. Start Time for Future Planning Commission Meetings: Director Tom Sullivan suggested changing the start time for Planning Commission meetings to 7 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. The Commissioners were enthusiastic in support of that proposal and the new start time will commence with the next meeting on June 27, 2001. COMMISSION ITEMS Appointment of Liaison to Library Committee: Commissioner Zutshi volunteered to serve in this capacity, expressing her love and support of libraries. List of Priorities: Chair Barry reminded staff of the list of priorities that the Commission would like to work on over the year including issues such as basements and landscaping plans. Director Tom Sullivan suggested agendizing review of this list for the next meeting at which time a subcommittee of the Commission can be created to work with staff. When items are ready for discussion by the entire Commission, they will be agendized. Commissioner Garakani stressed the importance of neighbor involvement early in the review process. Early Distribution of Packets: Chair Barry thanked staff for providing the agenda packets on Thursday instead of Friday and for providing a draft agenda for the subsequent meeting with this packet. Housing Element Update: Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the lack of updates on the Housing Element. Said that she does not feel up to speed on this subject. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 22 Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that he has a meeting scheduled with the Consultant on June 22°d where he will receive the rough draft. The process is still at the staff/consultant stage. s Something written is required before starting with meetings and hearings. Chair Barry disagreed and stated that some general education on the subject could be helpful at this stage. Director Tom Sullivan suggested placing a general discussion of the Housing Element on the first agenda in July. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would appreciate seeing other examples from other cities, those that work and those that do not work. Learning Process for New Commissioners: Commissioner Garakani expressed the need for learning applicable terms that come up regularly in Public Hearings. Director Tom Sullivan asked the Commissioners to provide him with a list of any resource materials they have received to date. He proposed to distribute to each Commissioner a copy of .the current General Plan, a Planning Commissioner's Handbook, a Municipal Code as well as other material he as accumulated over the last 25 years in Planning. New Commissioner: Commissioner Jackman asked if a new Planning Commissioner has been selected. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the new Commissioner will begin work with the next meeting. Brown Act Question: Chair Barry asked if there is any infraction of the Brown Act should two Commissioners meet in order to review an agenda packet together. Particularly helpful would be having the two new Commissioners meet with longer tenured Commissioners. Director Tom Sullivan said as long as there is no quorum and as long as specific voting plans are not discussed, this-type of interaction will not be in violation of Brown Act rules. Mailing for Public Hearings: Commissioner Garakani asked whether certified mail might not be necessary when mailing out public hearing notices. Expressed concern that many members of the public have stated they have not received notice of public hearings. • Director Tom Sullivan said that this form of mailing exceeds the requirement and is both cost and time-prohibitive. However, he will look into this suggestion. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 23 Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 8, 2001, and May 22, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. to Wednesday, June 27, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • ~~ ITEM 1 • GB~~ o~ ~~OO ~L~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORAMDUM C~ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP DATE: June 27, 2001 RE: Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue COUNCII. MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith At the conclusion of the Public Hearing held on June 6, 2001 for the Planning Commission to consider the application of the Saratoga Fire District, the Planning Commission identified issues and continued the Public Hearing to its June 27, 2001 regular meeting. The following items were identified as either issues or direction to Staff: 1. Re-notice the public hearing. Please see attached copy. 2. How many parking spaces exist on site and how many parking spaces will be provided for the new station on Fire District property? Please see Sheet 7 of the Plan Set (previously distributed to the Commission). You will see that existing is calculated at 0 and Proposed is calculated at 22. The existing parking is on the City's alley. ~'oning Ordinance Section 15-35.030 (~ states, "One space for each employee and such additional number of spaces as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission." Staf f has also attached a copy of the Assessor's Parcel Map page for this area. This shows the entire area. 3. How many employees will there be? The Plan Set on page 7 indicates that there are 14. During the Hearing, the Chief indicated that there would be 15. Considering the information in item #2 and this item, it would seem those 15 spaces plus any additional is what is required The information regarding the number of employees is presented as the number of employees on the largest shift. While this is a deviation from the strict interpretation of the code, it is one that does make some sense. There will be a period when one shift is going of f duty and the relieving shif t is coming on duty. The day shif t is the period when the administrative staf f id at the station. 5 + 8 + 8 += 21. Presumably, for that minor increment the 22 spaces provided will be adequate. 4. It was questioned as to whether or not the City would actually approve the Lot Line adjustment. Staf f has spoken to the City Manager about this issue, he has indicated that the Ciry Council is fully aware of the issue and seems to be fully on board 5. The Planning Commission and the Public requested Story Poles. Staff has provided to the project architect a list of 5 individual firms who provide such services locally. 6. Is it necessary to grant exception to all of the zoning standards? If this Fire Station is to be constructed, the answer is yes. Along with the Design Review, the issue of the LIse Permit to allow zero setbacks and extra height is probably the most critical issue facing the Commission in this application (see Section 15-55.030 "Variation from Standards" from the ~'oning Code, attached). ~®~©'®~, Printed on recycled paper. MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP SUBJECT: Saratoga Fire District June 27, 2001 Paget 7. Can some of the Office/Administration activities be placed in the Contempo Building? The utilization of the interior space falls outside of the purview of Design Review. Section 15-46.040(copy attached) provides alisting of a - f what Design Criteria the Commission should consider. Staff does understand the concern or opinion that if the Administrative activities were moved to the Contempo Building that the proposed "station could be made smaller, thus requiring less infringement into the setback areas. 8. The issue of Heritage Lane Architectural Design Standards was raised. Staff has attached a copy of an Ordinance adopted by the City Council that sets the boundaries of Heritage Lane. Those boundaries are from Fruitvale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue. 9. The question of total cost was raised. This clearly is not a Land Use issue. 10. It was suggested to see if the Boundary Drop issue is resolved and if so to reduce to one Engine Company. First, this is not a Land Lase issue and secondly, on a map that was part of the recent LAFCo Study and provided by Santa Clara County Frer (attached), the Saratoga Fire District Station is shown as a Core Fire Station. Core Stations have two Engine Companies while other Fire Stations have a single Engine company. 11. Public Works exaction on the corner. Staff still recommends that the improvement needs to be made and that the developer (Saratoga Fire District) is responsible to make them. 12. The issue of fire Fighter Safety was raise as it related to having to back into the Station. Clearly, the preferable situation is to have the fire apparatus able to drive though. Due to a severegrade change at this location, that is physically impossible. 13. The issue of user needs was raised. Theprincipal application before the Planning Commission is Design Review and a Use Permit to allow the elimination of certain ,zoning standards. User needs is not really within the purview of a Design Review. In many cases form does follow function, however, in our case, identifying the function is beyond our scope. 14. The matter of three bay doors vs. four bay doors was raised. The application before the Commission is a three bay door Fire Station. If the site were larger, four bay doors would be better. The site is very constraining and cannot accommodate a fourth bay without moving back into the line of sight. Please note, Staff will bring back the resolution(s) memorializing the Planning Commisson action at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Re-notice of public hearing (June 27, 2001). 2. Assessor's Parcel Map Book 397 Page 22. 3. Section 15-55.030 Variation from Standards of the Zoning Code. • • • 0®~®®~ MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP SUBJECT: Saratoga Fire District June 27, 2001 Page3 4. Section 15-46.040 of the Zoning Code. S. City Council Ordinance HP-19 "Designating the Portion of Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane" and associated staff report to Council from the heritage Commission dated July 3,1991 6. Fire Service Boundary Map • • O®U®03 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~~0~~~ Attachment 1 AF FIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) " " ' ~~~~~~~ bein dul sworn de g Y poses and says: that he/she is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~c~~ day of J~:l~rc.~ 200 ~ he/she deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (see list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ~. ~ • 000005 n ~~ N~NV1 MPN~t Ill cOP00~ O NM~t IA •Oh COPO_r`_N _M ~t O~ NNN~t ~t1NNO~N000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N f~ /~ ••~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~~~~ N N~ ti ti N ti N N ti ti~ ti~ ti N~ ti N~~ ti~ N N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ¢aaaaaa<aaaa¢<aaaaaaacaacaaaa O O. N N 0 0 0 N O O (~ O O ~ A ~ O •O O O O P O 0 0 0 0 ~t O O N h M M I~ N f` M N f` ~O N N N N f` N A M /~ O N N~ N f` .~ N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~t O O O O O V10 0 0 0~n 0 0 0 0.00 O a a P P P P P a P P P a P P P P P P a P P P P P P P P P P a a U U d a d c a. ~ c a. ~ a a a c a. ~ a a o c a d~' a d a a o a c °~ a a a a a c d. ~ a a U U U U U U U O D U U U U U Z U N U U U U U U U Y W a d o o a a a o a¢ r a¢ a a a W Q W d 2 d 0 0 0Q~J CQQ~ 2 C7 C7rrC7 t7 C7r C7 C7 [C C7 C7 CL f.7 C7 J(.~(A C7 dC7 U' C7OOar~U• 0 o d a o 0 o a o 0 0 0 o O O J O O cc O O O C O C O r O rrc7 c7rrrc7rr arrOrr r W rwrrr rr C'rr as aaa aaoadJaa>ara ~~a~~w~d ~~~nviz~tr~n~~w~ oez~~z~zzz oe a ce adooaaaoaawdawdaaaoaaaaaad~ad N N J J N N N J N N CL' N N Z N Vf p N f y y N N N N N U H fn C7 O M O _ ~ M m CO dCOU60rU r _ r r rrrrrir Z ••• r. N .. •-• ~+ .. V p > > > J > O C > ~! r > > > > > > ~ U~ ~ ~' d d ~ d W 4 0 d d Z d d d d d W d V oooaa od xaJ azaoaaaaa~ (p O d' C7 C7 J C7 r CL' U C7 W C7 J C7 O t7 C7 C7 C7 rn~ J z=OOa30U O W O•-- t!1>O 0000000 Of O N F+> Gl W C Cl N N d CA 0 dtnww rr wr Jr~~nPQr>rocrrrrrr Y•••••-•da Y••••QW rW ¢WNO QYddd dd dd(// C ` Cr A ~ •~ ~ C ~ C Y U > > CIC CY [Y > CY Z W [O [Y J N N CL' U [Y C[1 CY OC tC CY CIC •-• 0 7 O QQO7QQQOdONCL'<OX raw4 dddddtrdd Z RI ~ W w ~+ '^ lCl C O~vINNtnav~N•-••Z6NC OXCYNaCa 41~N Vf In f/1NUNZ ~ H M y ~ N • ~ _ N m m S J `r• O d C7 O U E ~ a+ L•.- 7 N •O C~0000~l1000 O M E f~ V1P ~~-MMOM~ PN 00 f~f~t~Of~~1 t •O 1P O O G/ C O _ O ~+ Qy1L L N ~ lA Il~If~ V1 IA OIN ~t ~1P J~tMMM~TMf~O.f M1A 00 M~M.TMMMMM V~Mpp.. V- E 7 OI r O O C O.~ ~+ L d ~t 0 V1 V1 ~t ~t O V1 J N N 0 1 J • •O J V1 ~? M ~! ~t ~? ~t ~T M J P a ~ • C a ~• ~N~~~~Nr-r-r•MN~~n a t1N~~~.-.-.-~~~N.--.- N > V d Qy O ~ v L O d U N N N i+ O 01 U a+ O ~ y t0 E ~ ~ O /0 O ~ l0 CA > !~ -• to a+ 7 ~ L U C ~+ •~ ~ o H ~ ~ • 0 a .+ > E P a~ ~ a i m O _ O 0 7 L a y O 4 ~ ~ ~~ 7 t 0 v i i >P M a E w O C O L Vl O W d~ ~ N N O CO L N 0+ e~ a~wr ~•C r ~ C7 ICJ N f~ L 1A 1~ a 0 Cl N N O E 2 1~ ~+ U O• N ~ >. L C tY ~ "O U C , v d N r 0 y [Y Q 2 O 7 M ++ ~ /0 [T C N ~ a+ 3 fA •+ 0 3~ •• N x ~ E o 0 C N N C y S d to N a+ N /0 O C O fn a ~• C E N C7 O O c - u. O d tD ~ N N C C ~ Z O E /Cl O ~ tl lCl C •~ G1 N i+ N 3 O d ~ >• •O ~ O d O -+ L O A N O J W ~0 Qi •~ • Y N •~ J ~+ G! LL Z . U U ~ ~+ fp 00 d J d U 1. LL N v- >. d N> L J N O ++ 10 O ~+ . C 7 r L U f0 a+ ~ L L >. Ol QI L L X (.7 T 0 ~ ° ~ a U Z Z t` N ~ I O Gl ~ E M O lCJ a N C + • ~ C N O L cp 1L fp O p Z M L •~ O O O E L L L w w Z ~L d L IO ~ C O u a ~ O_ U U d' W W J W d J L •+ ¢l W ¢ A N w A O O N N N 7 d d/ C L CA J ?? d N N p d W W W W d C L K 3 L ~+ M 1+ O ~ C d Q J~ U T 2 r ••+ Z ~ Z >. L~ 7 ~+ ~ l9 • d V 3 L 2 S J r W W U U W U U~ W J y N W J~ ab C] . N e0 • U a0 ••- r Of > dO a+ O OW rrCL'[L'Jr[r r Z~ a8 J ~d W W J O L O W C N CLN ~ ~ [Y NN» dN OZ J41 NON Jd ••+ W W W W d d N L a+ K O C •~ ~+ w N d att >> S S ~ S ~ tl •-+ W Q x W r r W [Y `~ - C7 d _ ~+ ~ ~ N tp ~•~L a+ Oa.+ O U [L'OCUU rCL'UOZCIC Oro W r NOrNNr W O O C ~ N O L C V J ++ 3 /Cl c0 v- W r r W r Z W r [IC d Z r r W Z N» N C7 r ~ U W>• 7 O W C A O O ~+ U O W O O 0 6 3 J tl Z d ~ N W O d O[ I C t I C O CA d C N C ~ N ••- ~+ 3 -• L O d Z r N Vl W W Z N W {.7 tY d [Y O [IC Z OC r r [IC O C [r = 7 N~ •- NN ~+ ~ TCA~ t QN W W rrdW rJ NOtIC NCY O.7 Err r2 Q O -• C ++ 0 0 d O N /Cl a+ •~ L+ ] J J d Q~ J d O Z r N 1L '7 W d r Y C.7 tD d ++ N U•~ O C ~ O O J~ L N N dC' CY OC [IC tIC OC LY C1'22 W W W Z S 7 aN Zr W Z fn ~0f O O.M N WL••- O rdd W W LDd WxdW J••-•arOrN W dOCZdr N • W 1. V U ~ ~} L d O a ++ (A S x 0 0 x C 0 J Q O W x d J E~ W W 0 OC d N O C ~+ W ~ ~ L•~ O V O E~+ ~+FUU W W rU W ~2J ZU• xCL•r NY Waxen JZ WZZ C O ••-p ~+ U C m O W ~ L 7 U a E O ~ ~ u.w0 w oC Oddz d Q O'~UO>dcOW O U Y M r U 1 N 0 O r OU Ol CA L a.+ C C C /0 .+•X ~ __ _ _ _ Y~ ¢¢ ~ 3 Q Y 4 U Z U a' N pC U O O Z O i OC d=~ J~ ~ V X C U ••- N M L O L 0 N ~ pC ~• O U y„ ,O ~ y~ fQ L •~ t1L c~pp QOrrCy rrC7NOr OS WOd-•rOr••••WOCJT [ICO J J r r 0 0 Z r 0 3 r V) W A S to W= d p 3 w JCL' W W d L i+h N y Or E 7 tll ++•••• v•~ N E JwwW rrQQW r0 WO c7Z OZ~NO Z WQU o YYQQSY d[L'J••••Z •-+OrrZNOri 7 t7Zx d' r d tp O a •- ~ N N••- Ud W d N • N . 2XUU[L'CiC [L'U CICrdJ 2aA C72Z[Cdr ZN 2tYZr W L 07 C I!1 d L M K •--• ~ X a+ N 7 L L e0 _ O O d d d d x d d N W J O Z O W O O W QQ d rL •-PO r~ DD OC dy~ C ulrr'O 2 NUxx NfA W xNOZW C7 C7wJYHL7~J~YmdYO. 4 ` O©0o'1J V ~~ M~AO~NNNNOOOOOOOOOO~NMJIA ~O l~OOPNNNNNOOMf~ tiIA to I~lr11~A I~IPA~ ~O e~-A000~ ~tNM~}~f ~O I~M..~~pp}}IA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MMMMMMMMMPPPP PPPPPPO~PPPPPPPPPPP PPS.t .~i .t .t .T .t .}~T .t .! t.~tPPPPp. p. pip, p, p, p,PPP M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O b O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ f~ f~ l~ l~ l~ f~ f~ l~ f~ -~ f~ l~ f~ l~ f~ t~ l~ f~ f~ f~ f~ t~ l~ f~ f~ f~ !~ f~ I~ f~ f~ -~ M M M M M M M M M M M M M I~ P,f~ l~ t~ l~ f~ l~ l~ f~ f~ -~ f~ A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O e- .- ~ .- .- ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ MMM MM MMMMMM MM MM MM MM MMMM MM MMMM MM MM IA IA Vl Il1 IA to Vl 1A V11A 1A IA VI IA V11A Ill U~ IA IA IA IN VIA IA IA N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z Z 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 aao.aaaan:aaaan:o:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.aan.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa<asacaaaa¢aasaaaaaaaaaaaaca¢¢aaaac<aaaa<aaaaaa O O O O O O O O O M O O O N O O O O O O O O ~O O O!~ O O O N O O O O 001A O N M;O 001A O t!1 I/~ N O O V1 O O O O O N N O 0 0 1~Ml~t~I~1~f~1~f~f~Ol~f~I~Mt~f~f~f~f~I~f~A I~f~ f~f~f~M A1~h1~ 1~M MINANI~NNOl~1~N1~f~N h1~O_O 1~f~f~ 00000000000000'0000000000000000000000 X0000 JO~00000.-0000000.- 000 Vl IA Ill V1 IA V1 to Ill V1 IA Vl Vl 1!1 IA Ill IA IA to V1 Ill If1 Vl Ill IA IA IA O IA 11'1 V1 V1 V1 V1 IA IA 1A IA IA IA IA V1 N ~t IA ~t ~t ~t IA Ill ~T V1 IA to IA 1/~ ~t J M N to P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P O P P N P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P U U V V d 6Q QQ xU fa.)UO U acd.~Qaadaaad ada~addaaaad aacdaQUaaaaUC~QUC~aU a Uda aaaaac°~c°~daa U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U NQ U U£ U U U U U U U U U w Y U Y Y~ U U Y U U U U U _y _y U U U y 00 y O mC OC G'U K V U Q O Q Q Q Q 6 6 d Q U Q Q Q O Q d Q d Q 4 d Q Q Q d 6 6 0 0 0 d Q Q aY Z Q O Z Q d d Q 6 z 6 d Q Q 6 w Q Q z z 0 0 0 ~~c~ co coca ~c~ c~ c~c~c~i--c~c~c~c~c~c~~v~xc~c~ccoc~ c~~ c~c~coc~w--cal-ac~l-ac~a as c~c~o.c~coyc~c~aac~c~c~ O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 4 O O O O O O O O ~ O O y O O O d O O O O U t- O Q d' O~ O B O O O O O O O~ O C O O O H C7 F- H -- H I- 1- !- I- y F- Y- F- C7 H /- 1- H F- H F- 1- Z N H W H F- H C7 f- F- I- 1- 6 OC F- C7 W H O O ~- O O u. H H O H h- -7 -- H W W H F- -- a aaadaaaaodaa aaadadaaw¢a=aaa aaaa£wa >an.JaJJ aaJa~ as aa~ ~yoc~~~~ococ~f-oe~zy~~oe~oc~~aco~ocr-oez~y~~~~ ancy ~3zOrzzzo:~z~ zoc~zz~~ a o a a Q a d d a a a a a d o a a a a a d a a x Q Q w d Q d o a a a a J~ d o J d w w Q w Iu Q d a w a a a a a a a a a a V7 J y y y (A y y y y 6 y y y J y y y y y y y y d y y m y (n fA J y y y y W U y J W y 2£ y££ y y y£ y y y y y y y y y y M W aM-~~ X00 r' M~f N1 X00 MST IA ISO y O U Q d m ~ ~ N Z N N N N M M M M M M ~ m W .~.. ~ ... ~ ~ ...Q.....«»_«..... z.. ... .. ... «, i z z zz z zzz ZZZOZZZ~722 zzz zz z tY ~ Y~j jYt~lOn ~ ~ > > 7 > > > > d > > ~ J ~ ~ > J > > > > ~ > > J O N 3 y Z 3 N N > ~ > > > > > O > > > ~ > > > O > > > O Q > > > > > > > 3 3 J 3 J J W z_ J 3 J 3 z W W d O Q 6 Q a a a= a a a Q a a a x a a a= Q 6 0 Q d d> Q d O w_ I- O ~ Q ZC' O O OOy>y W Z p2_Q N N Q Y Q Q QddU QQ d"" QQ QJdQ dJ ZQ Q QQ d QQ ... 1- Q J> J J d Q Or O C7 CL' C7 C7 N C7 C7 C,7 6 C7 U' U' S C7 C7 C7 W C7 C7 t7 W 6 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 Q C7 C7 Z Z N y W J J J 1-- m y J y m H 1- 0 0[ 0 0 ~ O O O W O O O U O O O~ O O O o c J O O O O O O r- O O J J M_ O Q z E W Z W W y d d I- Q y y~ r-~ W 1- I-- W 00 I- 1-- F- m H Y- F- h- /- H CC 1- H -- ~ S t- H O -- F- H J F- H O m y OC m C7 y y y M m ~»f~ZOm Om m C7 QaOQ QI~~PQ4Q aaQQQQd.-.aaa~+C7QQ3QQ QQQQYYMN xJWO Y F-J.-. W W HH OL O~ OC r' C f~ G.' O< C y K ON K J d' C CC O x OC d' O 1~ K J OC C Or d' K p O N C7 U N W O O Z O O W W m£ C7 Y> C7 m W W Y Y Y QwQ QN Q Qd QOQQQ QQQO QQ QOSQ QJ QQddQ600X ~-+O CEO G. QdCLY x d~-+QJ~ YYQQd y CC y y S X y y y /- y y y W y y y y y y y y y y W y y y£ y y U U O X m K X C7 S U££ Cr 1- Q J m O ..+ m Q Oe X 0 0 0 W m O m 0 O X Q Q d Q Q y Q a V1 O {!~ 1~ O m P P lA Q I/~ IA IA ~ lA IA to !~ lA to IA -~. I/~ IA IA IA ll~ J Vl Il'1 O O m f~ O m .- O U O U U £ 1~ r r M ~ .- i S -~ to M I/~~t 1A IA m~T 1A IA ~t ~f ~T ~1M ~t ~t ~?M ~1 ~t STN J.f ~.t ~t ~t .t ~T ~O ~O O.t I~ m t~ 0000 r-P~ M V1 M M ~T O M M M 00 MMM ~T M M M ~ M M M ~ ~t M M O M M M M M M 00 W O O .t P O ~7 O I!~ O O O M ~G N ~O ~t N ~O ~O 001 v v ~Y Pmt ~t OaP a~fJ~N~td ~t ~O ~f Jet ~t ~t~~t ~f N~~t~~t ~Y .T tll ~t ~t JET O. a Jln aN Oa ~T N.J--J^N^MJJN~t ~TN~~t ~t ~t ~~~~ r r-~ .-~~.-~~~~~ ter- r .-.-.-.-~e-~~ ~~ r- ~ r- .-~f~.-~f~ ~~e~- £ £ £ J S S S ~- 6 0 O O Q Q m m m C a Y Z Z Z O U y W W W J ~ 2 J O O W Y 7 d d Q Ia_ ~ U F £ £ W d U \ \ \ W C 7 Q £ £ £ O C7 7 W !- J ~ F- Y Y W OC .••. ~ ~ ~ ~ otJ W o2! d o0 0-' W W y 1- U C' OC K 1' H oj) ~ OL' OC W W F- OC J J J W O H H F H W y W J Q F- 1- J H W W Q Q OC K Q 1-- 1' y W Q O W W W f y ob W Q W W Q W> Y d' !- y W£ W W 1- C7 OL W H - W Y y ~ W ~" H Q !Y W -- S S Q W W Q J J J W y 0 F- F- y H C7 W p W C W H F- ad y Q y 2 OC Q Z W y y m Z 1- J Q J J W~ H y~ y C7 W Z W W H W W y W ~ ~ d O E J .-. OC Z ~- Z W J W W F- d' Q S~ OC ~ IL Y Q Y^ W 1- Y O W C' U C O Z Q J dJ O O d W Q W Q U J U U y I-- d' d' H p[ 1 y y J £ 1-- y W C_' W W 1-- ~ H~ O O ~ 2 2 m W m O C' W OC C ~ 6 U' F !- O~ O J W y O J 1- -- K J W W Z 1- Q W Q Q H O J Q Q Q K e y 2 ~ Cr W LOCO W W O~ ~ $y WY6W 20 J Q Wd W O iy20 £~i£W Y i J ~ W W W 2 1-Y Y O Y ~+KH ~+£ Q O Q 1-22 1-/-H ZY O Q Z O J W Sy W ~ = W W ~+ Q Zy W y OCH -.S .+~ OG. 1-y6d W O m 60 yC1'Q yd' dZO OOHddOCQ YSa1----pC pC Z O W Z pp C 7 J O 3 y W J F- J W 7 S W Z Z O W W Z ~. 1- C7 Q 2 O Z Z y W W= J a W y y Q C Y SU~-+O ZOIC W~~ W JJ 40 CHyC'HQ 1- OCd OCKmm=42 £ QZQQ]SyZU O W N»£Q~ J H2 S O QI-CC d' y ZO J.-. £ ZZ aF-O y OC W F-00 y Z£ y y 4 ~F-OI--+OZ y0 GL O.' W ~+ O Z Q O. 3 O Q W W~ Z «-~ S O Q GC I- U O y W 1- OC £ GC K O O W W O C7 Z Z Z H W '7 d' £ ~+ Q O~ H H y S 0 O Q K W K££ Q£ d' ~ O Q U W W O Y OC OC d' W m U W Q N J y O W> F Z W F W W m d > ~ O I- W Z li yQ J J O.~UJ ~C' p W yH J W O a2~ "'~"^d C7 Y1-~p OppQ(naydy y000C2l- W O O=OS O Q~ QJ JH Y W Q.+Jm Z OCZ KZ SJ d'1' Zgg £ C O> J JJ J NZ Z O yZ Y 30CZ~ JH zrYJ CC OC I-JO~Yiz W O W Q Qz z6>6~ W W OQQO W QQ d6Z «.p00 C7ZOZZZI..1Z C7 Q W 0! Q O O f- U 2 W Q d W Q Q G' !Y d~ C J r= Q Z W J W m= •+ ~+ OC x Z W Z p y Z J i J Z Z O i O W N y O W CC ~ y y 6 L7 ]LL oC Z F- Q 6 J u. J .+ U W O J J Y G. J J C7 C7 t,7 Z K £ Q££ Y W £_ W~ W £ Y Y y y m 1-NZ UZ W ntOU£ ... KKyU' £ SJ W ~ J1-C7 W JJZZZ OOYd>dd2 ~. y~~.+ZZH~-+m W `- W ~-+ ~--~ C7 Y W K .-+ OC W OC W O w w K x U W s CC C7 OL' W£ L7 W W W `+ `+ W m LL W= ~-+ x S W d' y LL. y 2~ .+ y W W d' U ~+ ZC7yC OCYZmW yW>C7£f W YQF-F-~. Y WyZOQU`+ZUUOZZZQ3 XJXX=QNGCNW NNS=WZY Z GC CC R' Y Z U_ W C 1- 6 m J Z Q C7 U J .....-. Z> 1- W W IL ~ O Z Z p2p~ Z Z Y y Q O J O O H W 1- W F CC £_ 1- -- H H m U~a3J20m~0USyyY~J>dN Vy~J2~dCCHmZ~VU3UUa000mNmm~YW OLLNYU. IJ.~~pOC~~ ®©oO®~ • •O.-~ MM M M M M M~ ~O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O P O O O N N N N N N N N N O .- N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ 1~ ~ 1 i 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ti~ ti~~~ ti~ ti N ti~ N P P P P P P P P P ~l1 IA IA 1f1M MM MM MM MM Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z 2 2 2 2 aaaaaaaaaan.aa aaaaaaacaQaaa tif~~~ti1~M~~ti~~ti O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M~ N M~ M M M~ M~~ P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4 d d 6 6 d Q U d d d d d d U U U U U U U U U U U U N aaaaddoaaaada 0oooooaooooo0 d d d d 6 d d d d d d d m m nc to ~ oc ~n oc m ~ to oe ae d 4 d d d d O d d d 6 d d N N N N N Vl J H N N N N N O CIO N O 6 O N O > O ~ aJ ccc o mz~ ZC7 00000JW H O O N CC K CL' N CL Z U7 S H M x d d d 0 OC ~l~QM F-xxxMY W Y V1 d Cr N lA Y U U U OC m d W d N P J CC Cr CC X d d OXOmtnXX m000m aU .- m 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 t!~ M •0 PO m mP~O to ~T 00J ~t Ou~~t I~MMMOMf~ J M O O 000000 000 d~NCL CL NNN dN N CC W Z H G' d N a o o a 0 s 0 o w S U a - v x ~ f~ U O ~ z ti 0 0 _ y ~ •-+ H h- N Q W ~ ww w wY z o: z ooe O zaJ~°m o U 3 W S N W lL H W Z W W Z «+ O Y t.7 d W d W J O d d' Y F- 2 ' N CO 1- m N H S Z W x p C CL• - ~- ~ N d» N QQ d~ U Z Q W J JOSJUyCCY000d~ Od O ~- O H Z Z~ O G C f Z O > J Z O O d d Z d dz2Q`QddddF~d ti.y.. Y W-~ S 010 W x >~ O x C7X-p~p~-~UOOQ ~ ~ O S d O x~ O S d> 0 0 W K wJ wwaa- xdwce mo m Z W S>F-UO C7Y f W O d Y d N d 2- O m 7 CC C7 J O f.7 O Y O W CL' 2- Z O O J d O~ U O. O K Y Z wt-wJr- axa c~ggow J.-. Vl d OO 6 C7 Z U~ Z O Z Y Q J V/ OC O 1• Cr Z Z 2 S J 6 OIL H J OQW~QOdYU~Or-d O•~-• m N 0 fn J x J N Y N N x 1-- m OVO~OS • • • -~, .Y::. W ~ ~C~ 31G BAS1N WAY _ ~, an0 e NA Y p Di 1~ o I o eta ~ -<<3qR rq,,~F ~ -~~;~ ,q r;~~~ R oerDW ;OR ~7 ~ Z '~7';0 1~' ~ DpI G,q °! ~y ~ ;~ - I m ^ f ear I V -p- ~ ~I ~. Cfn .. ~ ~-r11 O~ ¢, son ~. D ~ • .. ~- --~ • ~ ,~.-,fit 0 ~ ti ~ _~ -~ Gl 4y ~- ~~A ~;~ a~ O° ^7aG~b o 'O 3~ 0 c Iaass D V • e • _~-_~_ ISO - <<~ ~~ p', OAK STREET D-'° x IN ° ~ P~ ° ~ -•_ _ ~ e~ O ~ ~ - ~ ~ ` O ~ I` L N a v~w C~ ;~' vI s~• wv; K T ~ ~ Io.e° 1 I~ o r e~ A ~~y mac. i~ ~ p u. $a-~~°.? •o~ ~ ~ ~ au °~~ - on: ~, S ~o cn _„~_ a, .I o e r•~ wG ~~. v n p N '~9p .r,N ~A --__ tcc ~ 7C ,~ . S ~~~ X67 , t~~ JO 9'~ ~~ 6 •A -ipr --__ Urt Ib 6` V, , h 7c . .. w C. 3 i /Q N Y A D T ~~ ~ R '~ i~g~ ng R an g~ ~s ~~~~, ., Attachment 2 A O rs '~ 33 1 . ~F O o A m o ~ ~ o ' c z H ~ ' D N I N m N O ' z e ~ ' o r ~ O ~ a 3 ~ a 2 N N r D i i ~ ~ r D ~ ~ D ~T D O o i c z Cf D PLACE r 0 r z ~, ~ ~0 000 • T~-iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • O©00~® • .• _. Attachment 3 . s-ss.o3o variarlon hnm atsodards. A oonditiooal use may be permitted b7' a use permit rn have di$escat site area, density. atrtrcuat; height. distant- -- :s between struataes, sine coverage. host. side sad Herr yard minimums sad ~f-streap0ci®g and loading teq~o- meats. other than as listed under the specific ryas for unconditional pa~mitted uses is the zoning district in . which it lies; provided, however. no modi5cation of such regulations shall be made is the cage of a use permit for a second unit euxpt as speafically provided in Atic1e _ 15-56 of this Chapter. 354-1 ts<~ t-n~ ~®~~~~ T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK o 000012 ~- 15-46.030 dimension of each parking and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. (2) Architectural drawings or sketches showing all elevations of the proposed structures as they will appear upon completion. All exterior surfacing mate 'als and their colors shall be specified, and the size, anon, material, colors and illumination of all sig all be indicated, (3) A landscape and irrigati plan for the site, showing the locations of existing tr s proposed to be retained on the site, the location design of landscaped azeas and the varieties of of materials to be nlantn~ th~r.;.. ~,.a al] other land pe features. (4) Cr s sections for all projects located on a hillside lot. Engineered grading and drainage plans, including ross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans showing total gross floor area, deter- mined in accordance with Section 15-06280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Such additional exhibits or inform n as may be required by the Planning Director or Planning Com- mission. All exhibiu shall be draw to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing a exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall nsist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches b wenty-eight inches in size and ten seu on sheets ele inches by eighteen inches in size. (b) application shall be accompanied by the payment of a essing fee, in such amount as established from ti to time by resolution of the City Council, together with a deposit toward the expense of noticing the public hearing as determined by the Planning Director. 15-46.035 Creek protection setbacks. (a) Purpose, application. Where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or ' otherwise located on the site, and in order to pro a for the future protection of creeks, including cr banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for new construction shall be measured from the top the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the p perty lines of the site. (b) Existing ctures, Any existing structures which encroach into creek protection setbacks shall be consid- ered nonco orming, and shall be regulated by Article 15- 65, No nforming Uses and Suvcuaes. Any new additions toe 'ling structures shall comply with the creek protection setbacks. (c) Accessory structures, Accessory structures for residential projects may be permitted within the creek protection setbacks subject to compliance with the special ~les as set forth in Section 15-80.030 of this Chapter. ~~s~~os~ ~.99~ ,,;~~, Attachment 4 with the creek protectiot (d) Location of top of creeK t ne stce plans for the proposed new constructi hall show the location of the top of the protected k bank. It shall be the appli- cant/property owners risibility to accurately determine the location of top of the bank as defined in Section 15-06.185 of 's Chapter. (Ord. 7I-I84 § 6. 1998) 15-46.040 Design criteria. In reviewing applications for design review approval under this Article, the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or dis- played on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. (c) Landscaping shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appro- priately screened. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. 15-46.050 Expiration of design review approval; extension; tolling of time period. (a) Design review approvals granted pursuan o this Article shall expire twenty-four months from a date on which the approval became effective, unl prior to such expiration date a building permit is iss for the improve- ments constituting the subject of esign review approval and construction thereof is c menced and prosecuted diligently towazd completi , or a certificate of occupancy issued for such improv ents. (b) Design revi approvals may be extended for a period or peri of time not exceeding twelve months. The applica ' n for extension shall be filed prior to the expiratio ate, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fe to such amount as established from time to time by solution of the City Council. If a public heazing was 00003 • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~'~®~~~ • Attachment S ORDINANCE NOS HP-19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PORTION OF SARATOGA AVENIIE FROM FRIIITVALE AVENIIE TO 14301 SARATOGA AVENIIE AS A HERITAGE LANE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: WHEREAS, the owners of-over sixty percent of all the recorded lots abutting the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue, submitted an application requesting designation of the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue qualifies for designation as a heritage lane in accordance with criteria (a), (e), (f) and (g) of Section 13-15.010 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the portion of Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale .Avenue to the Village as an irreplaceable heritage resource which links the City to its economical and historical past and enhances the City's visual and rural character; and WHEREAS, the City determines, as stated in its Heritage Preservation Ordinance, to safeguard and protect its heritage resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: • Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission reports, the application and supportive materials, the City Council has determined that the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue meets the required criteria for designation; and hereby the City Council designates the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane. Section 2: The City will ensure the protection of the; historic and rural character of the lane through future land use decisions and development controls. Section 3: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. ~~0~~5 ~- Citp Council Minutes 2 8eptesiber 4, 1991 ' a . CONBEII'P CRLE3TD711t Councilmember Monia requested Item E be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Rohler stated a member of the audience requested ~;,~ removal of item D. f 7-. Biaaninq Commission 7-otions, 8/iat 8/28 - Noted and filed. B. Fublia 8afetp Commission Minutes, 8/12 - Noted and filed. c. Notic• of Completion !or rssurfaoinq of 1lest vallep Colleq• Tennis Courts D. Ordinance HP-19 desigastinq a portion of 8sratoga 7-venue lroa Fruitvale 7-venue to 14301 Saratoga 7~vsnue as a Heritage Lan• (secoad reading and adoption) _ 8. Hakoa• Poundation Fund Raising - 6/25-8/S/91 F.~ Resolutioa 91-62 oa Harbor Builders appeal heard 8/7 G._ Resolution 91-63 on De La Crux appeal heard 8/7 r H. Resolution 91-53.1 appointing Rohler as representative to Citp Selection Committee I. Citp Financial Reports !or Julp: 1) Treasurers Report 2) Investmeat Report 3) Financial Report CLEVBNGER/]1ltDER8ON MOVED I-BBROV7IL OF TSE CONSENT CJILEND]1R WITH THE E%CEPTION OF ITSMB D AND E. F71888D S-0 Regarding item D, Mr. Fine thanked the Council for the designation of the Heritage Lane. He stated he has been working with the Planning Commission with regards to signs on the Heritage Lane. He would like to see a hiking trail along Saratoga Ave. He noted a stop sign is requested at Harriman and Saratoga rather than a stop light. Regarding item E, Councilmember Monia requested a complete breakout of financial matters at the next meeting. MONI%/71NDER8ON MOVED 71PPROVIIL 08 ITEMS D 71ND B OF THE CONSENT C7ILEND7IR. P7188ED S-0 CONSENT CALENDAR II - Claims l-. Clsim of Robp concerning fall in Hakon• Qarden MONI71/71NDER8ON MOVED DENI7IL OF CL71IM. Pl188ED S-0. B. Claim of Hunter concerning incident on Mt. Eden Rd. liON2l1/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ]1CCEFT CL71IM. P7188ED S-0. ' S. COMMQNIC7ITIONB FROM COMMISSIONS 71ND TEE FDHLIC 71. OR71L COMMIINICATIONB Ms. Karin Dowdy, Brook Lane, expressed her concern regarding the Councilmembers' comments at the last regular meeting. Ms. Dowdy provided a copy of verbatim transcripts of her comments from the last meeting. She felt three councilmembers owed her a public apology. Mayor Kohler stated he had no recollection of requesting that Ms. Dowdy be supervised when reviewing tapes. The Mayor-asked which staff member had so advised. Mrs. Dowdy declined to state. .• Ms. Dowdy requested her concerns be agendized for the appropriate action. 0©U0~6 _ City Council Minutes ~~71q ~ Lorianne Neiman advised the Co_.,cil that the house will be too close to the tree and will damage it. Also, ~ the rear elevation faces directly at two houses on the neighboring ridge. The first house built the whole back face of that house is glass. Those people deserve privacy. They were built with the view and the neighboring houses were not built yet. The City should consider that they have already approved in that neighborhood The people already there should be guaranteed privacy. Ms. Neiman opposes approval of appeal. 3) Peantech opposes approval of appeal. 4) Joy-.opposes approval of appeal. 5) (Gentleman who also opposes it) We are'not~against having houses up there. We knew all along sooner or later there would'be houses. The problem that we have is mass and height. He has a picture taken of his home from where Mr. De La Cruz wants to build one. Suggests that Council members stand on the rear deck and look up at where these homes are going to be and then decide. This gentleman concurs with the Planning Commission. Mayor Kohler closes the public hearing at 11:22 p.m. CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. PASSED 5-0. D. Designation of a portion of Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane. 1. Recommendation from Public Safety Commission concerning request for traffic signal instal- lation at Saratoga and H erriman Avenues. Mayor Kohler opened public hearing at 11:25 p.m. Th e City Engineer reports no change in the foreseeable future of the speed of hi ve cles near Fruitvale. It is the opinion of the Commission that the installati on of a traffic signal would reduce speed and control the higher volume of traffi c. The Commission also felt a signal would provide safer street crossings for all • pedestrians, especially students at Redwood and Saratoga High Schools a d n people using the bus stop. Since it usually takes two years between the ti me an initial study and the actual installation it w , as suggested that this process be started at this time. The Commission is mindful of the u comm nity notification and public reaction for the signal. It should also be noted that there have been a number of accident s on that road. Councilmember Stutzman inquires as to putting stop si n g s on the three streets or reducing the speed limit. But reducing the d spee limit probably would not work because the speed limit is already being violated. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVE TO COMMENCE PROCESS TO EVALUATE NECESSITY OF A SIGNAL AND NOTIFY SURROUNDING RESIDENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER . PASSED 5-0. 2. Ordinance designating a portion of Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane (first reading and introduction) Mr. Larry Perlin stated that this change will be more symbolic than anything This i . s nothing more than recognition. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODU IGN A PORTION OF SARATOGA C E AVENUE AS A HERITAGE LANE PASSED~S-0 Mayor Kohler closed the public hearing at 1t:36. ©~~~~ City Council Minutes 6 July 3, 1991 2) Ben Strong, President, Saratoga Community Access Cable Poundation, reguesti establishment of trust account fob investment of Iiquid~unds. Mr. Peacock reported that Councilmember Monia and he have participated in discussions regarding this issue. The foundation has requested that rather than keep their funds in commercial banks and CDs, the City accept the funds in trust and invest them to increase the rate of return for the foundation. He states it is possible through a simple trust agreement which can be drawn up by the City Attorney. Councilmember Monia reports there will be very little administrative cost to the City and KSAR.will be able to enjoy an additional 1.5X return on their investments.' !lONIA/STITPZMAN MOVED APPROVAL TO INSTRUCT STAPF TO PRBPARB A TRUST AGREEMENT BBTfTEBId.THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND RSAR. Passed 5-0: 3) Memo from Heritage Preservation Commission requesting designation of Saratoga Avenue as Heritage Lane Mr. Peacock reiterates the Planning Commission's concerns with making such a designation in the absence of a completed circulation element of the General Plan which would identify potential Heritage Lane locations throughout the city. Council previously agreed not to go forward .until that element was completed. Mr. Gene Zambetti, former Chairperson of the Heritage Preservation Commission, reports that the approved pprocess to gather residents' signatures along Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale to the Village, in order to petition for Saratoga Avenue as a designated Heritage Lane= was begun on .Tune 8, 1989. He reports it has been stalled at the Planning Commission and points out the risk that the street character may change by the time it is approved. He encourages Council to have a Public Hearin on the matter since all requirements have been met and he indica~es there is no relationship to circulation of traffic. Mr. Willis Peck, member- of the Heritage Preservation Committee, referred to his memorandum to Council and states that every effort sho~• be made at the City level to keep the character of Saratoga Avenue wh;E` it is today. In response to Councilmember Monia's question as to why there is such urgency for this Avenue and not other roads, Mr. Peck reports that Saratoga Avenue is the only road where there has been an effort made to ather necessary signatures. His personal concern is to keep Saratoga venue from becoming a 4-lane entrance to the City. He also points out his concern regarding soundwalls in that area. Councilmember Monia believes the procedure should be conducted in an all-encompassing basis rather than a street by street basis. Mr. Emslie reports the Planning Commission took pro-active steps to deal with the immediate concerns of changes to the Character of that street while the circulation element is being completed. Larry Fine 14075 Saratoga Avenue, repports the petition was submitted to the City 1'~ months ago, was approved by the Heritage Commission and 'is stalled at the Planning Commission. He points out that even if it is designated a Heritage Lane, it could be widened in the future if it becomes necessary. Because all the requirements have been met, and the studies have been done, he cannot understand why the process is stalled .• Mark Ebner, 13755 Saratoga.Avenue, reiterated that the time since the inception of the pro'ect will be two years in August. Every criteria has been met and over 707: of the signatures have been gathered. He does not understand what the delay is and believes the designation for Saratoga Avenue should be handled by itself. Councilmember Clevenger sugggested that a Public Hearing be set as there is no basis to turn down tfiis request and it is not fair to stall the process. Councilmember Anderson expresses her concern regarding what could be a problem with the soundwalls on Saratoga Avenue and encourages that the process continue. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAFT. ORDINANCE ._.0 SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 7, TO DETERMINE IP SARATOGA AVENUE SHOULD BE DESIGNATED A HERITAGE LANE. Passed 5-0. Q~~©.~8 C~B~~s oQ ~~~5°OO C~G~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: The City Council DATE: 7/3/91 FROM:, The Heritage Preservation Commission SUBJECT: Heritage Lane Inventory and Designation of Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Heritage Preservation Commission has completed the review and approval of the Heritage Lane Inventory. The list includes all the streets which qualify as Heritage Lanes in according with the criteria set forth in the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance Section 13-15.010. The designation procedure for streets as Heritage Lanes, as provided in the existing ordinance, is based on the review and approval of the application for each street individually. The designation may be initiated by the property owners or the City. In any event, sixty percent of the property owners along the street proposed for designation, must sign a petition in favor of the designation. The Heritage Preservation Commission recently reviewed the designation application for a portion of Saratoga Avenue. The Commission determined that Saratoga Avenue (from Fruitvale Avenue to the Village) is qualified for designation as a Heritage Lane. In the report to the Planning Commission, the Heritage Preservation Commission emphasized the historic significance of Saratoga Avenue. This street links the City to its industrial past and presently leads to the heart of the City, lined by old trees and homes. Seventeen homes along Saratoga Avenue are included on the Heritage Resources Inventory and three more are currently considered to be added to the inventory. As the oldest traveled route abutting the largest number of historic homes, Saratoga Avenue is significant to the City's history. The Heritage Preservation Commission appreciates the Planning Commission's concerns and directions to prepare a comprehensive Citywide study of streets qualified for designation to be included in the Circulation Element. However, the Heritage Preservation Commission feels that the completion of the Circulation Element will not provide information related to the application which is not available now. Heritage Lane designation of streets of 000019 historic significance which do not involve traffic problems, will not raise major issues. In regard to streets where traffic is an issue, or where traffic increase is anticipated, the City should weigh the importance of those streets to the City's history and character against the necessity to satisfy traffic demands. For example, increase in traffic along Saratoga Avenue is projected after the .completion of Highway 85 and traffic safety issues along Pierce Road already exist. Therefore, especially in these cases, a decision must be made whether preservation of the character of these streets meets the City's goals and priorities. In the case of Saratoga Avenue, the Heritage Preservation Commission urges the City Council to approve the designation as a Heritage Lane, maintain the street width, preserve the old trees and regulate fences and structures abutting this historic portion of Saratoga Avenue. As recommended in the staff report dated 4/3/91, the City can and should maintain the 90 feet right-of-way to be used for paths and landscaping and to ensure the City's option to widen the street when and if determined necessary at any time in the future. • • ~~~0~0 ~~ ~• Attachment 6 x CORE FIRE STATION ':`:•':~~:LOS:'::~:;~•':::.`•::::::::.:.:'•.:•''•". FIRE SERVICE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT H ~ ~O~ •:'::':'ALTOS:~.::~:•~:~:::~:.:•:~.::~:. ~ :;7: .;'. • HWY 28 0 :•CUI'ERTIN 2; .~ .:.:~. . BE LL' :•i • : ::~ : ••9• .. :1 . 1 o. .'•': : .'c~ ; ::.r.`~;::: ' '' .: •'.Q a •~•. : : P . .Q S •,... .. ... . . ...........•..,. ,. ' q~ SPI~ NG5 :•RD ~R '¢q~ ~ HWY 85 , : ~~S :; O . r ~ ::.::.::.::.::.::.. . ar X IRE TA I S TON .,~.; .. .:•~ N 4 .... ..,..,..•,......• ....• .•. •. WE 3 '~ 1 MttE 00002 • • • ~... • O to L 01 L C3 ~- C3 N N -l-- L t3 N D ~ ~ 0 /\~ V 1~ /~ V ~ V ~'- cs H p ~-" c3 H ~ W 2 H ~ ~ ~ Q j o ~ H C3 ~ ~ ~~ Q -I-- i-- 3 N .~ N DL .~ Q ~-. O N M Q e--1 O N d _ L 7 L aH w W ~ Z ~ ~ Z Z ~CC O W ~yj ~ ? O Z !A ~ o < z F Ov in~~~Z W VI C Z W W In = Z W ~ --~ 0 < ~ ~ ~SO'-'~oc~orzi O < O ~ Z H ~ OvVHia~~w~md a z U .r .~i N f~'I ~ IIl ~O (~ ~~ ~< W a~-- nqq< ~ g t Y W V GG 6 ~~~ m~0~ ~' wpjrr < LLppy J~ ~ W F < O < h n V l m J N ~ $ ~ _ ~ •~ ~ a a a LL s ~ s ... ~ :° `~ Q N ~ ~~ W ~ N N (17 N o \ O~ N m a . ~~ W ~ mm m<^ ~~ T O ~ ~ Q ~ M ~ Q a r O ~ Zw< ~ ut~ ~ c < r ~ ~; z N dum> m >< N ~°o ~~r ~ d .. fi oo r ° ro w < d w ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ S W < LLK ~ ~ ~~ d ~O ~ Wg S~ W ~ 1 r a R w w ~ Oa~lti m o ~ a l p S y ~ 3 3 <Hg N VF ' ~ ~ H r ~{y yp ~ ~! j bbff ~ • ± O Z v Z O O ~N ~ O Y O[ < T Q V) ~ ~ N<O V < < g a°. a gg s ~ s U ~d} ai HY a T F- aC W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ o p~ m ~~p~(fi ~io3~k'z N~~ K < w pV(IZ ~<p W {{{VIII ~~~I M~o~ ~;~WZ~~ ZWW~ d ~.Wd oz~o m~~zm~l`>_ Go<z ~~µ'~~~~ po(~Iz~3 ~~Hy In„~~~y w, (~[ ~~~~ w~QW~I..,(~ ~W ~r p V10 ~ Ofi u~O< ~~ ~ ads ~ ~ ~ T w ~~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ « W > O ut gw" 3g w 1^; ..~N ~ a ~ <~ ~ w ~a~ u ~~~ W TC ~ 3 m m W m$ V I V tp ~1^~ u,~ ~ ~Nw ~y~p °~<H Z T ~1J~j O ~ m0 N30r W ~I W ~.pO+Z„ ~ K ~ ~ N J ~ W~ ti m 1<11m ~ Y.P. VI 0 m <LLI(I N Vl C ~ ~ < ~ ~ < L VI ~ a~g Cog ~ ~' t 6 !IC V g' OC V H ~< W r .eV. a Wa ZW ~ w W v ae ~in ~ ~~H 2~H O N VV1 W W << ~ ~ O<~ ~tF O<~ ~ ~OZ Z N ~ N (pp=~LL w.H w T~-I ~n ZO-l u1 ~ HI= ZI~Ln ~ ~ VZ- O N ?G oZin o in ~ g ~ °I ¢+Zm U fn~`,m °mHm v uS'. I<ilc t vOirv v<jg < < ~ r z o ~ < a ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ a .°i ~ a V llyey llpp~~f( ~ Z L VI ~ ~ p W ~ O ~ ~ p[ I V7I ~ Fl Z W 0 0 FF-- ~ O 0 3 w tD o w vwH t=iw ~ ~ ~ u ~ Q d ~ o~o~~g ~<~R ~°"~g '~~R N m V V tttp~ttppp N Z Y W 7 F U < j:W O. 0 T V m < lij ~P ~~? V < Z ~o~ ~ ~tNl ~ V P ~ 1i~Lj'y! W < O ~ a<f < K G7 ~ ~ W G] ~ ~ K K Z 7 ~ ~v ~ y JJ u T~ N N 0~ ~ r V l 3 1~L ~~ ? ? h U LL 0~ . . V<I ~ I lam. 0~ ~ O W R O[ W O< m r m Z T ~Z mo[m W Y < m O ~~tm LL Z < e0. O= ~ac .o < W O ( < m O <{~am < o°I i ti w ~vig v, ~ ~..vlg ~ °...v ig ~ m..v ig W ~ T ,\ ..hbiPiTN BY4 WM~Ir~Qpf s~ e . „~ . , ~.. V .'*...., e, y.~ ,.~ a~ `~~~ a~ ti ~;., •~, ~,~ b $ ` ~ p 'n .. ,,.~.. ~i b: ..c, :~.~c...,P ~'., .,... ~ ~~ si' , ip ~eaxQl~ .. 0 /mow I ~0. Q _i I ~~8 a o~$~! ~•es~ ~ z,~g~° ~~~~~9~ ~~,~;E W j~• A'!'3 p !j a~~~~ x ~ ~~r 2 -= i~ 1 ~ a Q 1-- U W a ~ • • ~~ Q H Q `~ r U W 7 a v i ~ = ~ 9 9 Q~ R ~, LL orv N ~ < U < u_oN y~ o NNN, c 7 pd~m ~+ o ~ <j n m me q vi < LL ~`'^ ~~ '~ ~ ~o o <g ~~ ~` a ~$ O m ~~ LL Z K< ~ vi 00~ i! ° ~ LL <~ N y P O~ • Z wx KILN N W <dp ~°` E~~ a0 w~l W h O O O ei g 0 =i '~ _ ~_~ 0 N O C.9 O I CQ9 F- O V 00 M Q r~ • A ' ~ ~~~" o' ~~=~ ~ U) ~~~LL~ 0 .:., d c u Z Q a. W H •1O T ~~ n~ W L L ~$8 a~~~' o~~gl a ~) .. ~, . ~~~ ~. ~ ~ z ~ '~ _V ~ ~~9 ~ ti~~~jE W ~ o g!'a a~~~l a. ~a ~~ < < ~ ~ ~ qq UNNi WN ~ Ul ~ ~~ ~ ~ C N 4! K d W :K V 41 ~ VI V) O ~ ~ = ND ~ > O N ~ ~ ~ ~ sd>° w w~ z~ w ~~do~z~ w ~~~wa O O 1- ~i t U SWj. N~~~ m a ~\ ~ ~~ h ~,, i " L i i ~~. i i ° ~ ~ `~ ~. // \\~ / '1 ~ ~ ~ \~ ' ~ X11 „, i ~ ~ ~/ ~ / ~~ id / a' / ~\ ~/ / ~ ~ ~ i __ ~ ~ ~ ~~ \\~1 / O' \ ~ / / ~`~ \ ~:. ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ Z~ o ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Kf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ i .~ _ ~ ~ W o ~a '~ l ~ ~1 / y`, / 1 11,1`t~ \~ \\`~\ N.1l,l ~o ~~1~ ~ ''fir- ~ ,~ y,11 ~. \ 0 T lu wg;. m ~ ~ 00~ °H m~~ ~~o ~ 6 ~ a0 N V ~ 0 0 ` ~ K a Z < w =M1iw IL < N / l}! N Vvj W V4 n ~ w N J j W < W~~~K W VI p one `~ K ~ < n ~\ < • ~ i .~ ~ ~ • ~~--~_ -__;- Mg_,%l _ , -°~- ~~ ~~ .. ~~ __ N ~ " p $~ jx~ N 7 !3 •+~ F ~i ~ W ~ N " <p V N ~ o r' ~ M O N N y~ > W" c< O "~ ~<y ~ ~ 2QS aNUi o," ~ ~O ~ LL p O g m ~ p O N ~ frj ~ q o~ IONC < m LL p '.^. g { S~~ ~ ~ Q WF W `y y~ ~ N~ " F "" rv y<I LL F O W W 1wy Q ^ p O V1 gf VI ~n K js J~ 177~ ~J IW/1 1~ LL .. N N min p < j p Q Q ~ " F n f~` O 00 - n a0 rG gW N ^ ~m < N ~ ~n % tt ~ ~ qW` <$O .p " " iR o~n n v N n O O W N ~pm ' / li i a d a ~mNN fJl- m ~ 0 N~ V w p < ?F? ~~ W r I W 5 O [ O • ly O<f ~ " }~Qj ~ H ~ p, ~ ly O 1 ^ p yl ~ ~L Y ~ k 1ii O IT- T VI O d p ~ < J ~u Z • ~" Ory' UU.. N ~ a O r w w ~ ° ~ pN ~~y~~~~~7~ ~ z vl ~ vl6 Om0(n%i V1~v + ~ p < ~ w° d 5p w ~ m ~ o ~ ° ~+ Goo ~ m o ~ I / ~ $ I \~` I L1 aW~gq'~ V~ ~~6~~ tt yy pO~ C 6 3 ~y ~Iyy p0p~ n q, C< O W N W 1~ poi 6 ~ y ~ <• . ~. ~ I I< I d` 11 ml / ___ I ~' ~• ~ _ _ C \ /_ o "1 \~/' / \~~ X11 //~ ~~/ ~I ~ ^ ~d} I ,~6~ ~ / ~ ~ / ~/ / // .' / / ~- ~Ci~ / ~ ~~ ~ ~ / ~/ - -+r ~ u~ ~. . / : . ~ -~~::.. ~~ ~i.i.;... I ~/~ \\ i~ ~ ,, I ~ / ,^~ / ~_,_ i ;` i/ ~ ~ ,-_ ~~ ~`- I 5 ~~~ I~~ . Ii I ~~ ~~ I ~~ I ,~ I vii a II ~ I ~ ~ ~ wi` _S 3~ ~o S Nz II ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I W" o~ ~~ _ ~6 ~~~ I ~~ z~ _~_ ~o ~ _ wg ~ - _ _ 3nN3~y b~~l~b'S ~_ ~~_ • • ~~, i. ~~ Z V J NL °~~~~ K ~~ a ? 8 ~~~~~ __~ _ , , , 1 -~ ~_~ I I I I I 1 I s I I .1 A~ `~ I I I I I ca 1 1 ~ i ~i I h ~ I I~ I 1 N~ I I I I II I II I ~ I I I I y _ I Y ~~ I ~ I I II ~_, I I _-_ ___~ ~ ~ ? I --.s rdj~ w Z Q 0 4' O ~~ ~W z 0 0 W W O ~ r ~o U U ~K o FFFu N ~~ ~ ~ W~= v WF ~~~ = o °~rv K NW ~ ~ °Z~ s ~ o~~~~ =is ~:n y i~ i lac J` ' ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ i i~ i \ i j~ 8' .. ~~ . ~ . ~ ~ _ ~_ _ 3NN3~ly y~01~ ~_. ~__. ry I 1 I I q 1 AD I I I I 1 I I I I I I I .I I I i 0 0 ~r 0 0 J C9 N .., ~°o O N ao m ~ ~ U tr O 0 o W i ~ Z J t ~ ~a n-~ O ~ ~'~~~ 00 aw ~ ~k~: 1 ~~ I ~, ~~ W ~~ d u Z Q a W Z H Q Z Q Z 0 L a 'OO~ a 1 z o~ L 0 obi 4 L '`'` 8 a a ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ z ~~~ .®°~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~AE ~~ ~< Q~l~ a }~` ~_ ~~ -. • .] '' ~. 0 '~ 8 O N CO crj f~-~ A ~~ ~~ry~ f ~ aW j ~1 ~~~aE ! 8 J W W J DC Lit J w w c~c w 0 _~ N Z Q a DC O O J LL ,o -~ ~~ L '~ ~O~ a obi 4 L ai ,° 8 u~a ]~~~1 a~~f ~. ~ y~~~ ~~ z~~~ ~ ~ ~ i W ~~IE ~~dR~tt oe ' ~~1 a ~a R _ a • • • rN u _NI o 0 ~~ ~~ o, ~.. ~; 0 0 ~~ ~~ z o L s E _eW _E V W ~ n, 2 ~~~ ~.-- ~ 1 ' m ~ ~~ -Z - iZ 0 ~Q ~> ~w J W _~ ~ Q W v$ M N O ~ M ~ S e t ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~¢~~ t ~-dd({~~{ Es . ~! '~ .l ~~44 f 0 „ ~. ~o ._ V ~ M ,~ rL~ t • ~, W • • Q ~Y Z ~ Q ~ ~ Z~ o °' ~~ ~~ >~ Wo ~, W .~_ 4i o~ ~, ,O W ~!~_ i W~ ~1 i E = N L ~--~ ~ ~ ~ 8 E o ~ ~ y ~8 _ h E ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~~~ • ° ~ ~ _ ~L _ e o ~~ e a~ h ~ I a ~ ~~~ ... ~ z~~ ~~~~~~ .~. ~ g~ ~~ w ~~iE oal~ a ~~al a a^~ ~~- ~1 ~~ I~ z 0 ~~ Q w J ~W 1~ ~` ~A 'E;. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _o _o tgtBuPuPtg ~$ ouPuP o VP~$ m m .-. .. m .. u. .. .. LL .~ ... ~_ JT V 1 v Q ~- N V 0 V ~ - w '~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ 3~N3/I b b~~1b~bS _ ~_ _ _ e H O N ~ M Q O O a c~ O J ~o ~I ~ a j ~~~~ ~ a A ~ ~~= ~ ~1 ~~~~~ . d °u ~ 0 ~! ~` V ` ~~ Z Q ~ Q ~ ~ W .L Q V ~ of Z ,~ Q ~ J ~ S$ a ~ RaA o ~~1 ~. ~ ;,e~~ ~. ~ z~~j .. ~ ., y ~~~E W 3~~ Q a ' 3 a~~~ a ~~ e R ~ E N s O C d y O ~ L / m u / c o ~ o_ ~ o. s o o C3C X ~ o y ~ OL el Q J ~ C~7 } ~ ~ V ~ ~ g' ° $, d d ~ r ~ ~~++ SS ~ o mJSJSo> ~oc4 v`°`. ~~ ~~. - ~ ~`. -~ a~~~ :~ d ~ '~, ~~ v c N y ~\ f~ / h ^' o j~ ~ ° W V1 to ~ ~ w. > LL 7 V ~ p~ / / V1 ~ ~ ~ ~ N O N w ~ T ~ ~ s~ / / -° ~ o '- to ° _ ~ ° .n H d ` / / N C ~ O o ° N t •C d p d ~ lL \~ / 7 ~~yC~y ~ ~ o ° C V puo pcpy vEi s C $ l~ O \ ~x~/ / t~ Q {~ ` ~ / 1 j • ~ \\ i / ~ I I / ', 'I / \~ ~ 1 / ,~ ~ ~, ~ ~ \\ 1 / ~ `~, o~y \~ ~`~/ / / / \ o ~ao \~ I ~ / / \\ / / 6 ~ . ~\ „r ~ i ~r°s 1 ~ t~ m ~ ~ <, ICI ;. ;:. II ~ $ ~ • II 9 0 II Q III-m~~l e - I I s aJ I I ry I ~ E'.: ~II ~I ~ ~:i _ ~~ „ o o ~.:.::: . • • • T .. v$ M N O ~ Ih Q O 0 4 tv y 0 J Q Q~ rc N K ~~ G" I I ~, 4 ~ Y I og o y i 4, ~ ~ ~~ ~ c Q i o i FL ~' ~~~ x J o) ~~ ya ~~ ~~ ~ - ~~ ti~ g~ ~~ Q z Z ~ ', q ~ Y^ g ~ ~ q ~~ ~ ~s ~~V~ W c ~ ~= ~ In _o J m w j J L n i a o ~~ Z ~s bs~ ~ m~ LL~c c ~ ;V ~ W ~n s ~t r ay L } ~{ ~ Pry ppy Q~ 7•~~ ~{ u~ ad~W~ t 1 rl 11 _\ d O U .~ N Z O. w Z. H D H m • O ~~ s .~ ~~ 4 L ~` I ~J a $± ] Rai o ~~1 ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~9~ ~~,.~;t ca g; ~ 9 a~~~l a~~, R • • • __ ~ N N H ~ ~~ LL '"' yp~ v w ~N N ~ ( O N8 VLLj NILL/1 < ~ OO ~o a u1 ~ p ~ N~~~ LL W N ~JP~ yLy N~ LL F O LL LL $ ~~ LL U ~ O Q O }~ m GGrO w ~ ^ ~ oN " w ~ ~ Q =l+~i am >mNN ~jOF gm W O w <o ~ ~ ~;m ~ a td~g~~~LL~ ~ ~a 1L ~yj ~ ~ O Ind Q 6 1 ~ ~ j ~ 0 0 LL W Z m 3~m++/n m y~< Z ~ ~Z (O w w ~ ~ W ~a~o~~~ w X03 w ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ dZ ($"~ a nd~ $ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o ~moi~'~v O Imo a s (( O w N w g ~~ ~" (o ( w Z ~ ~~ T N j~ N H O }} lCi ~~~~}}pp ~~~LL W V T W p W F ~g° ~~ ~Z dw< w~ ~z ~o~ o~ 00.1 (5 ~ K O m H O y H m ~ ~ ~i N~OF ~ ( 1- =~w w "~W ~ ~ Z w a ~ ( ~ G O O ~~ ~ ~~~ 0 ~mg < . ~~ y <~ g~ w~ ~~ Y V n~ ~( ~~ (~ ,~ o~ a ( f ~ ~u0 w x m~ o~ d~ 0 ~~ mg ~~ 3 z 3 ( ~o ~Z Z~ 0 {Q<J m J O~ O N mg ~~ 6 1 d `. ! I ~ I / I I b I I A r 3~ r~-- ~~\ I 1\ ~/~J~ r ~~ri ~ ~ I ~ I ,z~~ I _~ I o I ~ °`° I ~ ~ I ~~ I ~~ ~ I . i I , ~~~~ (' I ~ `'`~\ @ i I - I `! \` ~ I I I ~, I - ~ i~~ =1~ i6W :9 ~i 1 0 \~\\\ \~l\\ o _ ~-' %u-'brs ' ~r ~ ~ ~~' ___ ~~ T~ ~ 1 ~~ mw _ T ___~ ~r g M N O ~ M Q C a Z1 ~~R~ ~ a~ ~~~ ~l~~~i~ T ~~ :~ ~ ., O d •.. °u 1~ V ~0. T Z4, J L ~ (; Z H .~ Q LZ. ~~ °' ~ a, o~~~! ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ jE W~3~~ a'a•3 a~1{ ~~~~ ~~ . ~-r w ~ C S~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ti .~ / o `,l ~I ~ w m ~~ 0 ~~ X~w1~1< ~y 1 W F N ~ ® ~ n~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ LL ~ -a-~ ® (} L~~ ~ U A Q ~, 6 3 T o ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~i ~ i ~ a~ \~~ Q h~ O ~~ ( ~o 1 R w -'- :,~ `~ i H~ J ~. ~r ~ ~ r r ,r N ~/ r .Q r ' W ~ ~~ ~~ . . i~ // s ~' t • • • . . ~' ~ ~ g § °= ~~ ~ Qo a a_ ~~ saa~a~nbp>;aHH w~aa~uI fi~~}~~~'~ ~~ ~ ~ A _ s ~ ~ O e®a., ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ °° ~ ~ ~ ~uiplmg oduia~uo~ ~ : ~~~~~$ s m L . e c Q rv r a ~e8~e 1 v ~~- ~i a s a ' ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~uaui~:3ndaQ aaT,~ ~~o~>;a>;S ~~yp~~~ ~~ ~.a ~ ~ :~ r~~ A C 7 4 a o ~gg 6$[ }€, ~ W ~ f~Ff ° ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ¢ u¢¢~ ~ e~ gp6 Bg ~E qD[ ~pyI10 Q ~ ~ L ~ guy Q 4 p U~ k. ~tn a~a3 OtnU ~S~ i mJ ~n'Hi~LL WUty ~~l{LL :I~d m E~il6iF8~S~~~a ~U`4 ~ Q< •ra~i l~G G ll ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ '~~ ~~~s~ ~~ ,g g ~' 8 b ~ Z pe ~ pp ~ W 2pC5~ t ~ ~5{ p ~~ K l GGSS 8 ay W p $ ~ g' .~~ ~ o ~ g ~Il~le o o~ pp q c as B a • ~ ~i~r< u7 Ilif i ! ~ ~ ' ~Qb w a a y I gg 'Nill .B . S ~ ~ W ry , - W LL ~ S ~ ~ - I ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ 1= S W LL y ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .- - ----- --------- > ,.r .~ ,.~ .. a.~•~~,cRc ma m~ '~ ~ jl g ~ ~ ~ o c 3 LW m~~~'w"EgF'$ f ~ N ~ CL, '~ TJ' m ~ {{pp ~ ~ Z '~~- N d~ w U .~- ~ Z ~ N W n d 5 al ~" •- J ~rrspp~;~NOrC S L N~ d Y J u~i O w ~ Q ~ (j1 O1 ~ N L p ~ I °' c ~ x 3 v g o ~@ , 1~ ~ Qa~ F 3 G m ~ y .~ E H ~ O ~ j ~ 1, N CiCEtE ~ ~j N E ~ ~ w E a. $ taros ~ O ~ ~ ~ ,+/ ~ \'II ~ 77 8 ~w "~~''" ~ ~H oc I o ( ~ v 4 e ~ m a °1 '3 `m v m g ~ vi Syr)`) u ~ ~sl3~ t °c 'ri P P vi N N N O) a1 C a1 ~ H - V S ~ps~j S{ 1\ ~ ~ O f Ip~,~ ~ f c L~ c_ vi '~ ~ wre O Z ~ 3 Q® ~~ ~ ~~\ ~ `' D Z y 'i~ W Z g ~U r~ m cry ~ ~ e~ \ ~ i 5 a ~r~ ~ ~ ~~ N 5po ~ o ~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ rarils N ~J u ~~~~e ~ N (Ep ~~Lo $~LU°UUU~i .Lo~aximd rwtt~ ~ ~ b~ bc ~ « ~ ._. C L G ' p pCp C~ 3 to 2 T N VI ~~C U ~ZU CZUpa~+to ~?g!in6 ~ o G ~[nUv'~w mii E ~C9 nv U W ~ ~ Z a w= ~98 £ (~ ~ ~ `C.~' z er $~ ~ a` ~° ~~ ~ Sao ~ "~& 3,~ r~ g° S~ ~ v~ ~~ g€ S~_;Q ~ 9i ~ a 9 ~'~.~ ~3 ~cg~9 n r~q ° ~~ e v ~ u_@[~ w^a zu§,~ ~+ ~,~~ ~ it &~ Q v Ileleno ii c 9,°- a w l m lil a d ~H 1Y15 ? u 3 d O J S d ~ o ~e~~ ~ ~ W ~~. a rim= I m .6 9 S s S ~~ I~ ~~ zed ~ `~ ~~ ~~ ~~ s 8 ~ ~~ ,alueld (3) Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" / .T.ll a S; ' A5l .PS[ K ~ (~ 1 I ~A ~~~~ ~~ Iwo O WX z~~ I o I 4 W~ LLw ~~W j 4 ZN'oZ o ~ ~w 4 ~ MO°gv - N t ~a w ~+ O 4 z W Ivi l~H - } :b ~,~~ ~ 4 ~ °~3 ~ Z g ~~ @~9 I ° a dm - ~ ~ `. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & dwat (3) P U m Weno \\ ieluelC (3) viols 13) u qa dwel (3) laluel0 (3) a ~ ialueld (3) ~ ~l W a A.CL LL O J } d O ~ r I L Q a ~~ "mg I ~ W w9 m~~ ~ ~ =~~ O m~ az O ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ xu~ a U~ U W Y Z W C !, waa R LgZC = I lY W ~ i- N ~ a Z~ I w W N Z y ~/~ a7 V J t- t ~ ~ p o o ~ t7~ `E~O~L'1L'S` j~g1~¢~bl~ ~~ R' C y ., A ~o t Q ~ ~' saa annb ~aH uiiaa u f~t~}~~~'p ~€ 8 = ~, ~ ~ O ¢~ ~ ~ ..a N ~ ~ P a Y a ~, ,~ ._ ~ ,~ ~ ~u~pimg od-uza~uo~ I ~~~i~~1~~~~ s W `~ a '~ ~ a 4 rl ~ ~ ~ K s ~ ~ < ~ .>Y N ~ ~ " ~ w a o ~ ~ ~ ;uaui~aedaQ aa~~ e~o~eaes ~~i'~~ @ ~~ < ~ o e a ~ P W ~ .a ^ a.nv ° ~ u n -y ~ a0 ~'~ lD o 6 u~~ ~ y~L °iII '"a 3 '~ b Q ~ .. < Q O 7)- u~ u g+ W~ g E w N N<« ~ C a [{( o .`q, 4rn G' iG ~ m W ~W'rldd y U ° '~ ° < < C N p~ u ~ .y 'J ° -~ ~' C ~ `u tt R F ~ 0 m `m v N ~ d < w m8 ~ ~ ~ oC~ ct ~ ~ ~ l ~ `~w 3 ~ o ~ 4 ~m t u ~,r aFwc `°a ~~ ~ ~ ~ C2 p b y j b S d C ~ ° N b ~n ~ ~ y ~1 o a F < < < < O ° '~`t~yw ~ 6 ~~~oy ~J~pp ~ c ~ ~ °< wwd m3 p o °o O^o 3NO WKF LLvwi k' gC O ° y{ ~ ,~ M OI O l9 ~ ~ ~ i Z W < W> OD ~~'~ m~ N mLL~ N °p~ ~ LL N O~ N ~ ~E c ~ E,= `0 ~ ° ~ c (~(oo~ `~ aci w Z ~ ~o ~ ~w~ >~ ~ ~ 'n.~~ ~V~N Zu'"i0~ ~~ ~~~+ ~CQj c m p O .Y~~OI~ ~ N ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f N U ~ Wz Kj C p[ W j F J 6 1 <JP <F- Jd NO JI, 1, « wOO ww Z C ~ ~ ~o ~ E ~ c y ~ F ~"< ~° 0000° ~.m.° 3 3 3<~ 3~<< ~m<< via ~~° .z. o' v~ c yQ 3 ~ o~ E o'o m `~ Nw m~nw o o °3 ° 3F x~3F ~°~u ~ m y d c o~v-m 3 fr° .f-.o ~' w w WVg~3 ~rz~pp.0 °~ p p ' ru 'o W ~D~ W o 't 2~ o 'v o w of F ° > > °, .. oF5 ~ m•-~ c ~ m E w c o ~O Oo Cu' olu Oul O° u ~~ y ~ g y ~~ c o c o J H ZO Zw Zmdw 3o.w `Z `Z N~o ~iZi ~'O x30 w< z~Z zF L° m E x ~ ~._ ~ E ° $ m `ov m y w ~a~ ~" Fw ow ~'~+ N« N°<1- m<r ~ i.. c. E$ m;, d... d o d u_ J y am < wm wm .n .n z > wwN NF 01 = V d .cf a V y y t0 L !.' O~ L n_ ° L N Q w C W C W ° C W a~ of ~ a° C~ ~< Z O V1 Z z Lt d U 6o ."-.y 0 ~ C J ° I W !- Oh Z Iwl. Iwl 30Dp W 3V FV W tFaF ~ m ~~ o rn° c c c E a m o° ~ J XZ XO O~nxO rx0 ~C ~c wOw wOOw w s$w ww <~ W N N•_' -' y N N C C d U O E J J y N y Z W N W F- °< 3 F 3 3 H W W Z Z c e Z V I Z O( Z n 2 K Z F ° W O °< N t N C 6 .d. O l9 J t0 C W 1yp N y d F ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ V I Y W a~ T> C y N~ l0 y~ y .OI ~ O N d C ,O y .- C ~~~ T m y m c c E - F- .~ 4i~E°'Oy $$~o~ooo>v_o`.~Eo~d c ~ ~ \ II .~~ ~ ~~ aEi t 3 u v u E$ y' c c o c c c~ c ~ o ~ c E m m I r-1 r °" Lr°y~L°mm~58~8o~`33Evm$m,t~ m ~~'~~ZUcFC~~v~Ea~~v$~~Ez~U Q $ mm u01iUo~~~ 3uia(iv(0 °c2 m m n_.-°_-~~ 3Y o o a o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ $~ x~~~ x~ ~a~ m o a a I I afro ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~W`~~ ~&~ yo~B ^o mo a ~~-'~ I I I ^~gw g ~o .o n~e .n ~ OV ~'.o ~b I I I ~ ~~~~€~~ ~~ ~€ ~~b$~~e~ o c - ~°~ A-,BI ~ ~ ~ g no I I "~ p~ J F= ,,,, ^ U I ~ arus.o. )- - - - ° N - I N ~ p o~ a 8^0 ~ I$~ ^~ ~ ~ s ~ a ~ - - - I I I ~~I ~ ^g~ ~ ~~~ o o ~ a ~ , .9'.f AI-. b x~ m y ~a ? Fy z ~ F z~kB~S z@ °;~i < so ° r ° $ u ~ Q ~ m I ° i~ ~ q AiIM3r1013 i ~~~` = i~ ~ o F `d 3 `~ ~ 0 ~ s prsu~ '~ x T~ - ~ s B @ A - O LL.~ Z G- y ~ ~~~ ~~~ w~~~~ ~o ~o §~ ~ ~ ~o ~~a ~~o J _ _a° ON9'O'j (3) c ~ ~ n _ ~' ~ ~ O eggs. FSs~ a W ~ .E-,LE ~ .0-.9t .S-.LE ,4-,[ n b ~ .0-,86 ~ n o u ~s~~ ~ Y ~>" sgb$ ~ n v g 4 W ID $ d ~~ 4 > ~~~~`~~g c i~~.su~~@8 R r= o ~ az o a ~ a, m ~ ~ ~a.~o ~ ~ - g F ~'z~ w M ~ o m ~~ ~~ ~ m J e~ ~ w g~8 ~~ ~~?8 o W J S.. OfLLS'o'd (3) -' Q ' I u ~w' gyyyy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ LL W LL s~ x ~o ~ 30 ~'$ I o~ , o$ of ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ °~ ~~ I @ 1 1 ~ 1 I @3 ~!@°y § ~wl I V r: ~ fix: Q rQ !D 9i ~ !E ~~ -~ ~ ~Cu I ~ I ~~ II ~ ~ ~ o J _ ~ ~z ~ w I) a L___Jl « < 2 ~ ~~~ E8x F ~ o r ~ u, Yf ~ ~ LL I $ f l @ .W. 8 ~~ o t o'+s~ I Y ~33~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~« Ji J ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~o ~ ~ ,~ Z ~~~ ~p ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o ~~ ~ 9~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~q'y~ ~ ~a s ~~ o O O Q O O o ~ J T 94 ~ ~~ ~ / ~i QlL1S'O'd (3) ~ ~i ee q C E~ vim, o. - ~~ ~ .E-,LE A-.9i .5-.Lf .4-.L .... p9 ~ ~ A-.B6 ~ ~ .. ;i~ d.a, . ~ • ~ • 'WOI1~IYll]tl 90iNlOPJIiYI!]'JO'/iYMY9. UWJ i}//YFtl/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, q ~ ~ iU1WEMyJ WCIlY~1lI>]AOIY m ~ ~IMNW09G)LL WaM LT'IMYJ mvN-.iraL~u Y Q ~ o,o• c~ ~ ~ ~_ S ~ Q ~ °! ~ ° ~mw'.aruux w~ruo ~ _ SNOIlVWdOdM 1'~3POad diNao~~vo 'voolvads "3Ad 1f1NTdM IEbOZ b'ZaIWHVHS "SaW '8 "aW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~ g Q o ~ ~ ~ Q $ ~ ~ a0~ 3~N301S3a M3N a3SOdOad a ~ ~ ~ ~ •~~ o n ~ ~ W uGu~ ;O g ~ ~ (( l 3 ~ ~F wo ~~ ~$ ~ ~ ~aF ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ cam. u~u~ ~ ~ u'I NN W _ 3 ~~ ~~5~ r 3 ~ F c ~ ~ ~ ° ~ M1 ~ ~ ~ ~ F., -1 z ~ 5 7 aQ p ~ C a r 5~ ~ ~LL ~~ ~W ~ ~ c~7 ~- ~ _~ O ~ ~ ~ y $ ~1~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~~ m% °$ w .. ~ ~ j ~~Wy ~ ti W m ~ ~ ~ € ~7 Y~ y 1o <~~~ fd ~ -g2 J N ~W U~ W ~ ~ ~W~ ~~j Y6 ~ ~ ~ ZO ~ L~~ ' ~ ~ -O 3Q3 v ~ LL ~ Q p~y,,~ 6p ~ y ~ ~C~3 ~ ~ ~Z ~3y ~ O~ ~ C ~ ~5 ~~ Q~~ W ~,.~~ L O Tq 3w3 ? Zd ~ 3s F ~ O d Z ~.~ rQ ~ ~ f.i ` J JWW ~3~ ~~ Q ~~ Q ~ ~ Q Z 1 ~ ~,p Q Q ~ ~ M ~1 W~ O rW~ ~ IL~m Q N WWWry WF ~ ~ ~Wp ~ WF O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " II / N ' B - v ~ Y .p ~ 0 ~ S ~~0'.9L ~~ S a ~ ~ ~ O B /ll ~? ,: ~ IW p > i ~ d ~ VJ ~~~yyy m ~ 7, <I ~ r ;~r . ' . ~ ~ '~ y . ~ I~ ~ a° ~ o~ \ __.__ I _ _LV_ m WO 3 ~pq~ N e 0 ~ ~ w ~ ~ WWI YL C ~ . v ~j t ~GO7 J ~ '~ ~A. ~ Q~ ~ ~ u~i ~ X O 1, .~I~~ W~ \ ~ , 3dD7$GNV'1 -_- I I 1 I {{ Vi \ ` •N~ s l ~ F ,.0-.f9 "~ ~ ~ Z l ~3 I ~p ~ Q W ` ~ Y~ I Q p ~"~ ~ .~',f 0 3 ` y~ '~^~7 ~ W ~a ~JJ 0 0 - v ~ 0 ~ iX° p Z `a Y W ~ .0-.5 o~ e a ~ M `~' O w ~ ~ o N ~ o ~o ~~ .s-,cei ~ 0 a ~ ((yy ~ l7 ~ ~ .f ~2,ti,~S~ - --~~. ,1 I ~- •~ . cc~C°d'" i _ ~Vd1Y\',.. cs (O NbotlYlew Ln ~ C 9~. ~~ ~j ~ I~ 7 (~~ t~Ti ~ Sntat°g° ~~~v ~ _~ ¢ S~'~1P~~'e)~gyt[E.~~, e , ~~ O ~ ~ ~ F . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1R PJI ~ m a f/j ~ ~ ~ . b\ ,iJ\ ~ I 4 1~v~1 ~I ~ I s`~ ~ ~ E, ~F\~V ink ~ LL Q ~ ~ .~ ~~J C~~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ tb (0 $ C7 ~ Q ~ ~I~~ ~ ~~ Sa[ [a~e_SUn 194 ~y~..,, ~~ ` r s ` j~ ~ ~ ~ ~'' ,~ ~1 w v Y ~" "~i ~ `~` `~~' }gip S$~ '~ ~ a~~ ~ ~~ v' ~ ' _ S v~d~` ~,. 6~,t-5 He ~ ^1i~ ~ Z C_~ r` lrQ ri~~ ~" ..~~ ~ SQ ~~ ~ '' ~ ' u~' ~ u ••~ m u~'~ ~ 7, ~ W -~ ~ ti ~`~~~ ~ S ~ ~i'' 1 5~ ~ ~~ , . I ` t"m4 ~~ ~mJ m ,~ y.~ ~ ` ~ O 88ii O 6 ~ Q r l 1 ,~ Mahn Aw at 3 8'j ~ em$ 1 1\ N ~ ~ ~ • • • • • • • n a N w • ~ ~ ~ ~ O M Q 4. ~ U ~~ X ~~ r ~ ~ W V Q ~ W~J ~~~ 0 - 0 ~ ry ~F~ ~~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ___ _~_ _ ,yvmanlaa ai~~r+m ~p ~ ~~~ Q J z . ~ g ~ ~ Z ~ X o Q I U W ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ® p~ ~ ~ _ ~Q .~ o a , - ® - - ~ m u3 u~ m ~~ a a a a a a a BJ t002 BS ?Z ~60 tE ~leN nu; 6no~70y\Z~vVau\suel od~G\ J • • • arnuawm a>mu ne~r+iaazv a~u aor an+aavna vnnnw unuawao arwrauoau m«mn.rw 3ssu wun aorwro mnu~.rswo aaara.wwrnnu wauhnww an eraa'crmao~rrv wmnwerwranaaacan wwwwow3vu'a~iwnwn w ~ ~ C ~ ~ °~ ~ °~•~'~• sNV~d aoo~ ° ~ CaC~ - S ~' a C d1 ~ ~ 43SOdOad U ~~°o H LL 0 O N T Q Q J a 0_ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z w~ Um g a v~ wc~ LLm x~ ~ ~~ Z m3 3Nn uaaaoad - - -~- - - anau ~a3oreiM3nx..~u~aiwxua auaiamw madxo aw of ovrnusiuacroura~rnasan.scar. nu aorn:aaior umw.em eiNao~~d~ 'sooldads 'and 1f1N~dM 4£~OZ ~ o n N t/ZaIWHdHS 'SdW '8 'aW a ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q aOd 3ON3aIS3a M3N ~ ~ ~ o t 0 n LL d O Z Q 4 J C. J LL O Z 0 U W N • • BJ :00? ;Z L! 22 5l nor aoy{ 6nc-7 ~\2 rogaw\s~,,at c,~,i0. _. • 3NIl A1a3d0ad _i i J.. _ _ - - - - - - - - vauauirru mrru ao aa.v.a»a. mu ao r>naw maw rwwuluuwoarmaivau^__m«saaMruamwluw aovuao mmcu ~.ncrva aaurln quwaNee m+aumuorn arv moexasaa rnowonw uwrxaoaar ow m»+wwoa~w~oauarauam~awammonaww~aowun un we rcuanoauau movnruasmnur wvaasu waeveuoa aua,~vm imaun muoaamsxourxsaawm+v aowwo amu aosm:aauaq umm aaw ~ ~ Q 6 ~~ c~ di~ao~ndo 's~olddds o c~ o ~ b ~ $ SNb~d HOO~d '3AV 1MnVAA IEbOZ ~ ~ ,~ ~ @) ~ VZdIWHVHS 'S!!IM $ 'dW m a ~ ~ ~ 43SOdOFJd ~ o ~ ~ ~ Q O D ® ~ liOd 30N341S3d M3P! aL ~~ ~u ; ~ 0 n Q J a~ ~; ~~ ~~ Q ~~ fi---'--- - -------A..,-- -'---- - ---- - i z _.__----A.,~ ~ .o-z A R 1- ~ m g ,__ - __ I .,~ ~ - - j ~ LL O m z71 I ~ \ ~I ~ ~ ___ ---- I~ Hltl9....'~ O O ~. , o ~I ~ Z I o ~ W ~~ I ~ g m '. ~ ~ *! O ~ U ~ I ~ .~ .; ~ ~. i. r o ~ ., 1 ! I .' :.:..... 'Z t ,. . , •i a i m I I I .r.91 ---+-- -- .e~,ei--------- - .o-.e Ii _ .o-.n - m~ O _ II ~ ;` ~ Z 'a 8 O O - ~ ~ Z J a- J LL m Q O U .I I ; . r~ .I ~ I li~ll I'll , ii~~i'IIIII~!~II!lilli~ll I O _ _,Ii;l ~I t~•, :I`1 ; I 1 1I- _ii1. 1 11 ~! ,~' ~' ,,~i.,ll is - _Illiljii I ~~~i' I 11 I I I I ~ I I - i'~~. ~i I -~ ~ 11 ~II I ~ (, ~~ I' ~I i i I~I~I.I ~ I III'I~"I I, li ;I i i 'I '~' ai :i' ~ - Q - 1 II 111 I '1 IL --'I~1 - 'I II ~ ~ --- - ;ia IiIl,;ill'ii~I~i' y 1 LL :- .._... __ __ '!j;;l;;~i _--rte -+ m _-~ 1 ~~~ ~~ ~ 1YJ~ a\ 1 i - 1 ~~°~ ~~~~ ~ R d ~ sa ~~~~ ~ a ~ ~ W - - .m a e ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ I I . m a m a m ~ a~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 e~ a~ a ~ v a x s x x q x x x ~ ~ '^ 6 a 6 °1 9 9 e a m 9 e 9 m 9 "v :. ~ ~ C d :. v ~ n "_~ e 0 ~ 0000000000 000 B7 IOOi of !~ %' 9..,cr •~eq S.G'~]f a'w~o~~au\s>>ato~d0\': ® • CNWytl193tl 94TLL l0 DYlYl6lTJIIDLL A ReWl3 37!! vnW 9LWlMW BWLLYYlJJ!! W! fOtlwvtl038au Ww i.T'1xD~ TKU'.M9, ~ d Q1CaC~ C:a C ~ ~ S m ~U~~°o~ -~ mxw aua.valnxs am muwvuaai avu aaziwau n'aure w tlo auxM n'ao-u~+un ae xniornotlaau uo amp aDOa«,~D~. ~u u~ew tlw aus awtaua mlono ltlaa m~aitl~sDU a swr>tmDds mn sow.xriw asnu to lsn: n~nuron ~roo `dINaO~II!/~ lS~JOlt/adS SNOIldn3l3 a01a31X3 'and 1fiNlVM LEtiOZ ~ o _~ d' 03SOdOad t1Z~IIWHdHS 'SdW '8 'dW ~ ~ ~m o ~ Q FiO~ 3JN341S3a M3N a~ ~ ~u o -----+ -. - - ...yyy ~ T- ,p.s ` ~` .o-s I al ~---~ a ~ II i J a :t~ ~o ~~ a ~' LLo w zL J n • ~ i1 Z O `Q W J W ~_ W H X W 6J 1002 [2 :90 2: 9i ddp uey,~ 5+e "?Z: ~~:roam~,l~ai o,:~p~, ~:~ • 'pouauux mau eoe>nivxr mu naxaaw ma~a v~a+.euwssrm wcuaoaawaw ww+~wwsesu~uw uvuoarnsn ~.nasve amr a.wu~xnn~uawmuoix an evad•sxasw rnowmn~va waarw~3aeaxr wwmvnooiauu~avim~nua ~nr rJ Qf C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ C ~~-. SNOIldA3~3 aOla31X3 a C ~ ._ S ~ a ~ ~ ~ Q 0 ~ ~ a3SOdOkid d ~ d oid ~ 9 ~ 1/INaO~~dO `S~JOldaVS '3AV 1f1N11/M l£ti0Z ~ o r ~ dZtilWHb~HS 'SliW '8 '!iW ~ ~ m o~ Q bO~ 3ON3O1S3li M3N as ~ ~u o v 0 u ~~ W~ Q~ >t u 0 m w 2 F- fY Z Z 0 Q W J W Q W `L VJ Q W Z O Q W J W W H C'3 • Z ~_ Q W J W O w x w E7 1007, EO :!0 ~Z? 9! ..'C; uori SM..a ~:1Ze\2. ~i~',law\; r aioadp•,, ~^ • • • ~~ ~ e~ uW 'p1p19tlIPitl 9'l3Ml A d~fn'/DOr ltll N dYlAW 9mf nYW diNYdx00 C4lNd1/idA OMY tpnxvNd Rltll WLN f]V1ftlOrMU'.1V69Y tr~v d Q1 C ao C ~ s ~ Q C ~~ ~ ~ Ca C b. S 4 ~ U Qa°o~ d C~ o. orrJ ~ s~ LL Z ~ O I- U W ~ I Z p J m .r.l ' -- z LL~ ~w m~ X w r--• ~~ o ~ ~j ~~ i------o--B ~': ' -; y I ~~~ I --- .o-s ~ ~ gi -- .o-s --, ~: , . ~, ~~ .U~~_~ ~ ?L~a"1 ? 1 - ~ .9 t l~y ~~" '>'r' I - _ ~__-- Q I 1\~ ~~ 1\ ` _ i _ _-- J Q;1 1002 62 '[U ~:2 9i ~o~ un'n fine )Zr\?c u:uu\5:~a~o.00\.~ • • • SNO11O3S JNIOllf18 Nvld ~ooa Q 0 r T MdtldN A3Ml N]WM. tlDf a1181~31Wd Trtdgb03N1 p1031~IWddU 461f01lYaNddi Mf 6dLNYlp 393M1 d~ 3611:3~IIOM LRdtl fd0~ vlNao~llvo 'soolvads ~ 'and 1f1Nlt1M L£~OZ ~ ~ r ~ VZaIwH`dHS 'saw ~ ~aw ~ ~ ~ _~ Q g aO~ 3JN3aIS3a M3N a a ~ Q ~ o ~ 00 0 a ~3 2 Z Q ~ n ~ r ~ ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application. No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: 14906 Sobey Road/DR-00-005 ROBERT MCBAIN/JIr Allison Knapp, Contras June 27, 2001 397-04-60 Lot 1 Department Hear • 000001 14906 SOBEY ROAD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: 1U0U01 05/24/01 06/13/01 06/14/01 06/14/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,980 square foot, single-story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 41,774 square feet (gross and net) and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The proposed architecture is Elizabethan Tudor. Please note that the proposed architecture and materials do not reproduce well in the black and white drawings submitted as part of the Planning Commission packet. The applicant will present athree-dimensional video of the proposal at the public hearing for the Planning Commission and the public. Background The subject site was created by a subdivision approved by the City on May 10, 2000 (SD- 99-004). T~~o lots were created by the subdivision. Lot 1, the subject of this staff report consists of 41,774 square feet and as noted above is vacant. Lot 2 consists of 5,789 square feet. Lot 2 underwent design review approval on September 27, 2000 to construct a 5,374 square foot residence (DR-00-029). Total square footage on Lot 2 is 6,174 square Eeet as an existing 800 square foot cottage was retained on the site. Both an arborists and a geotechnical report were prepared for the subdivision. The subject site has no trees on it; therefore an update to the arborist report was not required as a part of this entitlement review. The site obtained geotechnical clearance on Apri15, 2001 from the Ciry Engineer. The conditions associated with the clearance are included as conditions of project approval, and summarized in the "Geotechnical Review" section of this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00- 055. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-00-055. 3. Subdivision Conditions (SD-99-004) 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • ~~, ~_J 00002 • • File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 41,774 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 5.1% overall and 2% at building pad Attachment 1 GRADING REQUIRED: Total cut and fill required is 2,083 cubic yards. Of that 818 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of nine feet is required to construct the basement and 1,285 cubic yards of fill is required pursuant to the geotechnical report conditions. Environmental Determination: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish is proposed to be a combination of stucco, board detailing, brick veneer and a slate roof. The stucco is proposed to be painted a soft tan-white and window trim a "clearer" brighter white. A pewter gray stain is proposed for the boards, which appears to the eye as a more golden color. The brick veneer is a multi-toned golden. The slate roofing is proposed to be "Sierra Brown". Color and material samples as well as a video presentation will be available and. presented at the public hearing. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) P:\Planning\Allison~Staff ReporrsU49006Sobeysrkdoc 000043 File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 30% 35% Building Footprint 5,920 sq. ft. Driveway/Parking 2,845 sq. ft. Bat House 60 sq. ft. Paths, Pool, Patio 3,633 sq.ft. TOTAL (Impervious 12;458 sq. ft. Surface) Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Main Floor 5,298 sq. ft. Bath House 60 sq. ft. Garage 622 sq. ft. (Basement) (2,571) sq. ft. TOTAL 5,980 sq. ft. 6,040 sq. ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirement Front 56 ft. 56 ft.1 Rear 139 ft. 69 ft. Z Left Side 21 ft. 15 ft. 3 Right Side Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A 12 ft. a ' Lot was created after 1992 therefore the front setback is 20% of the lot depth. Z Lot was created after 1992 therefore the rear setback is 25% of the lot depth. Lot was created after 1992 therefore the side setback is 10% of the lot width. 4 The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made. 0 P:\Pla((n~'ni/n~ggWlisonlStaff ReportsU49006Sobeysrkdoc ®OOO~LJLY •i •i •i File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,980 square foot, single-story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 41,774 square feet (gross and net) and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district Sobey Road is developed predominately with large single-story residences. There are a couple of two-story homes in the area. The single-story residences tend toward a tall roofline. The architecture in the area is eclectic consisting of stucco, brick and both horizontal and vertical wood. A Tudor-style home is located to the right of the subject site. The proposed architecture looks "busy" in the black and white drawings and appears much "calmer" and truer to Elizabethan architecture when illustrated in the proposed colors. The proposed color of materials, light golden browns for the brick and the wood trim reduces the contrast and simplifies the facade. Additionally, the building placement on the lot setback 56 feet from the front and the size of the lot both serve to quite the appearance of the structure. Vertical board battens, divided-light windows, and an articulated roof- line soften the massing of the building. Arched windows and brick veneer serve to bring one's eye down the elevation, reducing the perception of height. Staff is requesting as a condition of project approval, to replace the hipped roof with a gable roof and return gables on the elevations to capture the original intent of the Elizabethan architecture. It is important to note that the applicant desires a gable roof and had proposed a hipped roof to reduce mass. The natural landscape is preserved in the design of the home. The lot is relatively flat. The fill is required as a part of the geotechnical mitigation. The terrain would be altered minimally. There are no trees on the site. No landscape plan was proposed as part of the project. A recommended condition of approval is for the applicant to provide a landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall include native specimens and landscape screening. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1, Technique #4, suggests varying the roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The plans include a front elevation that is four different levels to accommodate different uses or features within the house. Articulation is also provided by the use of arched windows (proposed) and a gabled roof (that is a condition of approval). • Policy 1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulh", which suggests softening elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of materials that create horizontal proportions and Technique #6, "Use Architectural Features to Breah Up Massing". The project proposes a varied front elevation and soft P:\PlanningWllison\Staff ReportsU49006Sobeysrkdoc ooooos File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue golden colors for the facade, which serves to add interest to the building and reduce perceived bulk. • Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of architecture on large (one-acre, plus or minus) lots. A Tudor-style home is to the right of the subject parcel. The proposed Elizabethan-style architecture fits with the neighborhood. The Public Works Department and the Santa Clara County Fire District have reviewed the application. The Public Works Department requires a grading permit and compliance with. the geotechnical recommendations. Comments from the Public Works Department and Santa Clara Fire District are included as conditions of approval. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence would have an attached 622 sq. ft. three-car garage. Grading Bachground Grading permits are typically processed at staff level, except when the site is within the Hillside Residential District as discussed below. However, should the soil on a site fall into one of the potentially unstable categories identified in the Geotechnical Section of this report, or the proposed project requires other discretionary and/or environmental review by the Planning Commission, staff forwards the grading information to the Planning Commission for review and approval. These statutory requirements should not be confused with the brief statement contained in the staff report with respect to the quantities of overall grading and the amount of cut to construct a basement or swimming pool. It is only when the project is exceeding specific quantities in the Hillside Residential District or when the thresholds and criteria identified above and below are exceeded that the Planning Commission is required by statute to make certain findings of approval, identified below. For example, the Planning Commission has requested information on the quantity of grading to construct certain site development features such basements and swimming pools and this information is included below under "Proposed Project". This information is general and does not require Planning Commission action or approval. Hillside Residential District Should the combined cut and fill of any grading in the Hillside Residential District (HR) exceed 1,000 cubic yards, inclusive of any grading required for swimming pools, the grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (Section 15-13.050(f). Additionally, a "Site Development Plan" is required for development in the HR District (Section 15.13-050 (a)). As a part of that review, a geologic and soils report shall be required unless the Ciry Engineer finds otherwise (Section 15.13-050 (b)). These reports, and any report for slide remediation would be forwarded to the Planning Commission review and P:\Plannin~Allison~StaEf ReportsU49006Sobeysrkdoc O®ULI~V File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnvtAvenae action. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings in approving a grading permit. 1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and 2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; and 3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and 4) The increased grading is necessary in order to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and 5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community. views. A condition of approval, or grounds to deny the grading is: 1) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Proposed Project Total cut and fill required is 2,083 cubic yards. Of that 818 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of nine feet is required to construct the basement and 1,285 cubic yards of fill is required pursuant to the geotechnical report conditions. The project does not require Planning Commission action on a grading plan as it is not in the HR District and full geotechnical review was conducted as apart of the subdivision in 2000. The information is provided as background for the Commission. Geotechnical Review Bach round Soil is classified by its stability. Saratoga's soils are mapped on the "Ground Movement Potential and Potential Geologic Stability" map which in broad terms identifies soils that are stable and soils that require additional geologic study prior to issuance of entitlement permits, and/or building permits. A rule of thumb, soils with either a "P" or an "M" in the classification will require additional geotechnical review. "P" identifies soils that have a potential for failure while "M" identifies soils that have a moving landslide. Planning staff consults with the City's Geologist in making the determination if additional geotechnical investigation is required. The soil classifications are, "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" consisting of soil types Sbr, Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex; "Area of Potentially Unstable Ground" consisting of Pmw, Pfs, Ps, Pd and Pdf; "Areas of Unstable Ground" consisting of soil types Ms, Md and Mrf; and the final P:\Planning\Allison\Staff RcporrsU49006Sobeysrkdoc ry ®O~Q I File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue classification, "Areas of Potential Surface Faulting" consisting of Psf soils. The "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" are and predominately level areas with moderately steep slopes underlain with bedrock. Some areas are subject to soil creep, expansive clay rich soils and maybe on fill. These soils are considered stable and usually do not require a geologic report provided that the slopes are not excessive. The City Engineer is consulted on these matters. The remaining soil classifications typically require additional geotechnical investigation, review and mitigation. These soils typically have steep slopes, are subject to mass wasting, slumping, rockfall, shallow and deep landsliding, debris flow and surface faulting. Depending-on the potential for geologic instability, the percent slope and the expertise of the City Engineer and the City's geologic consultant geologic review is conducted prior to review of the project by the Planning Commission. The results of the review are summarized for the Planning Commission, as appropriate, and the recommendations of the report become conditions of project approval. Additionally, any grading in the City's HR District requires City Geologist review and approval. Grading on stable sites with minor slopes, under 10%, typically does not require City Geologist review. Grading associated with unstable sites identified above is typically forwarded to the Planning Commission for review when they are associated with discretionary permit review. Proposed Proiect Soil The subject site contains Sun and ossibl some Ps soil. Sun is classified as an "Area of P Y Relatively Stable Ground" as Ps is classified as "Areas of Potentially Unstable Ground." Due largely to the Ps classification on Lot 2 and the potential for the classification to exist on Lot 1, a geotechnical investigation was required as part of the subdivision. As noted above, the site has obtained geotechnical clearance from the City on April 5, 2000. The following summary is provided as background information only. The subject site is constrained by several geotechnical conditions including poor drainage, potential liquefaction during a strong earthquake, the presence of non-engineered fills, potentially expansive bedrock and the likelihood of compressible organic rich soils (memorandum from Cotton Shires to Public Works Director, April 4, 2000). The geotechnical report prescribes removing the un-engineered fill and replacing it with structural fill. Drainage concerns are addressed by constructing a pipe to convey surface water from the property to an existing drainage system. There are specifications for foundations, retaining walls, grading, fill emplacement trenching, drainage, and monitoring of the work contained in the geotechnical report and the supplemental documents to the report all of which would be required conditions of approval. Trees No trees are on site. [':~Plannin~Allison~Stall ReporrsU49006solxysrkdoc ~Q~®~v File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue Fireplaces The plans indicate that three fireplaces and three chimneys are proposed in the new residence. Two fireplaces would be gas and one wood burning with a gas starter. Correspondence No correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings rec{uired within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00- 055. P:\['lannin~Allison\S tafE ReportsU49006sobeysrkdoc OOOO+p9 • T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ~©®~~..® Attachment 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-00-055 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA JIM AND TINA JEAN; 14906 SOBEY ROAD WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,980 square foot residence on a 41,774 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that Sobey Road is developed predominately with large single-story residences. There are a couple of two-story homes in the area. The single-story residences tend toward a tall roofline. The architecture in the area is eclectic consisting of stucco, brick and both horizontal and vertical wood. A Tudor-style home is located to the right of the subject site. The project proposes Elizabethan-style architecture including wood, brick, stucco and a slate roof, which integrates into the architecture of the neighborhood. ^ 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 and undeveloped areas in that the site is flat. There are no trees on the site. A landscape plan emphasizing native plantings is required as a condition of project approval. • The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and 0®0~1,~ File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line and front facade is varied to reduce bulk. The plans include a front elevation that is four different levels to accommodate different uses and elements within the house. Articulation is also provided by the use of arched windows and gabled roof (that is a condition of approval). The project proposes a varied front elevation and soft golden colors for the facade, which serves to add interest to the building and reduce perceived bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the. immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy in that the elevations are softened by using different materials on different levels, using natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of the house and using materials that create horizontal proportions. The lot is approximately an acre in area and the setbacks are such that the proposed residence would not cast shadow on adjacent lots nor impinge on the light and air on adjacent properties. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry in that the construction requires aCity- issued building and grading permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods shall be required as a part of that permit. Additionally the geotechnical report and the recommendations of the peer review of the geotechnical report are included as conditions of project approval. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1, Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1, Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height"; Policy 1, Technique #S, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; and Policy 1, Technique #6, "Use Architectural Features to Break Up Massing". Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application Jim and Tina Jean for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. P:~PlanningWllison~Staff ReportsU49006Solxystkdoc (~®O®~2 ° i:A '..~.: .. File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue • 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written cernfication that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. The plan shall incorporate native specimens and screening for adjacent properties. 4. A gable roof and gable returns shall be incorporated into the building and said design shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. PUBLIC WORKS 8. All the recommendations contained in the Freeman Kern Associates Geotechnical Report (project # 2349) dated December 31, 1999 shall be complied with. The conditions contained in the memorandum to the Public Works Director from the City geotechnical Consultant shall be complied with (Memorandum dated April 4, 2000). Additionally the following conditions shall be complied with: i. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final improvement plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for building foundations and driveway) to P:~lanning\Allison~SrafE Reporrsu49006Solxysrkd« 000013 File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. ii. We note that Note 6 on Sheet 2 states that "surface drainage...shall continue to drain in northeasterly direction...". It appears from the plan that the drainage direction should be to the northwest. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall correct this comment as part of the plan review. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted, along with the final Grading and Drainage Plan, to the Ciry for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The plan review letter shall specify that a capillary break shall be constructed beneath the entire structure (including the garage). iii. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, piers and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. iv. 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 and approval prior to Finalization of Grading Permit. v. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. s~i. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. The required fire flow is 2,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Therefore, provide the required fire flow from fire hydrants spaced at a minimum of 500 feet or provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NPFA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail &r Specifications sheet A-1. 11. Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches, minimum circulating P:~PlanningiAllisonlSrafE ReporrsU49006So6eysrkdoc Q®0014 File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Detail &r Specifications sheet A-1. 12. Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant or, provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. 13. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. 14. At the time of building permit approval, submit a Map showing the recorded lot split with current property lines and Assessor Parcel Number. CITY ATTORNEY 15. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 16. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violarion of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciry could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will ea-pare. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga Ciry Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. P:\PlanningWllisonlStaffReports\149006sobeysrkdoc q C ®DOA C File No. DR-00-064; 20431 WalnutAvenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • • P:U'lanning~Allison~Sraff Reporrs~149006Sobeysrkdoc Attachment 3 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION -STATE OF CALIFORNIA - JEAN: 14906 Sobey Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdi~~ision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdi«sion Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdi~~ide one existing parcel into t~vo single-family residential parcels, all as more particulazly set forth in File No. SD-99-004 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdi«sion, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent ~~~ith the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific regulations relating thereto, and the proposed subdi~~ision 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 May 10, ?000 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS none of the conditions set forth m Goy ernment Code Secnons 66474 (a) - (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present e~~idence; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdi~~ision, which map is dated June 4,1999 and is mazked Exhibit "A" in the hereinafter referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of the said appro~~al are as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, azchitectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Jean for Subdi~ZSion approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit "A", incorporated by • reference. ?. All conditions of V-99-008 shall be adhered to. Q~~O~~ File No. SD-99-004 ~ V-99-008: JEAN:14906 Sobey Road 3. Prior to Final Map a royal, a licant shall le aline the cotta a as an existin second PP PP g g g unit or remove the kitchen and laundry facilities in order to com~ert it to a guest house. 4. Future development on both lots shall adhere to the then current Zoning Requirements. Future homes shall be sited and designed to m;n;m;--e the amount of pad grading necessary and the removal of ordinance-protected trees. FIRE DISTRICT No Conditions PUBLIC WORKS Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the o~t-ner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall shove the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each nev<~ corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdi~~ision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Ciry Engineer for S examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninet}~ (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that u`~ll facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 7. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 8. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 9. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans (if applicable) to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the `~ Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior 'to approval of the Final Map. O®O~~~C:\~1'INDOWS\DESKTOP\Christina\PC Stafi'R eponsUEAN SD & V.doc File No. SD-99-004 ~u V-99-008: JEAN:14906 Sobey Road • 10. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee (if applicable), as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans aze submitted for review. 11. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement «~th the City (if applicable) in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. . 1?. The ov~~ner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities (if applicable) in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 13. Site-specific drainage improvements will be required for the undeveloped parcel (lot 1) during development of that pazcel, so as no natural drainage patterns are adversely impacted. 14. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 1~. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer ~t-ith satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility pro«ders serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 16. The ov~~ner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility pro~~iders, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the Ciry shall be provided to City Engineer. 17. The ov`~ner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 18. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the Ciry for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 19. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final improvement plans (i.e., site prepazation and grading, site drainage /- improvements and design pazameters for building foundations and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. • C:\WfNDOWS~DESKTOP~Chrisdna~PC Stafl''ReportsVEAN SD & V.doc File No. SD-99-004 ~ V-99-008: JEAN:14906 Sobey Road • 20. We note that Note 6 on Sheet 2 states, "surface drainage...shall continue to drain in northeasterly direction..." It appears from the plan that the drainage direction should be to the northwest. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall correct this comment as part of the plan review. The results of the plan review shall be summari`ed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted, along with the fina; Grading and Drainage Plan, to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and Cit}~ Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The plan re~•iev~• letter shall specify that a capillary break shall be constructed beneath the entire structure (including the garage). 21. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and appro~•e all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for_fill_keywaXs, piers and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. 22. 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 and approval prior to Finalization of Grading Permit. ?3. The ov~mer (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated v~~ith the Ciry ~ Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 24. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the Ciry of Saratoga harmless from. any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 25. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 26. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Ciry per each day of the violation. • ~~Q~~ C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\Christina\PC Staff RcporuVEAN SD & V.doc n . File No. SD-99-004 &r V-99-008: JFAN:14906 Sobey Road • Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expue. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 1~-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADO>rrFn by the Ciry of Sazatoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10`~ day of May 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~. Q. Chair, Plann~g Co ~ ssion ATTEST: S cre ary, Pl ~ g Commission • 000021 C:\WINDOWS\DESK?OP\Chrisena\PC StaffRcportsVEAN SD & V.doc • ~I~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CJ C7 oooozz i ~...owi tr-) .v «r.+°c tw)...~~ otoso va ~ooavevs m Tresoa ow ~ ~r ~ Kif~ gWllq'~f oM _ `~/a r.... ;~ /~ •_.. ~ pf qi~ war 4V WJ OBI ~ ~7~ Yb~r ~ ~Q~ { ~yi.rwy.~.. •W 77Ytml~r ~OSi07Y W~ c ,. .•~ 1 ~ f ~ f ~ ; ~~~ i J7 y) _i, ~y i}J r ~ fi. _,, 4-fir 1 r-f~L - I r •. .:~ ....... f _.. 7 _. i .: __ + t ,,: - ,_.._,._. .f.. ~~ _ .f ._ _ _ ._ ..:. . 'r _..._._,........~. __. ... _..~. __ _. ._.....,_.. ., ~.,_.._. ._.. .... . . .... ;.. _ ..{ _. 1:: ... ..1 - - - - -. { ~ ~; F ~ i _ ~ V~ W .: ~ t d z yM N gh g [~ a ~ F W^a~ ~}~~ a ate, ~~aaa a ~ ~~a .. np n~ UUhvi ri .w.N NdooO- O. Oav, '., ~`' ° .. /~~ww// ~' h.~ hil O ~ O z y~n o~ oooo~~ o O~ Norvavni °'OO ao ~'~~~ (•~ ~ II °O 00 N ~ ~D ~O h V1N n Vr ~O~t+bf ^;. V O ~" G z w V ~ d ~~~ oa [7,~ rr~~ 77 y ~1~~~ V1 ~ ~ ~ gya ~s II II F~ a :i:. 4. (~ ~ ~ ~y v~ v~ v~ ~ ~1 dl '~^ O c ~ O CW7 ~ ~ ~ wv ~j ~j II r,-, _ ~ ~ O O O T-I 'I~ W V II ~x~ ~W~ Nv~ 4>yF~l vi - .. _.. ~ O a ~ z ~ C F V ~/ ~ ~~aa ~~¢N ~ ~~- n ~,o a~ II ~ -~- W a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ip~q .a~ U~ y ~~wn @3 ww~ ~aQt~~„ ~ NO --... ____ 0 d ~~~x ~u~~ a~ a oo w~ a ~ vQw :~~"';`- ~ ~ ~ d O W I..1 -W ~-1 ~~,, ~, E-' ~~'~~ oa~d aS~Wa°~ °O~ ~~a ~"~~ ~ 4~ :;_:. WFW ~o ~ U~iQ 2 WWV 11~ III O ~~ W A ~ f~ a ~ W W W G7 G7 ~ Q ~ ~ a a a + > .~ ~ ~ n ww x ~ E~ v 0.1 ~~~3 ~ O~ 3 Wa w ~~~ vm ~''~ ~wm~~" ~" W ~ A N M `~ ~ ~ 00 ~ N vigA~s ~~oa r~~~~z$ '¢ a s~¢aQ~W~¢~ ~--~>~~~~ .... ,' i (TI rf ~ r! ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ j `i'¢'aC7~ agUs w»d~ ~ ~~~ c~~~~m~m Za~~Da~ ~ d -.~ d d d d d d d U V ..:.. __ ~ ~c- r 0 . ~, ~ ` ` U O 3• ~ ~~ ~.. .. ~° $ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ppayyi"-. ' I r e 738 ~i yam. ' ~ '. F F' a ° U ~ W o ~ !-::~- W b V ~ Z ~ A V ~ ~ a., -- r,: N ~ ~+ ~ i~~ w~a~ wo °„ z~ ~w _,~.. ~ ~~ ..~z~, w~ Wd+~oow ~V _ ~J M ~~~` ~~~ .. ~ F--1 ~ (/~ w ~ O CN.M•r V w O C/~~~ w w SON t~.. 'fl V E..1 ~ L ~ a 'ti '~ w V o I ~;~ :..:1 V ~+ C fs+ M ~ ~ ~O o ~~o =~_ ~ a h ~ I••..1 A ai V °~v~aw ~ ~ Nv~a V'3 ~v1o=, .. ...._ _ _ i L 1 ~#3f~ ~~~°i $ e~ m QI W v~ h O a~ .,~ o~ `~ ~ e - --- - H ~. {' L ~ ~~ w~ I ~ h ~i ~ ~ ~ C pq a `~' a t •M•o sso r3 rya Mrs .oi •.r3 r - ~~~-. ~$ o ;~ ~ h0 y @~ I t °~ o°V - - o ~ o = -~ y~ ~ ~ >~ _"~V2 ~2 '~~ I~^ o ~ ~ _: - W o~~~:~ ~.: o Z~ V 1~ O Z ~ ::-... H ~~0~`ij In ~ i ~~ ~ ._ ~y~ ~ ~~ _ _ ~o _ ~,~ 3 -.. _ . . m ". ' ~::::: _; _,1,_._.. ~>: w ~Q. O Fes- j U ~ U n d7 'dlJQidtldi 07NH019Htl NdHf' ~ b~0 'bO01~Itlb~B Ob~Oli A3a08 906bb Nd1d qp g ~~ a @ m ^ ~ ~ ~ j Q f ~ a r 0 ~ u ~ -/ ~ ^ 3~N301SS~1 NdSf 1N3Wd013/~30 m ~ ~ ~ a m ° 2 ~ o J ~$ ~LL B~ a u d x A .aHaas ~~ ~ ~ ::t~" - ,_~ 1 ~< ', ~~ o -' ,°~' ~I a ~ 1 I n a =p ~ „o_, _ -'S~' ~~ \` ~_ I a }6 •-• i~ . v i `O ~ i ~ - i ~ ~ a i ' ' ~ ~ J !U ~~ o ~~ a b ^ O n~ Q r S ~ ~ w ' ' ~ _ ~s i ° n° f o A ~ i '~ ^i 8 .,,. ~ ~ \ ~ , I ~__ 1 ~ , C'9L8 M . BG e007 _ 1 ~' ~ r - , O ~ F-~ m ~ Q j U O . w 3 x i z ~ ~ ~ a c O ~ ' i O C _ ' ~ a F Q ~ w O O i ~ ; F ~ ~ ! a ~ c ~ I ' z ~ G .7 i z ~ j ~ ,~ v~ I S I Q ~ A a C ~ ~ ~ ~ I w a ~ ~ j I° I p O", ~ p S ~ x K 3 .~ ~ i o ;~ i O F N V ~ ~- ._ I ' ~ -. i i w ~ ~ I j a i aa ~ w W i ~ V I ~ ~. a: Z j ~ C~ ~ ~ I j d ~ C ~ ~ i G1 ti ~ ~ ~ ~-Z ~ U ~ ' ~Q ~ O ~d m ~ p C U s I O U ~~ U O O ~F ~ Q A a ~~~~~,-yy Q iG a 'w. y .~ X Q w~ 00 N w ~~ a¢z o¢ ~ ~-~ ~V W Q°~ aw~ [-H 9 0 ?~. w Q ~ 0.Fy y 3 c,,,~ z¢~ s ~' : 1 a C7 e ~ ^ F ~°~' O < 0 '~^ z `O Ci ~ F w Q O yy a ~~~u+.~ a0 ,~N y~e~~:t 'ZF a ~`~ ~,oo b3a p ~~va~y'T~ °ZL N ~au 3^~~~ ~acai' p~~ ~ oy_ pia ~~~< h,~ ~ ~ ~:~: ~fnU~ et~~ .. wm~°.~ ~F'•zyy ~ d 00.:yN~H n~ Q ~O uuii F e ~ F °' a.F o. z z u °v c~i ri ~ ev I' ~a ~ moy4~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ 3~x$$ ~ a o czyz ~~ "'~~~ °GN`da~o`" 3..~`!, ~~puiaa0~ ~a Ca dom. ~ "~ o 5333 agC `nom a a ~ur~~zz~zz~ezz~~ ., E„~ ~'o m <~ w a ~FFFy z~o ~.a~ .U~a a U N~ F ~j ~ O N4 to qHt~ ~ O W ~ 4 ~p' ~ ~.~ ~ ~ Q G °'~ ~ ~in3yulwicl`~ ~ W~52oa. ~ ~ '~ U . c7 3 r N 000 6.l'00° t P ,, ~ , o , ~~. - .~;--; r r • o~.o9s vo 'doo,ttlxds 99Ci-~9E (80t~) :auoyd Qd021 ~QflOS 906~i N , d i~2i96 d0 'asof ueS ~ ~ ' - ° r~ " ` 20i a~}inS 'anuany uapuleQ 2961 NdQf tlNI,L QNd NIIf S2[NI QNV 2IY~I ' ~ ;; , ~ o NItlflO]N 'd ,L2IQfl021 ~~9 pau~tsaQ m O 230,E QON~QIS~B Q2Ifi,Lf1,3 QdSOd02Id 0 2 ~~ ;" OG o N `p 1 N36YVIW T3J7iVd n ~~ ~~ 3 0 Q ~' _ r ~ N w u r ~ z ~ u ~ `e N ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~a ~ `~ ~ I a ~ ~ ~ O ---.~ U i i ~ ~ ~ ~ l______________J l______________________________J O O O ~ u w ¢1 } = J O ~ Q E ® m ~ w a u U ~ r1 < .. (7 3 Z i 0 G ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Y 7 ~ :' m 3 J •~ ~rv ~~ 3 . m~ u O Z /~ ~ O o z ~ z ¢ o ~'~~ z ~ Y ~ W ; G ~ = 2 1/N ~n U N O O LLY 0 0 Q) ~ - U ~ I ~ II ~ n •~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~~ „ W !VI/1 r y O \\ m V p ~ y,l 00 '~ I ,i ~ II ~ t ~ o ~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~ Y _ a U m ii (/) ~: - .; a i m ~# h W a ~ 1 N E W W U ~ ~N O ~ _ U r7 m W 'p, _4~jj ' ~ „ ', o u. O Q t I O ~ W m , I y 1 ~ / N w ~ O O p r ~ O N U ~ J N VI ~ ~ u O s w ~ m I ~ ~ ~ I S O p = W W Q] m S = m m _ I n '~ - m _ m .i ti 1 - __ 1 ~ • ~ • • N y 99>;T-i~9E (80b) :auoyd t~ZT96 d~ 'asop ues ZOI aatnS 'anuany uapu.-e~ ZS61 NIV80W 'd ,L2I~802i :~iq pau;~isaa o~.oss vo `dooiva~s ad02I A~HOS 906~T NV~f dNI,L aNd Wlf ~S21W aNV ~23W m ~ N ~o ~oN~ais~~ ~anin,~ a~sodo~a o U ~ ~i 9 o° a m CV t W m~ o d O -~. VI ~ .] 47 U a 1 _d ---' 1 QJ I~In VI d ~ I i i I i I 0 ~ . u ~ ~ uS N ~~ ~~ I t u ~' ~ ~ N II n ~ N V ~,: ~~~~~~' s ~~:,~:~ :~_ ;rtz '-.5 ~ ~~~ r.YPe'.G -'t ~L;. ;~: .,;':{ I i .~ i «iA. ' -.~:`~.' ,. ,.;~:. ~:: o~.oss do 'dooidads 99t;i-i~9E (806) :auoyd Qd02I ~~HOS 906~i ~ ~ Y "~ d b2i96 d~ 'asof ues ~ - " a~ - tl ~ m z0i a~~ns 'anuand uapwe~ 2961 Nd~f dNIJ. QNd Y~IIf ~S2iYQ QNd '2iiH ~ ;;. ~ ~ o NId9~YV 'd ,L21~fl02[ :~q Pau~tsaa 2I0~ ~~N~QIS~21 a2lnzn,~ Q35od021d m ~ o ? ~ ¢ ~ •T ~ ° m - ~ a ~ i `~ • ~! o~.oss vo 'doosdads s 99Ei-b9E (90~) :auogd ue ' Q~'02I ]C~HOS 906~T ~ ~ ~ 8 a ~ ~ a '" ~ ~ g bZT96 S asof VO ' ' z0i a}inS 'anuany uapuieQ Z56I S2II4 Qidd 2INI Nlddf dNI.L QNId YQIf ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ $ o N[tlHOIN 'd ,L2I~H02I :~Q Pau~isaQ dOd ~OHdQIS32I ~2IfLLf1,3 Q~SOdOdd ~ 3 <° <° % ~ ~ U d \. 5 b ~~ _~ 5s S~ ~~ Sg ~~ 5~ r6 o~ ~g ag :g s €C Zeo m i m z 0 U W N N '~ J ~'a ~: f b S S u Q Q Z O F= U W • • ~ :auo Ol.OS6 d0 'VJO,LV2NS ~d 99£T-fi9£ (BOi~) QV02t 1~HOS 906fiT i~Zi98 VO 'asop ueg ZOi a}inS 'anuan~r uapune~ ZS6T NItl3P VHI~L P~ -3If 'S2i~ Q11V '2IYQ ~ ~ s ~ ~ o NItlS~Y~i 'd b2ISH02i :~q pau~isaQ 210,3 301r3Q1SS2I ~xnT.n.a Q~SOd02Id s ,~ 6 ~ ^ G ~ ~° ~ r 0 z v C O O N W ~ 1 o~,oss vo 'v~osvx~s ~ ~ ~ ~- o s9et-sae (eon) :auoua avoa egos 9os~i ~ ~ . ~ 'Y fiZT58 d0 'asop uag 1N3f VM,L Mn- SIP 'S~ Q1dV '2I~ ~ 'anuany uapm80 Z56T n a = ~ ~ g i? ZOI AIIVHOYV 'd ,L2I3H02? :~Sq pau~?saQ ,30 30IZ~QIS~2i ~2?IIJ,fLd Q~SOdOZId o ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ ~ c 0 v m w ., N O W c 0 0 d W N N 3 1 ~ o~.o9s da 'doosdxds ~ m ~ 99ET-i~9E (90i~) :auo~d ~ Qd02I 1G~SOS 906~6T ~ ' °• 'aS0 II1g a in 'anuiae ua u~a f S S d P a 2961 ZOT 1 tldr~f d11LL QIZd TRIP 'S2i~ QNd 21Y~ = ,. ~ a o ~ @ s ~ 0 0 o . NItlHaTK 'd 1.2I3S02I ~~9 Pau~isaQ s ,30 3aN3mS32I ~2Il1J,f13 Q~SOdO~Td o ~ a ~~ ,~ a ~ ~ 3 k L P C t ~ i =o ~ ~ o ~ ~ N W o ~ o ~ o ~ a ~ ~ I w y. oUe 0 Y i U a`e v N > U N I I it I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 W r ~ ''c ti. II ~ II I ,i ~l0 I ,~ ~ ,~ I ° I W W W F z II ~ LJ I ~ ~ II I I II I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ d F t a~ ~ m O ~_ l Y ~ v ~ +. z Q x ~ c o o a r ~¢~/~ W = „ ~ Ci W 2 ~ F ~ > ~ > m o Q V / ~Ll ~ ' $ ~ ~ ? ~ t `; ~ W ~ ~ i o ~ v i ~ W < m O > O ~ > ~. ~ ~ W ° ~ ° ` ` ~ W $ 5 ~ 2 K h ~ o t t ~ 3 ~ ~ cWa o ti ~ (/~ ~\ m c~a V V ~ ~ ~ W 2 m y, y ~ ~ V 1 A s~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~I / _~~ ~ ------- R I; ~. _, \ \ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ / \ i \ R ~ ~ I~ b ~ 1. I --1 , I 6~ ,! / , ~ ~~ i ~~ f ~~ .; ~/- ~ ~ ~~ ,`~ - ~ i~~ • - ~."= r . ~ ~~ .~~ Ap. , ~---- -- /~ .05' IBZ~-~•.. 3 .00.£5.00 N ~ "" ~----"""-" ____ __ .4 ~- " 'iwis'i++a _ ~~-^ ~~ ~~ N ~~ -Z-~` d h U ti Z ° a 0 A o V' o •~ "' W ° n W Z -A) U V ~ U Z < LJJ g '.i N J J Z Q , N m `~ < V) °_ W m 3 m n ~W W =~x r U K W L W 7 < YI Y m O 0 ~~ J o - c s' ~°, c i ~ J N < W O p N p p U 6 _Z O N ~ • • ~ ~ • Q ~~ .. ® ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O V~ ,~ V~ ~a ~~ ®® ®~ ~@ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ @a ~~ rq~, I~ ~s ~~ ..1 JE ~`UX q X ~ rotls °F °°~ ~~ az aaviva u°o zz 4a u" rr~mw°Oya ~ ~ ~~~zz«° 8 `~ zzz o~i?~i§~ a~o y~38u.aamm~ < ~~~mwwmm~nw~za~a ydna.u~'~aao~a~~ad ~i w-^mQQ azw n.z ~ ~ss~S~~~m~3~~3~ .. N w~ r N N w1 Y N~ 0p O\ .~.. <Uf.1U ..1 .S« <««<< yys ~ ~w N g ~ ~ :~ ~~ Si T~" t g~ ~ `e" ~~ ~z v~~ .. moo ~ p ~z~ a ~~ ~ 3 ; Ti u~ C-' ~m 5 a ;b ~ oy ~ yid ~ N~~ N ~ ~~ ~~° j s w~3 ~ ~ $~ o ~ ~~ ~ <a ~ ~o~ ~ u ~ v ~v~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ „ Y ~~ ~ ~ $ ~ g ANN ~ ~ ~~~ LL~~ ~ ~~~"` W N ~ a 3~~ ~ ~ a G ~ 3~° ~~a 7 S ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ a ~ ~~ Ng s d ~g F C ~ .a . ~l ~ \ 1~1 ~~ [ L~ a ~, o ~ N E L ~ ~ ° ^ a s 1.1 ~ ~ q n. ~ Ue 6 ~ ~ a° E u & -~ o ~ ~ < ~ a ~ n°m a ~ a ~ ~° a ~ ^ ~ ~ aA a ~ n a ~ Ae a LL rr i umi u mOmi °' 00 0 0 <Y " 0 ° ~. AA 00 ° m ~ °' m ~ mm NN oo _ nm °O e, ~ ~ ra .- m mm 00 0 °o ~~ m .c o0 ® ~ $ Z G U !~ o ~ y ~ ~ Z ~ ~ _ z m ~ o ~ ~ W O A r m'p 7 <,°~ a . -~ E„ °~ F~ °m v ~ < o a m S m CS 'nN C7 O,L ¢o P C .m m ~ oo "m I . ~m h tC mm ~ ~ C Q V Q ~ NO o z V yyC Om F<' Xt wm ~ J ~-~ Za'cai ~ eu UQ V ~o r i V ~mo ~ i <m ~ Ym a O nwa y°° ~ i tl QU i rl d NR4i1~-~d w~, ~q ~ZC ZO yN, 2fJ ~o aNU ?44C Vd N~ ~W ~~ ~QO a m m ~' c.o~~ ° .°o .°n m ~ °u' ~ .'E ,NO .~ OE non ~ ~ °ms ; ~ °ma of ~n. o 6 mm ~~Q ~ O^uai ~ a ~ a ~ ac ~ ~ ~ u7 g m ~~ z ~ p~G a o ~ a~ Czo p°°° ~ o ~ < O U V S! aeU 6 mU S< FN KF Z2 !~ P b C~`/ d a ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ o w ~ a U V 0 f/J O y h N O a~N > < J1 <VaH N x°aa ~°o v~iFW ~~ d a ~~y g~~ Vz~ e °~ ~ ~~~ r ~ Q • • 1495-LZL(806) XY~ 65056 oiu~o~~~o~ 'DJD~~ o{uns viNao~rro~ oivaeos •w NHOr •saw A •aw ~aoe v~oivavs 5999-L1L(906) ZZ 6ulPitne 'p~cna~no8 77~~S OSCf ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ iogi~aru~wene@u ox~egrie '~NI 'S210A3A21f1S R SM33NI9N3 IIAI~ ,,.,~ •~.,,„ro ~ M 3WVa 32iLON 3D X(lb'31NHJ Sal (~ -.~-~~ ti ~ ~, ~ ~ 1H9I 21M '8 a3I ~ Nt/'Id JLLIl11.f1 a(Vt/ ~NI~I~J JIdVNIWC13Hd L 10~ ; ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ • • 1995-LZL(809) XY~ 95056 olu~o}ll00 ro~ol~ oluos viNao~rroo olvaeos 'w raror saw a ~aw ~aoe voolvavs 5999-LZL(909) dl 6uIDfIn9 'p~oealno0 17ooS OSff ~ ~ a ~ N '~NI 'Sa0A3Atif1S '8 S2133NI9N3 IIAI~ M 3WV4 32LLON 34 Xf1d31t/H~ Sal ~ ioein-nuiw8nsau oNixxne 1H9I2tM '8 213I~ M/'Id JLLI'1L1J1 ONM'~NIaVd~J JllIVNIWIl3bd L lOl a ~ ~ ~ a ~U ~ • • • 1-9S-LdL(B0~) Xv.~ 6SOS6 olu~o;llDo 'D~DI~ D~UD$ nNaoenv~ o1va60S •w NHOr •saw ~ •aw ~!!0! r901ravs 5999-LZL(BO>) Zd 6u!pl!ng 'p~Dne!noA 11oDS OSfE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('~ 'ONI 'Sa0A3Aiif1S '8 S2133NI9N3 1IA10 r 3WVa 32110N 30 Xf1b31b'H~ Sal a ~ 1 ^ ,aq,m,.~.,~~s3dn~~~~.,~ 1H9I21111fl '8 213I N Mr1d 3115 '8 NOIld3Nil34 ~OV813S ; ~ ~ ~ e ~V b AtlY.ra4.y(y .....e :,. ItUr4 VJ'^"n ul.~u~gy' any .~ r ~~ey~(jQK ..rye.w(p . a... ar14"y' aa.aY ~pr Y15V 'D°~Ii~WS 4 N~IS94 QNWI 1 ~iu,~o~i~~~ 'e6o~~,~~s p~oz! u~u~~Uog a ~ .~ R ~ m ~ ~ u 0 Ned 1.d~~NO-~ ~dd~saNd-t 3NI'71i71VW \ / Y ~~ ~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ot~ ~ ~ ~ I / ~ r ! ~ 6r ~ \ \ ~ .I i ~\ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ _ ~ ~ / ( ~ i - ~ ~ ~ ~ I ( ~ ~ ~, f .(~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ 1. / ., m ~~~~ ~~~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~a m \\ ~ ~ • / !r \ / H / ~ e; ~~ ~ ~ ~ / _ ..~ ~ \ \ / / r __ \ \ / / ;~ ~~ ~ \ 1 / .t __ \ / / ~ ~ C F ~ \ ` ./ o ~ \ \\ ~ t Y m ~ 3~ ---- - `\ \ I . ~~ ~ ~ ~ '/ ... yam... _. . ._ . ~ /1 / r - .a ' ~ F r o~ ~\ F F h.s ~ \ 1 ~ ~~.~; .7 a o \ ~ / ~ ~~~ 1 • J ~ I ~ (~ ' .LL y~ '` •w a ~~ ~ ~ ~,, N s .r ca /~ S ;~ ~ Dt~d ~ n / / +~ H 1 ~ G / \ F l4 ~ F O • ~ yy •• \\ G 1 0, Y~~• A ~ Jh ~ 0~ 1 F ~ i \ /~ y ~ ^~ 1 ~ ~ ~ . @ ` + ~ _ \ ~ < ors ~ o~~/ ~~ / A -.- ~ ~ m ~, .. ~ ~, ~. __. ,_ ~ °~~ 1 (U~ i w( 'm P "~ ~ ~i ~ ei~ R ~$ .~ a~ \ V F } t \ _ ,. \ C \ S ~ e,~ \ \ d \ l .s '° ~3 ~ .a' 1 V ~: ~ F `~,( W ~ \ ha n ~F I / /~f \.~pN`` F M ~tl I ~ r ..~ ~ ~ air 11 N w~ ~~ ~~, 1 ~ , / .~ .~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ \ V •N `111 ~~ ~ _ ~'~, '4 Mr 1 / / 9 Lr • ~ t •.R . -- ' -- wa r. WLL we • • m $ N ~6 a ~ ~s ~ ~ IrUr0 Y1 '~+xlA ulrlun Fl B~;9M1~01!r YNd 1':i~~.~ ~I~~O~I I~~ r~~O~~~~S q.~' .y rOlaU S ,~. . u1W'rJ pur ..mwW"Y ~rn y~ YISV 'WvPPNF N~I53aQNViN .~ o, ~~~d~(~~~ ®~~~~® d m Q tl ~ ~ a~ Qry4~ Im ry ~ 5 ~ u 0 N'd1d 1d~7P10'~ ~d'd~SQN'd-! u ~ s ~ ~ ~ a~p~g~~ s' ~ ~ ~8~~ O A ~ l1 x m J z ~ ~>~~ ~ .:-, gay ~ ~ s~J o ~ aE L u$~s ~C _ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~r~ ~ ~~• ~• ~ ~a~~~ ;~~ ~~ ~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~s~aa ~F'1 (1~NY^1NN~%'iN~ F11~CF N.-NF11~~tl1NYFNCFNtl1 tl1N ~~~8~9~~~t~a~~ ~~Y~ffims3shS'~F~~9s~~£ A " r 4 "Y ~ C, n a .m .F 1 3 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ S i i f ; ,i I~ I ~ I J I Q V a. ,. r I I 1 . I I r ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 J~ • • 3 go m 0 ~ ~ ly ~ s g z 0 H w A H x x -~- ~, ~, ---~-- 6 O $ ~ N • xz 00 ~~ w~ ~w ww W V Z W Q '" A x z ,~ ~ o w W a Q ~/ U Qr O ~ O ~ ~ O 0 u . o0 ~~~q tUaa N ~~ ~ A ~: ~°o rn F4. ~l a H za x~o~ e ~a~ ~ • • • s 3 ~o s = 2 `° g ~t~ ~ C ~u ~z 0 F W a w x Q w x ~ M ` o _ ~ ~/ ~~ W r""' O O W~ w ~T, W V Z W a A z a ,,..,,, ~ o W a U Q O ~ a x ~ a O 4 0 da ~ q <U~°~` N~ 00 ~~~ J ~°ov~iFa w a VJ mzo xza a w ~a~ ~ • • a ~ ~ u ~ gg W O H U W C E t G 0 8 A F~1 U W ~_ C ~ _ ~ o d ~ m ~_ l~ ~1 h~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o w_ ~ a U Q 0 Ca ~N <'ua~ N ,dyu, ~a °v ~v~iFW 8 W a p~u~a xxa e ~~~ ~ N ~s 'di e' d 0 • • °a 9 uM o 4 E = Q L d `~ 0 "'~"' ~' i r~TT "F-'"1 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ o ~ a Q U Qr 0 tl a~ N ya V Q N U SHOD Si~~~ ~Fa m a ~y wzo Uza ~~z • • • P U ~ • • s t ~ O m a d t='~ rT, k~4 Q ~ Cpl ~ w ~ a t U Qr ® ~ O Q 4 0 u ~ ee o~~a <U~'O~` Q N N u ~~~ 9Fa. S ~i 3 W o d Z ---~ a w 0 O W V Z W a A ~ ~ o w W a a U O C/] 0 oa~a <c~,aa NN ~~ O ~ 'a'"' ° ~ a. ~' efnFw m a ~va z ~za ~~~ • • b s Z Q ~ N F- N N N N N N N N N N O O O N N O O p 0 N N [}- N ~ ~ l0 ~ ~ N ~ W ~ ~ ~_ ~ N ~ 67 -~ 2 J ~„c~a T ~ a= ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Q ~._ .- N cn - d - ~ - l0 - 1~ - cA - 6J - ' W U Z Q Q 2 _~ W N r~ ti N N ~ `n O O N N ~ W ~p ~ Z ° ~ Q d a W > ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ d ° o a ~ J ~ ~ ~- il _ N lL N i N O <f- ~ N ~ tL W N N ~ N N ~ O W N Z ° u~ O z ~ J a o 'a ~~ ~2 J ~ a ~ ~ W N N_ N d- n O N N n d N J a F- 0 ~- 34 J ~ : u Y ~ ~ -- d b g 9 8 a' s a S w V ~ W d A z ~ ,,..,, ~ o w w a d U Qr O d y 0 u~ o0 da ~a a'u,'~,a N O~y A ~~ ~v~FR w a ~~a paz x~a ~ w !a~ z O a O U O U zW ~d ~ • W V W d A z ~ ,,,.., ~ o w_ w '~ a U a PA O a ~~ O a~N <u~a p N N ` ~~~ u ~F4~. d' - ~ S a ~ - ~ _ 6 ~ w QI' ~~ ~ ~ ~1 N ~ N d Z .- = _~ w Z O W ~ ~ < m s ~ ~ ~ ~' °- a W a Z J O ~ J Z O U Q J J _ a Z CJ 2 U N u N N Z cn Q W N - N N N N W ~ N a s N O ~ ~ ~_ ~~ d' ~ ``~ ~ `~ ~ W a D a0 Z ._.. ~~ cn n~ O ~ ~ cV N ~ _ d' J W J J ~ ~ a N n d' ~ l9 I~ ~ z a ~ j /~-~ c J O Q ~ ~ "~ W 2~ z J ~ J W ~ W W W ~ ~ ~ W W W ~ 2' 2' O O Z J L L a .a a aaa aaa ~- ~a d w a ~ ~ U W a a p~ U W 3 w o x a w a H wzo xza e V<F Paz ~ • • .9~iGl A•AC II II ~ ~ II ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s -,~-1-1------1---T---1------1- T _ _ __J ~ I I I ~ 1 I I I I I I , ~ I I I , I ~ I, I ,, i G, I 1 ~ I I I I I I I I _~ I ~------~ ~ I - - ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ Z ~ C I a I W I j i~d j QQ a. 1 [l I I ~ 1 g N J z z o , ~ w o$ w ~ ~ a I I ' ~ -~ I 1 I I ~ I I ~ ~ i _ a o ~ a o , I x ~~-- I o '~ o .. ~ i = O . 1 o~ ,..a -_ ---------------------------- ' w II ~ oo- o0 G ~ O O 0 a a 0 a ~ '~ N LL. N O .A N A .D N W W a a z d w a w H w 3 z d w a w H w j m d O Z O l 1'~ O O ~~ a ~ a W V W A ~ ~ o w W a U a/ 0 p~ a G4 O m a ~y ~~~ ~za e ~~~ ~ • ~ oo O Y~~q ~V a a N $ J~ ob `y,~e°a 6, o:•, .°o GnFW 4 o ~ -~ °~ p. ~ DIRECTORS ITEM C~B~4 oQ ~~/°~~OO C~G~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: .PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: June 27, 2001 RE: Planning Issues COUNCII. MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith As we have discussed there are several issues that the Commission believes need to be studied, discussed and possibly new procedures or ordinances established to address growing concerns in the community. Through the Chair many of you have provided me a list of issues you as individual Commissioners, feel need to be looked. into. I have indicated to you that to fulfill your responsibilities as Planning Commissioners and to have a more rewarding experience on the Commission, you need to be involved in a wider range of activities other than Development Review. Below I listed the individual issues that you have collectedly identified. I have also added a few that the Staff has identified. 1. Basement Standards a. Size limitations b. Geologicallimitations c. Ground water d. Light well size limitation and justification 2. Amend Ordinances to allow greater Staff review of development projects. 3. Streamline Planning Commission review process by use of Subcommittees (2) 4. Allow remodels without Planning Commission review S. Conduct Study Sessions for Advance Planning issues 6. Require Story Poles for all new construction 7. Require 3-deminsional models as needed 8. Require neighborhood review prior to submittal to the Ciry for Design Review 9. Plan sets presented to the City need to include preliminary landscape design 10. Develop Neighborhood Design Guidelines (example -Communities by Mountain View) 11. Increased sustainable, energy efficient alternatives and methods 12. Create or establish a library for public and contractors 13. Expand criteria/guidelines for appropriate landscaping, including xeriscaping 14. Review Zoning Ordinance for conflicting provisions, ie allowing deviations heights coverage, etc. by Use Permit. Design in to setbacks, Staff suggest that the Commission rank the above items and then appoint two Commissioners to an item to work with Staff to study and make a recommendation to the full Commission. ~~U~O~ Printed on recycled paper. Page 1 of 1 Tom Sullivan From: <Drcbarry@aol.com> To: <tsullivan~saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:26 PM Subject: Advanced Planning additions to Tom, Just received these. Also testing email. cynlthia Kurasch: 1. Develop Neighborhood Compatibility Design Guidelines. Communities By Design in Mountain View consults with a process oflCommunity Imaging Surveys -2. Increased sustainable, energy efficient alternatives and methods. Create library for public and contractors. -3. Expanded criteria/guide for developers for appropriate landscaping including xeriscaping. • t 6/11/01 OODUU;-; MEMO To Tom Sullivan CDD From: Cynthia Barry PC Chair Date: Junel 1, 2001 Re: Individual PCs Priorities for Advance Planning Consideration Jakman: 1. Basement Size Limitation: Geology, Soil Stability, Underground Water Flow. 2. Lightwell Size Limitation: Justification. Garakani: 1. Decrease projects requiring PC review via criteria that allow CDD approval. 2. Streamline PC component of project review process via subcommittee review Kurash: 1. Reduce PC review via procedure allowing no fee revisions where code compliance is the problem 2. Allow remodels without PC review. 3. Use Study Sessions for Advance Planning. Barry: 1. Procedural requirement for story poles, 3 dimensional model, neighbor review, and preliminary landscape plan. • 000003 • • • • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association • MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:02 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and requested Deputy City Clerk Ann Sullivan to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Irwin Kaplan, Interim Community Development Director Phil Block, Associate Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 2, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 2, 2001 was properly posted on Apri127, 2001. City Council Minutes May 2, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke: Clay Leander, Saratoga Community Television, apologized for last week's technical difficulties during the broadcast of the Adjourned Meeting on Apri127, 2001. Mr. Leander noted that as of midnight his contract as acting Community Access Director expires. He thanked the City Council for all of their support and noted that he enjoyed working with the staff and the City Council. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, requested that the City Council support construction of a second access trail on Bohlman Road. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, requested that the City Council not accept the Public Safety Commission's report on fire protection services in Saratoga. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, expressed dissatisfaction with the Council not allowing all the members of the FACT committee adequate time to speak at the adjourned meeting on April 24, 2001. K.B. Walter, 20281 Blauer Ave, requested that the City Council delay the building of the new fire station until the current fire service issues are resolved. Ms. Walter strongly stated that the citizens of Saratoga would benefit if Santa Clara County Fire served the entire city. Art Marshall, President/SCC Firefighter Association, noted that Chief Kraule reported inaccurate information to the City Council at the Joint Meeting on Apri124, 2001. Mr. Morrison explained that when Chief Kraule discussed the recent fire on Mendelsohn Lane and stated that he dismissed County Fire from the scene, because their assistance was not needed, was an inaccurate statement. Mr. Morrison stated that one of the County trucks stayed and assisted the Saratoga Fire District for a significant amount of time. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith requested a status report on the issues Mr. Phipps discussed concerning Bohlman Road. In response, City Manager Anderson noted that the Public Safety Commission is currently reviewing this issue. • City Council Minutes 2 May 2, 2001 CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING APRIL 29 -MAY 5, 2001 "MUNICIPAL CLERK WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation and presented it to City Clerk Boyer and Deputy City Clerk Sullivan. 1B. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING MAY 20-26, 2001 "SAVE A LIFE WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation. 1 C. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: Ol- 026 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING MIKE GARAKANI TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING MIKE GARAKANI TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSES 5-0. City Clerk Boyer.administered the Oath of Office to Mike Garakani. 1 D. APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: O1- 027 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING CAROLYN GALVIN TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. BAKER/STREIT MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING CAROLYN GALVIN TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to Carolyn Galvin. City Council Minutes 3 May 2, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey noted that it was the appropriate time to begin the Public Hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY RENOVATI N O AND EXPANSION PROJECT -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: APN: 397-301- 053; 13724 SARATOGA AVENUE (TEMPORARY RELOCATION SITE); APN: 397-301-047 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open Public Hearing, hear public testimony and adopt Negative Declaration. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental analysis be done before the Saratoga Community Library Renovation and Expansion Project begins. The City prepared an RFQ and sent it out to thirteen fums that perform this service in the Bay Area. Maureen Owens Hill Consulting was selected to perform the environmental review, subcontracting to Fehr Peers to perform the traffic study. Director Walker noted the following environmental factors that were given the most attention in the Initial Study: 1. Traffic 2. Cultural resources 3. Visual resources 4. Temporary impact on the Heritage Orchard during construction Director Walker reported that the Initial Study concludes that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the City. Councilmember Bogosian asked the cost to perform the Environmental Review. Director Walker responded the total cost to perform this report was $22,000.00. Vice Mayor Streit asked the status on a new left turn lane, off of Saratoga Avenue, in front of Sacred Heart Church. Director Cherbone noted that the Public Works Department is currently working on the design of the new lane. Mayor Mehaffey opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. and invited any pubic testimony. No one requested to speak at this time. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public Hearing at 7:41 p.m. City Council Minutes 4 May 2, 2001 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A 22,582 SQUARE FOOT SITE, LOCATED ON BIG BASIN WAY AND ST. CHARLES STREET -DR- 00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 AND V-O1-004 (517-08-008 & 016) - TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 BIG BASIN WAY & 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Irwin Kaplan, Interim Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Kaplan explained that the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on January 24, 2001, a study session on February 14, 2001, and took action on this project following a final public hearing on March 28, 2001. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and the 32.5-foot rear yard setback variance. Approval of all four requests was necessary for the Planning Commission to approve the project. Director Kaplan noted that the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to approve the proposed parking variance, but denied the other three requests on a 2-3 vote. Director Kaplan explained that the applicant has appealed the part of request that the Planning Commission denied. The appellant has submitted the following changes to the proposed development: • Reduce the number of townhouses off St. Charles Street from three to two in order to save a Cork Oak Tree. • Increase the amount of retail commercial space on Big Basin Way from the original proposal. • Offered to designate the second floor above the retail as office for five years to give the City the opportunity to create an expanded parking district or some other mechanism to increase off street parking near the site. Director Kaplan explained the half of the site is on Big Basin Way and is zoned CH-2 (Historical Commercial), and the rear portion of the site fronts St. Charles Street and is zoned RM-3000 (multiple-family residential). Without a rear yard variance, a 36-foot setback is required between these two zone districts. The purpose of the setback is to provide a wide separation between commercial (CH- 2) and multiple-family residential (R-M-3,000) zone districts in order to buffer residences from commercial uses. Because the applicant was proposing townhouses next to townhouses, staff felt such a buffer served no purpose and that the findings necessary to grant the rear yard setback variance could be made. Director Kaplan noted that without this variance the project could not proceed. City Council Minutes 5 May 2, 2001 Director Kaplan explained that subsequent to the Commission's action, the applicant requested Planning Commission reconsideration, proposing to delete the lot line between the two lots, in effect merging them. This would eliminate the need for the rear yazd setback variance. The applicant requested Planning f Commission reconsideration of the project without the variance at its April 25, 2001 meeting, but the Planning Commission declined to reconsider the request. Director Kaplan explained that the Zoning Ordinance {15-19.0250(2)}allows single-family and multi-family residential. units as permitted uses when located above the street level or at street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail service establishment. The applicant's proposal is consistent with this requirement. This application is exempt from the City's commercial moratorium since it was filed prior to the Mazch 15, 2000 effective date. Director Kaplan noted that four new 3,505 to 4,475 square foot townhouses, including gazages and basements, would be constructed if the Design Review request were approved. Additionally 1,316 squaze feet of retail space with a 2,688 squaze foot second story office or residential condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the reaz townhouses from St. Chazles Street. Referring to the front lot which has a CH designation, Councilmember Baker asked if the City's Code specifically states the amount of space that has to be commercial and retail. Director Kaplan responded that the Code does not specifically state specific squaze footage of commercial and retail space, however it does state that the ground floor frontage has to be retail. Referring fo the request of parking variance, Mayor Mehaffey asked if there currently is adequate on street parking. Director Kaplan responded that the Developer did his own pazking study and found the study indicated that there is adequate pazking on the street. Director Kaplan noted that in Mr. Gamble's recent proposal he suggested that in five years, if the City has not provided reasonable parking alternatives and if the parking deteriorates, the commercial space converts to retail space. Vice Mayor Streit asked what would be more appropriate merge the two lots or keep them separate. Director Kaplan noted that staff recommends that the two lots remain separate parcels. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and invited any public comments. Stan Gamble, President/Trafalger, presented a brief history of the project. Mr. S Gamble noted that when he presented his first design he was told by the Planning Department that for every 200 square feet of retail he must provide one parking space. After taking the Planning Commission's and the City's recommendations City Council Minutes 6 May 2, 2001 he modified the original design, even though the project is exempt from Measure G, and increased the retail space from 900 squaze feet to1,300 squaze feet. Mr. Gamble noted that the design went to the Planning Commission in January 2001, and included 6 townhouses and 1,300 squaze feet of retail. The Planning Commission recommended more commercial space and recommended that the cork oak tree located on St. Chazles Street be preserved. In order to preserve the tree, Mr. Gamble noted that he had to delete one of townhouses on St. Challes Street. Mr. Gamble noted that he has tried very hard to comply with all the Planning Commissions recommendations even though this project is exempt from Measure G. Mr. Gamble noted that since the parking study indicated that there was adequate pazking, he requested that the retail space on Big Basin Way be converted to office space. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, noted that because of her interest in affordable housing, she followed the Trafalger project from the beginning. Ms. Feldhym noted that she supported Trafalger's original design of residential space above commercial space. Ms. Feldhym noted that although the proposed townhouses were not going to help with providing affordable housing in Saratoga, she supports the project. Srini Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, noted that he owns the property next door to the Traflager project and lives above one of the retail spaces. Mr. Srinivasan noted that he supports the design with two exceptions 1) the residential units in front need yazds 2) there needs to be significant space between the residential space and the retail space. Mr. Srinivasan recommended the following in regards to the proposed project: • St. Chazles Street -two townhouses instead of three. • Big Basin V~,~ay -one townhouse in the rear with commercial in front and residential above. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked what type of commercial use is in his building. Mr. Srinivasan responded that in one space he runs a dance and yoga studio and the other would soon be a gallery. Chuck Page, 20790 Norada Court, noted that he was a Planning Commissioner when this project came before the Planning Commission and he voted to support the project. Mr. Page noted that the Planning Commission held several public hearings and one study session. Mr. Page noted that the Developers concession to convert the retail over to commercial in five yeazs if the pazking problem continued was a good idea. Mr. Page noted that the same Commissioners that rejected the variance also requested that the three townhouses on St. Charles Street be reduced to two, which in turn allowed the Developer to increase the size of the two townhouses. Mr. Page pointed out that at the study session Councihnember Bogosian was coaching Commissioner Jackman on how to interpret the City Code. Mr. Page indicated that because of this conversation Councilmember Bogosian should recuse himself from this discussion. Mr. Page also noted that during his interview to be reappointed to the Planning City Council Minutes 'J May 2, 2001 Commission, he felt that Councilmember Waltonsmith continually asked him questions in regards to the Trafalger project using references to Measure G, even though this project is exempt from Measure G. Councihnember Bo osian inte ~ected and noted that Mr. Pa e's statements were g fl g false. Councilmember Bogosian stated that Commissioner Jackman just asked him if he wanted half of her sandwich. Mayor Mehaffey requested that both Councilmember Bogosian and Mr. Page refrain from this type of discussion. Peter Palmer, 14473 Oak Place, noted that he and his wife were investors in the . proposed Trafalger- project. Mr. Palmer briefly summarized the project and reminded Council that this property is exempt from the Measure "G" moratorium. Because of this exemption, Mr. Palmer explained, this property would be allowed to be developed in accordance with it's zoning and within the intent of the Village Plan. Mr. Palmer noted that when this project went to the Planning Commission, knowing this project is excluded from Measure "G", three Commissioners still felt that this project did not meet the zoning or the intent of the Village Plan. Mr. Palmer noted that he agrees that the Village needs to be improved and more destination type retailers and services need to open but this in turn would bring more people to the Village and cause more of a parking shortage. Mr. Palmer pointed out the Village is currently short a few hundred parking spaces. In an effort to compromise, Mr. Palmer noted that Trafalger is willing to increase the commercial space on a temporary five-year basis. If a viable parking plan was developed and executed within five years, then the property would remain commercial. If no viable plan was developed then the property could be converted to a residential flat. Mr. Palmer stated that he believes Trafalger has meet the zoning and intent of the Village Plan and he request that the City Council grant their appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Cynthia Barry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that this project has had two public hearings and one study session on whether or not to merge the lots together or keep them separate. Staff's recommendation was to keep the lots separate in order to keep a clear definition of use in the future. Chair Barry noted that in regards to the St. Charles lot, the proposal went from three units to two in order to save a cork oak tree. Chair Barry pointed out that there are now two driveways on St. Charles Street, which have upset a few of the neighbors, even though it does provide more off street parking. The heritage oak tree on the Hernandez property is still a concern of the Planning Commission. Chair Barry noted that the Commission felt the roots were not protected enough. The Developer is willing to forego the basement on unit two if the Council accepts his appeal. Chair Barry stated that the Commission approved (5-0) the parking variance but denied the set back variance with a 3-2 vote. In regards to the parking variance, Chair Barry noted that five Planning Commissioners approved it. City Council Minutes g May 2, 2001 Chair Barry noted that the story poles were not erected at the project site. Chair Barry reported that the issue of height and bulls of the roof was brought to the attention of the Commission and is still a concern because the proposed design is very lazge and boxy. Chair Barry noted that the Commission did not specifically address design issues but agreed that the ground floor needs retail size windows, which the design does not have. In regards to the impervious coverage, there is no limit to the coverage in the CH-2 zoning lot so this proposed design can be built within the set backs specified in the code. In regards to the set back variance, Chair Barry explained that the Developer knew eazly on the Planning Commission's concerns, which were discussed at the February 14~' Planning Commission, the Developer was asked to justify the need for the variance and he did not provide a valid reason. Chair Barry noted that the 30-foot set back is not in this design. Staff did not justify this request so the Planning Commission denied the request (3-2). Chair Barry noted that the Planning Commission had to decide what type of residential use fit into the Ch-2 zone. Smaller houses in a commercial district would be more affordable. Chair Barry stated that three of the Commissioners requested greater retail and more affordable housing. In regazds to the zoning interpretation of the Village Plan. Chair Barry noted that the Planning Commission was advised eazly on that they had the discretion in deciding what was the best combination of multiple residential and commercial uses. Anastasia Palmer, 14473 Oak Place, noted that the Trafalger project is their first project she and her husband have been involved with. Mrs. Palmer noted that they have had many obstacles standing in the way of their project. Mrs. Palmer noted that Measure G and affordable housing has gotten in the middle of their project. Mrs. Palmer requested that the City Council grant their appeal. Paul Rodriguez, 13020 La Vista Drive, requested that the lazge oak tree that is on his property be protected. Mr. Rodriguez commented that when his project came before staff, Mr. Walgren instructed him that he had to have a 26 foot rear yazd set back, even though the code allows a 23 foot set back. Mr. Rodriguez requested that the Council be consistent with their decisions tonight. Mr. Gamble noted that there might be some confusions of what is a permitted use in the CH-2 zone. Mr. Gamble noted that when he started this project he read the Village Plan and reviewed the CH-2 zoning standard which specifically states that retail and commercial be in the front and residential in the back. Mr. Gamble noted that the residential use is required to be placed in the back on St. Charles Street. City Council Minutes 9 May 2, 2001 Mr. Gamble noted that the St. Chazles Homeowners Association supports the homes and do not want a pazking lot. Mr. Gamble noted that he made sure that this project was in compliance with all of the requirements for CH-2 zoned lot. In regazds to affordable housing, Mr. Gamble stated that building affordable housing in the Village is impractical due to the high cost of the land. Vice Mayor Streit asked Mr. Gamble if he would be willing to install retail windows on the front of the building that faces Big Basin Way and would he consider designating the upstairs unit as permanent office, space if the Council granted the pazking variance. In Response, Mr. Gamble said that retail windows could be installed and the designation of a permanent office space could be an option to consider. Councilmember Baker noted that the front elevation of the commercial space looks more like a multi unit row homes. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the two lots were merged would the lots have separate zoning requirements. Director Kaplan responded yes. In response to Director Kaplan, Mayor Mehaffey asked if the two buildings would have to be built under two sepazate sets of zoning requirements. Director Kaplan responded yes and explained that the zoning line would stay in the same place and both buildings would still have to abide by the zoning in each azea. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports keeping the lots sepazate, Mayor Mehaffey noted that he has concerns in regards to the limited pazking in the Village. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that this proposed project looks more like a two-story home rather than a retaiUcommercial building. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not support this project and would vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Bogosian supported Vice Mayor Streit's suggestion on the permanent designation of office space and removal of the five-yeaz stipulation. Councilmember Bogosian noted he agreeed with his colleagues that the design of the commercial building should look like a commercial building, and suggested adding showcase windows and a glass front door. Councilmember Bogosian noted that his main concern is safety and supports the need for a buffer between the residential units and the commercial units. Councihnember Baker asked what sepazates the commerciaUretail building c (Unit 1) from Unit 2 (residential). City Council Minutes 1 Q May 2, 2001 Mr. Gamble responded that a parking lot separates the two units. Mr. Gamble explained that a fence encloses the backyard of Unit 2 (residential unit), which abuts up against the parking lot. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the Council requires the permanent office designation on the second story, would there still be a garage or would it be eliminated. Vice Mayor Streit noted that this would eliminate the need for a parking variance. If the residential space is eliminated those spaces-would be needed to provide more parking. ~ . Councilmember Bogosai asked if Mr. Gamble ever considered a different configuration of Units 2 & 3. Mr. Gamble responded no. Councihnember Bogosian requested that the City Attorney briefly explain the Council's options in regards to the direction they could go with this proposed project. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, explained that the City Council has three options 1) deny the appeal 2) return the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction 3) grant the appeal and approve the project. Vice Mayor Streit asked Chair Barry why the Planning Commission approved the parking variance. Chair Barry noted that the parking study provided by the Developer answered the questions the Commission had and also the Commission hoped that in the near future the City would develop viable solutions to increase parking in the Village. Vice Mayor Streit commented that he could support sending this project back to the Planning Commission with the following direction: • Supports the parking variance • Redesign the commerciaUretail building • Permanent designation of office space on the second floor • The fence between the residential units and the parking lot be made out of amore study and permanent material • Make it more viable retail space Councilmember Baker noted that he does not support the front building because it could be easily converted into two homes. Councilmember Baker noted that he supports sending this project back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with his colleagues to send this project back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bogosian agreed with keeping the two lots separate, permanent designation as office space on the second floor, and a higher and stronger wall separating the residential units and the parking lot. Councilmember Bogosian also supports the need conducting a parking study. City Council Minutes 11 May 2, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey noted that he concurred with Councilmember Bogosian and Vice Mayor Streit's suggestions on the direction to the Planning Commission. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports the idea of conducting a parking study in the Village. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO SEND THE TRAFALGER PROJECT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH WALTONSMITH OPPOSING. Mayor Mehaffey declared afifteen-minute recess at 9:35 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported that Attorney Taylor has requested to be dismissed. Consensus of the City Council to dismiss City Attorney Taylor. CONSENT ITEMS 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: ADJOURNED MEETING -MARCH 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 21, 2001 • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve minutes as submitted. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2001 AND MARCH 27, 2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the check register. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. MARCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSIANBAKER MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE FEBRUARY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. City Council Minutes 12 May 2, 2001 BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 5. FISCAL YEARS 2001/02 AND 2002/03 DRAFT BUDGET PRESENTATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept draft budget for Fiscal Years 2001/02 and 2002/03, and begin budget study sessions. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker noted that tonight's presentation would concentrate on expenditures. Director Walker briefly described the budget format noting the following: • Budget Message • Overview (process, calendar, policies) • Summaries (funds, personnel, revenues, expenditures) • Programs grouped by functional area • Debt Services • Capital Improvements • Five-Year Forecast Director Walker noted that within the General Fund she assumed the following increases to specific funds: • Property tax - 3% • Water & Garbage - 2% • Business License Fee - 1.5% • Motor Vehicle License Fee - 1.5% • Street & Roads/Refunds and Reimburses - 2.5% Director Walker explained that the fund balances remain fairly constant throughout the three-year budget cycle. Director Walker stated the following audited figures for the General Fund: • 6/20/00 - $9,085,620 • 6/30/01 - $10,411,616 • 6/30/02 - $9,043,779 • 6/30/03 - $10,497,528 Director Walker noted that at a recent the Finance Committee meeting, the Commission discussed the amount of funds they would feel comfortable allocating to the CIP project fund. Councilmember Waltonsmith questioned if the public would have the opportunity to make suggestions on budget allocations for the CIP program. City Council Minutes 13 May 2, 2001 City Manger Anderson noted that in July the public would be allowed to comment on the CIP program budget. Vice Mayor Streit noted that before the CIP process starts he would like to designate a reserve fund to avoid cut backs in the City of Saratoga if the state has short falls in the years 2002-2003. Vice Mayor Streit noted that if the City does not use the reserve funds during those years; then allow the City to spend the funds. Consensus of the City Council that the City should designate a reserve fund. Director Walker briefly described staffing changes, noting that the total requested full time positions as of July are 58.0. Director Walker noted that the following positions are being requested in the proposed budget are Leadworker, Office Specialist III (to bring .75 to full-time in HR), Facility Maintenance Worker (to replace contract maintenance). Director Walker noted that the contract for the MIS Assistant, Recreation Program Coordinator, and Public Safety Officer (funded by the CLEEP grant), which are limited term positions, expire on June 30, 2002. Director Walker requested that the City Council extend the contracts for those positions to June 30, 2003. Director Walker noted the other limited term position, Economic Development Coordinator, does not expire until June 30, 2003. Mayor Mehaffey asked if these four positions were included on the City's organizational chart. Director Walker responded that limited term positions have never been included on the organizational chart because they are considered contract employees. Mayor Mehaffey asked why the MIS Assistant and the Recreation Program Coordinator were contract employees. Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, responded that the Recreation Program Coordinator was cut a few years ago when the City was going through difficult financial times. Director Pisani explained that the Youth Commission lobbied the City Council not to cut the Recreation Program Coordinator position and the Warner Hutton Foundation offered to pay the City $10,000 a year to help offset the salary of that position. Director Pisani reminded the City Council that the Recreation Program Coordinator position was reinstated on limited term basis. Director Pisani noted that she would not object if Council supported changing the status of the Recreation Program Coordinator to a full time position. In regards to the MIS Assistant, Director Walker noted that .position was added to' meet the needs of the staff. City Council Minutes 14 May 2, 2001 City Manager Anderson noted that the MIS Assistant, Ben Cheng, has been a . valuable asset to the City of Saratoga and plays a major role in the City's website development and maintenance. Ma or Mehaffe noted that he full su orts Chan in the tat y y y pp g g s us of the Recreation Program Coordinator and the MIS Assistant to full time employees. Consensus of the City Council to change the status of the Recreation Program Coordinator and the MIS Assistant from limited term positions to full time employees. Director Walker explained the City's revenues summary by fund as follows: • General Fund - 50% • Streets and Roads - 30% • Other Funds -12% • Development Fund - 10% • Recreation Fund - 5% • Environmental Fund - 3% Director Walker explained the City's fund revenues by category as follows: • Property Taxes - 25% • Sales Tax - 5% • Other Local Taxes - 14% • Franchise Fees - 10% • Motor Vehicle Fees - 20% • Refunds/Reimbursements - 4% • Interest - 5% • Other - 7% Director Walker explained the next step would be to hold a public hearing on June 6, 2001 and adopt the budget. Mayor Mehaffey thanked Director Walker for her presentation. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor Streit reported the following information in regards to the Parks and Recreation Commission: • Congress Springs Task Force -unanimous approval of the park design. Councilmember Baker reported the following information in regards to the Planning Commission: • E-Mail message received from Commissioner Roupe noting that he would be absent from the Commission three months this summer. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Library Expansion Committee: • $318,000.00 would be received from Santa Clara County Library that will be used to buy new furniture. City Council Minutes 15 May 2, 2001 Councihnember Waltonsmith reported the following information on the HPC and Youth Commission: • Heritage Preservation Commission -working on an overview of the Commission. • Youth Commission -would be getting new members in July 2001. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Streit reported that construction has begun at Marshal Lane School. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Campbell Union School District never notified the surrounding neighborhoods. The construction has caused an increase in traffic around the school. Vice Mayor Streit noted that City should try to establish better communications between the other school districts that serve the City of Saratoga to prevent future problems. A discussion took place regarding action the City Council could take to enhance communications between the various school districts and the Saratoga City Council. Consensus of the City Council to assign one member of the Council to each school district that serves the City of Saratoga. OTHER None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson announced that Tom Sullivan accepted the position of Community Development Director. Mr. Sullivan is scheduled to start on May 14, 2001. City Manager Anderson noted that Mr. Sullivan has over 20 years of experience in community development. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Minutes 16 May 2, 2001 C' • MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel re: Existing Litigation (Gov't Code 54956.9(a)). Name of Case: City of Saratoga v. West Valley College Santa Clara County Superior Court No. Doc. CIV756340. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Bunch (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. AS-92021676) ~~ ~~ Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case.) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and requested Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager r~ LJ Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director Joan Pisani, Recreation Director Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst City Council Minutes 1 May 16, 2001 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 16, 2001 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of May 16, 2001 was properly posted on May 11, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke: Bill Morrison, 20135 Chateau Drive, noted that the Sazatoga Fire Department accepted proposals last week and requested that the City be involved in the final process. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, reported that the Sazatoga Fire District received three proposals. The FACT committee supports the proposal from Santa Clara County Fire. Mr. Dolloff noted that Chief Doug Sporeleader would be willing to present and explain the County's RFP at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Dolloff noted that the proposal from California Department of Fire (CDF) was unacceptable for the following reasons: 1) proposed a separate communication system 2) dependent on mutual aid from County Fire 3) State controlled entity in local municipality. Mr. Dolloff noted that the next Fire Commission meeting is on May 24`h at 8:00 a.m. and requested that the City Council attend. Jan Birenbaum, 20052 Sunset Drive, reported that other cities around the Bay Area have set up funds for teacher housing. Ms. Birenbaum noted that the City of Redwood City has set aside $1.5 million dollazs in housing funds, giving priority to teachers and city employees. Ms. Birenbaum noted that the City of Morgan Hill recently donated $100,000.00 to the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Birenbaum requested that the City Council support setting aside funds for teacher housing. Lisa Liu, 20291 Merrick Drive, requested that her three minutes be given to Bette Cruikshank. Bette Cruikshank, 20303 Calle Montalvo, reported that the Teachers Housing Initiative has over 30 active members. Recently they have been able to find a few homeowners willing to rent at a lower rate to Saratoga teachers. Ms. Cruikshank requested that the City Council allocate $2 million dollazs to implement a housing loan program for teachers. Chin Le Chang, 19486 Burgundy Way, requested that the City Council allocated $2 million dollazs to implement a housing loan program for teachers. City Council Minutes 2 May 16, 2001 A, • Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, reported that at the Joint Meeting with the Public Safety Commission two individuals opposed the Saratoga Fire District merging with County Fire. Mr. Farrell noted that he does not share their feelings when they stated that the Saratoga Fire house was adequate and should be appreciated and viewed as part of Saratoga's history. Mr. Farrell stated that the Fire District is not up to today's standards and lacks adequate staffing. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PRESENTATION BY GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TO MARY JO WALKER, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND RAY GALINDO, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR FOR "CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE Iiv FINANCIAL REPORTING" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept certificate. Mr. Rich Avery, Director ofFinance/City of San Carlos, on behalf of GFOA, presented Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, and Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor, with the Certificate of Achievement For Excellence In Financial Reporting. Supervisor Galindo thanked Mr. Avery and noted that he was honored to receive this award on behalf of the City of Saratoga. Supervisor Galindo thanked Director Walker for her professional standards that have encouraged him to maintain a high level of financial reporting. 1B. PROCLAMATION -DECLARING JUNE 2, 2001 "YMCA DAY" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Mario Vargas/Southwest YMCA. Mr. Vargas thanked the City of Saratoga for the proclamation and presented the Mayor with copies of the YMCA's Commemorative Book celebrating 150 years. City Council Minutes 3 May 16, 2001 1 C. COMMENDATION FOR VENISE TAAFFE, ON YOUR TOES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation and presented it to Venise Taaffe. 1D. COMMENDATION FOR CHUCK PAGE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to mail Mr. Page his commendation. 1 E. COMMENDATION FOR MARY-LYNNE BERNALD, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to mail Ms. Bernald her commendation. 1F. COMMENDATION FOR MARGARET PATRICK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to mail Ms. Patrick her commendation. Mayor Mehaffey noted that it was the appropriate time to begin the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DR-00-054 & V-Ol- 002 (517-14-087) - MARTIN/ROSE, KITTRIDGE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Public Hearing at the request of the Appellant. Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development, presented staff report. • • Director Sullivan explained that the applicant has requested Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 7,272 square foot two story residence on a 347,173 square foot vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for the retaining walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly closer than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Vanance is also necessary to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious surface due to a long driveway. On March_28, 2001 the Planning Commission approved the item (4-1). Ciry Council Minutes 4 May 16, 2001 Director Sullivan reported Mr. & Mrs. Samel filed an appeal over concern of inadequate drainage affecting their property, which is located below the subject property, on Kittridge Road. Director Sullivan noted that in response the Public Works and Planning Staff visited the site to gain information and offer suggestions to the applicants Engineer to improve the drainage situation. Director Sullivan noted that a meeting was held with the Samsel's to review the progress and gain their input. The Samsel's agree to all but one of the conditions. A subsequent meeting will be held on May 15, 2001 to resolve this final matter. The applicant's have therefore requested a continuance of the City Council appeal hearing tonight in order to resolve the issues between the two parties. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON KITTRIDGE ROAD TO JUNE 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED $-0. 4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DR-00-036 (397-05- 091) -SAN FILIPPO, SOBEY ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Vice Mayor Streit stated that he is recusing himself from participating in this public hearing due to the fact that the applicant is a client of his firm. Director Sullivan presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the applicant requested Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a new $,312 square foot two story residence with a 608 square foot basement and $29 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 14, 2001 and continued the item for a redesign to address issues of bulk and mass as well as compatibility with the neighboring properties. The applicant returned to the Planning Commission on March 4, 2001 with the following changes; reduction in overall height, and an emphasis on landscape screening rather than distance to buffer the proposed residence from adjacent neighbors. Director Sullivan noted that there were no changes to the footprint or floor area of the design. The Planning Commission denied the project ($-0) Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and invited the applicant to speak on behalf of their proposed project. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, stated that he represents the property owner, Grace San Filippo. Mr. Matteoni noted that he would address some of the issues the Planning Commission had with the proposed project. City Council Minutes $ May 16, 2001 Mr. Matteoni stated that after observing the existing residents along Sobey Road he could not find a unified architectural style. In regards to the height of ,the proposed design, Mr. Matteoni commented that the house is actually two feet lower in overall height than Mr. McNeil's house. Mr. Matteoni noted that although they did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendations to decrease the height, the project's architect lowered the height from 26 feet to 24 feet: Mr. Mateoni pointed out that the architect also changed the color of the roof the from red to earth tones. Mr. Matteoni explained that the concerns of invading Mr. McNeil's privacy, is unlikely because the portion of the house in question is not intended to be a primary living space for the owner. Mr. Matteoni concluded that the Planning Commission did have some good suggestions, which they have tried to comply with, but disagreed with the comments that this house presents bulk and mass. Mr. Matteoni explained that the Commission comments were unjustified. He explained that the proposed design fits into the natural terrain of the lot, has a low level of appearance to the road, and in overall height, is two feet lower than the McNeil house. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, noted that his objections are very clear and simple. Mr. McNeil stated that his main request is to avoid starting the footprint of the house along the slope cascading down the hill. Mr. McNeil noted the current design of the house invades his family's privacy. Mr. McNeil noted that the Planning Commission denied the application twice and urged the Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Dave Scott, 14269 Qui~o Road, noted that his house is on the eastern border of the proposed house. Mr. Scott noted that he shares a lot of the same objections that Mr. McNeil already addressed. Mr. Scott indicated that he feels that the applicant is trying to build too much on that size lot. Mr. Scott noted that the arbor level looks like a third level. Mr. Scott does not object to a house on the lot as long it has sufficient screening from noise and light and the water drainage issues are addressed. Mr. Scott requested that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Cynthia Barry, Chair/Planning Commission, 19281 San Marcos Road, explained the four issues that concerned the Planning Commission: • Architectural Style -Applicant has addresses this concern • Total hardscape of the property -not just the house but also the amount of patio, driveways etc. The applicant has maximum use of the entire lot. This was a great concern of the Planning Commission because of the drainage issues. Applicant has reduced total coverage by 30%. • Location of house on the lot contributes to the mass and bulk. The Planning Commission was not concerned about the perception from the street but the bulk and mass presented to the neighbors. The applicant has not made any changes to address this issue. • Drainage problems. City Council Minutes 6 May 16, 2001 Chair Barry explained that the Planning Commissioners never saw the story poles prior to either of the Planning Commission meetings in January and Mazch 2001. Ms. Barry stated that this kind of problem could be avoided if the City implemented a policy or guidelines to follow in regazds to story poles. Chair Barry noted that the applicant does not understand why the Planning Commission denied this project. The applicant feels that they have not exceeded the allowable square footage and has adhered to the set back requirements. Chair Barry indicated that she believes the applicant does not have a clear understanding of the level of scrutiny that the law mandates the Planning Commission to have. The Planning Commission has discretion over issues such as mass, bulk and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the Planning Commission viewed the site with the story poles. Chair Barry explained that the story poles were not erected before the January meeting and appazently erected in Mazch, but the Commission was never notified. Councilmember Baker requested a clearer definition of the drainage issues discussed by Mr. McNeil and Mr. Scott. In response to Councihnember Baker, Chair Barry explained that the Commission was more concerned with the amount of impervious coverage planned on this site The Commission wanted to know how the water was going to be contained and dispersed on site. Chair Barry noted that this is a standard issue that the Planning Commission raises. The Planning Commission would ,rather have the water be retained on site rather than go into the storm drain and into the bay. The Commission felt the containment and distribution of water would be a problem because of the amount of coverage the property that the owner had planned. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the Planning Commission requested story poles to be erected. Chair Barry responded that story poles were never requested. Director Sullivan noted that the story poles went up after the site visit and before the hearing. Mayor Mehaffey asked if there were any study sessions with the neighbors. Chair Barry responded no. Mr. Matteoni addressed the following issues in response to Chair Barry's comments: • In regards to the drainage problems, the architect for the project has meet with the Public Works Department and they are clear in terms of the City's recommendations. • In regards to the story poles, they were voluntarily placed on the site. City Council Minutes '7 May 16, 2001 • The questions raised in regards Mr. McNeil's property, The second story, of the design is approxiamtely1,500 square feet and the 300 feet in question is over the arbor area and is the furthest away from Mr. McNeil's house. • In regards to the request to push the house further down the hill in the corner. It is typical on Sobey Road the existing houses are not hidden they have some relation to the street. Ms. Rose does not want to alter her design in regards to the street line. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Councilmember Baker stated that he does not agree with the Planning Commission's decision or the comments made by the sun ounding neighbors. Councihnember Baker noted that he supports the design at fault with the house lowering the appearance of the tower in fromt of the house Councilmember Bogosian noted that he visited the site and supports the Planning Commission's decision for the following reasons: • The design is excessively bulky for the lot size • Privacy issues of the neighbors • Hillside increases in the bulk and mass Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that she visited the site today, and stated she supports the Planning Commission's decision because the design is too big for the lot. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he has concern in regards to the neighbor's privacy, but supports the placement of the house in relation to the street. Although he supports the design, Mayor Mehaffey noted that he has not heard any compelling reason to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOBEY ROAD. MOTION PASSED 3-1-0-1 WITH BAKER OPPOSING AND STREIT ABSTAINING. Mayor Mehaffey requested aten-minute recess. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. Councilmember Bogosain pulled 2A from the Consent Calendar. City Council Minutes $ May 16, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian questioned the entry on page 13, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department for $506.94. Director Walker responded that a City employee's wages were garnished. Councilmember Bogosian questioned the entry on page 15, Vetronix Corporation, for a crash data retrieval kit. Councilmember Bogosian asked what it was and why was the City paying for it. Director Walker noted that the Sheriff s Department purchase would be reimbursed using money from the City received from the CLEEP grant. Captain Miles explained that the device purchased hooks up to the computers in the Sheriff's Department patrol cars and tells them vehicular data. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. APRIL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREITlBOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE APRIL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR FIVE LOTS LOCATED AT 20251 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SD-00-002; HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Final Map. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-028 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-001 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP NO. SD-00-002 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: SD-00-002 City Council Minutes 9 May 16, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR FIVE LOTS LOCATED AT 20251 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SD-00-002; HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Vice Mayor Streit pulled Item 2D from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Streit noted that when the City Council approved the project in January 2001 one of the conditions was that the Developers plant sufficient landscaping in front of the flag lot to prevent noise and headlights from disturbing Mr.& Mrs. Lee, and he did not read that in the resolution. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, responded that the condition he mentioned was inadvertently left out of the resolution that was in the staff report to Council. Director Cherbone explained that the condition has been added in the revised resolution, which is before the Council tonight. WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-028 AMENDING RESOLUTION 00-001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SD-00- 002 GRANTING FINAL MAP APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED 5-0. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE PARK RESTORATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT- CIP NO 0001 TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Notice. STREITBOGOSIAI\? MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FROM JENS HANSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2F. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TRANSBAY TERMINAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Councilmember Bogosain pulled 2A from the Consent Calendar. • Councilmember. Bogosain asked why the VTA representative to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board opposed participation in the Transbay Terminal Joint Powers Authority. City Council Minutes 10 May 16, 2001 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she is the City's liaison to the VTA • Advisory Board and does not recall discussing this project. Before he could support this resolution, Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff find out the reason why VTA opposed to participate in the Transbay Terminal Joint Powers Authority. BAKERIBOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM 2F TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH CAPORICCI, CROPPER & CARSON, LLP TO PROVIDE AUDITING SERVICES FOR FY 2001-2005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CAPORICCI, CROPPER & CARSON, LLP. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO HAKONE PARK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and approve agreement with County of Santa Clara. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-029 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF TAX-DEFAULTED REAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO HAKONE GARDENS PARK STREITBOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AND APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF SANTA ('i,ARA_ MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Mayor Mehaffey noted that Mr. Steve Kacuchi/Greg Ing & Associates, was present tonight and requested that Item 6 be heard before the budget presentation. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 6. 6. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT City Council Minutes 11 May 16, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that when Highway 85 was completed in 1994, Caltrans pursued relinquishment of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from Highway 9 to Prospect Road. After lengthy negotiations, the City agreed to accept responsibility for the road including $2 million dollars from the state to perform needed infrastructure improvements. Director Cherbone reported that after several Gateway Task Force meetings consensus was reached to use the original ideas developed in 1996 Specific Plan for that area as a template for the nature and type of improvements for the project. The Task Force decided to move separately with the design of the public improvements, while continuing to work with the Community Development Department to complete the business/residential design guidelines for the Gateway Specific Plan. Director Cherbone explained that over the past few months, staff has been working on the retention of a qualified design consultant for this project. Three qualified firms were chosen and asked to submit cost proposals. Director Cherbone explained the following cost proposals: • Greg Ing & Associates: $226,375 • Mark Thomas & Co., Inc.: $261,132 • A-N West Inc.: $521,000 Director Cherbone noted that Greg Ing & Associates, who submitted the lowest cost proposal, has assembled a team which includes Design Studio West, a nationally recognized planning and engineering design firm, as well as a local engineering firm, Allied Engineering Inc. Director Cherbone noted that Greg Ing & Associates is currently the City's landscape architect for the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project and who are developing the Azule Park Conceptual Plan. Director Cherbone explained that design work is scheduled to commence as soon as an agreement is executed and the project will be ready for bid by spring of 2002 with construction commencing soon after. A Gateway Task Force meeting will be scheduled towards the end of the month to introduce the design consultant and to move forward with the public input process. Director Cherbone noted that Steve Kachuci was present tonight to answer questions that the Council might have. Councilmember Baker asked if Seagull Way was included in this proposal. Director Cherbone responded that Seagull Way is a separate project and would soon be brought to Council to approve a contract with Fehr & Peers. City Council Minutes 12 May 16, 2001 Vice Mayor Streit asked Mr. Kachuci how Greg Ing & Associates were affiliated with Design Studio West. Steve Kachuci, Landscape ArchitectlGreg Ing & Associates, responded that the two companies have been working together for the past ten years. Mr. Kachuci noted that Design Studio West is known for their downtown improvement projects. Mr. Kachuci noted that Design West Studio would help identify the character and theme for the Gateway area. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the railroad crossing at Seagull Way is part of the proposed Union Pacific Railroad Trail Project. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that Greg Ing & Associates contact the Alta Consulting. Mr. Kachuci responded that he would contact Alta Consulting. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he has been very pleased with the work Greg Ing & Associates have done for the City and fully supports this contract. Councilmember Bogosian asked if public meetings were going to be held. Director Cherbone responded that everyone along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would be noticed and article placed in the Saratoga News. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM GREG ING & ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $226,375. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 5. FISCAL YEARS 001/02 AND 2002/03 DRAFT BUDGET PRESENTATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the budget study sessions. Mary Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker noted that she would be explaining the following components of the City's proposed budget for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03: • Expenditures • Capital Projects • Five Year Projections • Fund Balances Reserves • Next Steps Director Walker explained the FY 01-02 expenditure summary by function as follows: • Library Project 41% • Capital Improvements 17% • Public Works 10% City Council Minutes 13 May 16, 2001 • General Government 9% • Public Safety 9% • Debt Services 3% • Environmental Services 3% • Recreation Services 2% • Community Services 2% Director Walker explained the FY 01-02 fund expenditure summary by function as follows: • General Government 39% • Public Safety 39% • Public Works 12% • Other Functions 8% • Community Development 2% Director Walker noted that the Finance Commission met on Monday and reviewed the 5-year balance projections. The Finance Commission also suggested that the City allocate $2 million dollars in a reserve fund although staff recommended $4 million. A discussion took place and a consensus of the City Council to allocated $1.5 million dollars in a reserve fund. Director Walker noted that in a recent memorandum from ABAG Power regarding the suspension of the program because they feel they no longer can compete with PG&E rates which are supported by the State of California. ABAG Power estimates that electricity costs will increase by approximately 50% next year, rather than the 30% they previously recommended to their members. This increase represents a $26,000 increase in FY01-02. Director Walker explained some general assumptions for FY01-02 & 02-03: • New positions have been added • Wage and benefits adjustments still being negotiated with employee bargaining units -assumed 4% • Generally assumed a 3% increase in other expenses, with exceptions Director Walker highlighted several budget expenditures: GENERAL GOVERNMENT • Commission recognition event in City Council budget • Support for 4th of July parade • $200,000 contingency • Replacement vehicles -per replacement schedule, plus dump truck • Financial Management includes $25,000 for GASB 34 implementation • Postage machine replacement • MIS includes funding for Recreation software • Citywide newsletter • City Council Minutes j 4 May 16, 2001 PUBLIC SAFETY • Sheriff s Office contract increased by 5%. Includes the two new patrol officers • Animal Control JPA for sheltering in Animal Control budget ($108,150). Field services in Integrated Waste Budget ($82,347) due to funding sources PUBLIC WORKS • Street Maintenance -Pavement Management Program is accelerated, resulting from additional Measure B sales tax and TEA-21 revenues COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Includes new positions added at mid-year • General Advanced planning study funded for $10,000 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • Environmental spring clean-up day budgeted for $45,000 in integrated Waste • Animal field services with Animal Control JPA • Storm Water Management includes $10,300 for Saratoga Creek work, per Baykeeper agreement RECREATION SERVICES • Revenues and expenditures in Recreation Services and Teen Services are budgeted at a higher level, by assuming a greater level of demand for recreation services • If the demand does not materialize, classes and trips will not take place, and expenses will be lower • COMMUNITY SUPPORT • $25,000 of improvements for the Community Theater • $15,000 in support to SASCC and $3,000 for facility maintenance of the Senior Center • Community Access AT&T represents 40% of AT&T franchise fees, per agreement • Economic Development program • Hakone Gardens park program. Costs per agreement DEBT SERVICES • Library bond paid off in FY 01-02, and new bonds begin in the same year CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • Quito Road bridges • Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road • Park Development • Saratoga Library City Council Minutes 15 May 16, 2001 Director Walker briefly explained the five-year fund balance projections and fund balance reserves. Director Walker noted that the next steps are: • Incorporate any City Council Changes • Adopt budget and resolution on June 6`h • Prepare budget summary brochure • Distribute final budget document in July _ • Capital Improvement Program in fall A discussion took place in regards to the amount of money to allocate to the CIP program. In regards to the CIP program, Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that staff provide the.City Council with a list of all the projects that might be on the project list. Director Walker explained that two request have came in that were not in their packet: 1) Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network for $2,500.00 2) Saratoga Chamber of Commerce for $33,404.00 ($3,400.00 in the proposed budget). Consensus of the Council: • Joint Venture - do not grant request • Chamber of Commerce -only allocate $3,400.00 Mayor Mehaffey thanked Director Walker for her report. Mayor Mehaffey declared a fifteen (15) minute recess at 9:27 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:42 p.m. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Mehaffey reported the following information: • Hakone Board -raised over $100,000.00 from Japanese corporations. Next week the Executive Committee would be bring the Articles of Incorporation to the Board for approval. Vice Mayor Streit had reported that the Legislative Task Force meets next week and Santa Clara Valley Water and the Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission meet quarterly. • City Council Minutes 1f May 16, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: • Silicon Valley Animal Control JPA -Debra Briggs was hired as the new Director. The first public hearing will be held next Monday at 6 p.m. to discuss fees for licensing. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: • SASCC - selected a new Senior Center Director. Councilmember Baker reported the following information: • KSAR -Carolyn de los Santos was recently hired as the new director. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the Community Development Department draft a policy in regards to the use of story poles and bring it back to Council for discussion. Councilmember Bogosian noted he supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. OTHER Mayor Mehaffey requested that the City of Saratoga draft a letter to our elected official supporting the retention of the VLF. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson reported that he accompanied a group of Saratoga residents to Sacramento for a hearing on AB613. The Committee imposed an amendment and made the bill perspective only. City Manager Anderson reported that he has made an offer to one of the candidates interviewed for the Assistant Manager position. City Manager Anderson reported that the staff Engineer at KSAR would be checking the sound system in the Adult Day Care Center within the next of days. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 17 May 16, 2001 • •