The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-13-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT: None STAFF: Planners Livingstone ~ Vasudevan, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGLANCE MINiJTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 27, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublic tivill be allowed to address thePlanning Commission forup to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tahing action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff 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 March 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" ~~ith the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. Application #02-025 (517-09-020) DEERFIELD REALTY CORPORATION, 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -Request for a Conditional. Use Permit to establish an 3,682 square foot orthodontics office in a portion of an existing office building that has a 4,282 square foot main level and a 1,015 square foot basement. The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the main level of the building. The office building is located in the CH-1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) 2. Application #02-007 (Citywide) - Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings; -The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to May 15, 1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15,1992. The ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi-story dwellings. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, 4-3, BARRY, HUNTER, AND KURASH OPPOSED) DIRECTOR ITEMS NONE COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • Basements - Consider adopting new Zoning Ordinance requirements regarding the construction of basements. (VASUDEVAN) • Energy Efficiency - Re~~iew Consen~ation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an Energy Element to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVII~TGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO APRIL 10, 2002) • Ordinance Review -Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED TO APRIL 10, 2002) COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of January 16, 2002 and February 20, 2002. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:43 PM TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, March 27, 2002, Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 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, MARCH 13, 2002 ROLL CALL - REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #02-025 - DEEFRIELD REALITY CORP 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road • LAND USE COMMITTEE Item 1 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 ~~isits 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, March 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PL4CE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 27, 2002 ORAL COM~4LINICATIONS -Any member of thePublicwill be allowed to address thePlanningCommission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking 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 March 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you v~~ish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. Application #02-025 (517-09-020) DEERFIELD REALTY CORPORATION, 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish an 3,682 square foot orthodontics office in a portion of an existing office building that has a 4,282 square foot main level and a 1,015 square foot basement. The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the main level of the building. The office building is located in the CH-1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) 2. Application #02-007 (Citywide) - Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings; -The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for t~vo story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to May 15, 1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15,1992. The ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi-story dwellings. (SULLIVAN) . DIRECTOR ITEMS NONE COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • Basements - Consider adopting new Zoning Ordinance requirements regarding the construction of basements. (VASUDEVAN) • Energy Efficiency -Review Conservation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an Energy Element to form the basis for energy consen~ation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE) • Ordinance Re~~iew -Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAI~T) COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of January 16, 2002 and February 20, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO I~lEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 27, 2002, Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • r ~~ .` 4 /~ ~. 5~ MINUTES (~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Jackman and Zutshi Staff Planner Ann Welsh and Planner Christy Oosterhous APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 13, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of February 13, 2002, were approved with a one word correction to page 12. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Planner Christy Oosterhous announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 21, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Planner Christy Oosterhous announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 Page 2 • DR-O1-045 (517-19-042), ELLIS -14920 Vicker}~ Avenue: Request for Design Review to construct a two-story single-family Mediterranean-Contemporary style residence. The floor area of the proposed home is 3,431 square feet with a 1,487 square foot basement. The lot, located in the R-1-?0,000 zoning district, contains 36,368 square feet. The applicant proposes a maximum structure height of 23 feet. The existing two-story structure, garage, pool and shed are to be demolished. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing two-story residence, pool and shed and construct a new 3,431 square foot residence with a 1,487 square foot basement. The parcel is located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district at 14920 Vickery Avenue. • Describe the proposed residence as aMediterranean-Contemporary style that conforms to the zoning district requirements. There is a minimization of the perception of bulk through the L- shaped design. The home would be integrated into the environment as it will back into a steep slope. Privacy issues are addressed naturally by vertical separation of this structure from its neighboring structures. • Added that there are few issues with this proposal. There is a possibility that a retaining wall near the pool may need to be moved back. Additionally, another minor issue exists with a light well that exceeds three feet in depth at one point. • Recommended approval and stated that the necessary findings can be met. • Pointed out that Fire Requirements 14 and 17 should be omitted as a correction to the staff report. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a basement with this home. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this proposed home is close to the maximum allowable square footage and asked whether the square footage at the front entry was double counted due to its height above 15 feet. Planner Ann Welsh replied no.. She clarified that the applicant has revised plans to deal with a couple of minor issues and to meet square footage requirements. Commissioner Roupe asked if these changes show the front entry to be less than 15 feet in height. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the applicant has redesigned the turret so that it does not have walls. There must be three walls and a roof to be counted and with the redesign there are only columns and. a roof. Commissioner Roupe clarified that he is speaking to the issue of the foyer and not the porch feature. He repeated his question as to whether the open space above the foyer has been properly double counted in the final square footage. Planner Ann Welsh assured that the foyer roofline is lower than 15 feet. • Commissioner Roupe asked if the plans in the packet are the most current. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 3 • Planner Ann Welsh replied yes., Chair Barry asked that the typical condition for retaining water on site be added to the Conditions as has been the practice. Planner Ann Welsh said that this can easily be added. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that the Commission has established some pretty standard issues that they no longer feel compelled to call out for each application. Included are fireplace, fence and drainage issues. • Asked staff to discuss these with Director Sullivan as a format issue to ensure that these issues are always routinely addressed by appropriate Conditions of Approval. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that it is not unusual to have boilerplate Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Roupe said it is important that these are always included unless an exception is called out. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Don Andre, Project Architect, 723 E. Lake Avenue, Watsonville, CA 95076: • Stated that it is difficult to show this L-shaped design on atwo-dimensional plan. • Assured that the height is at 14 feet in the entry and that there is no area above 14 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked that staff carefully look at the entry foyer and ensure that the entry square footage is counted twice if any found to be above 15 feet in height. Planner Ann Welsh said that staff can have the applicant provide a cross section. Mr. Don Andre agreed that he could do that. Chair Barry suggested that this request could be added as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Don Andre said that they have had an exhaustive site study prepared including a geotechnical report. There will be a better situation on this property with the new house on this site. It will be more stable with better site drainage and natural landscaping is to be retained. Commissioner Roupe commended Mr. Andre for the story poles, which were very well installed and helpful. Mr. Don Andre said that they demonstrate that the house would not be seen from Vickery. Commissioner Kurasch: _ Said that it is hard to see that the four elevations come from the same house. Each has a radically different look. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 4 • Asked how these different appearing styles would go together as it-does not appear that there is one continuous style. It is hard to put this house altogether. • Asked what this variety of style was going toward, including different style windows. On one elevation, it appears as if no two windows look alike. Commissioner Roupe agreed that it is difficult to read the two-dimensional drawings and pointed out that it is helpful to have a key plan. Suggested to staff that in the future they might ask to have a key plan included on the plan set. _ Commissioner Garakani asked about the retaining wall near the pool. Mr. Don Andre advised that the landscaping plan was conceptual and that the retaining wall is being moved forward per the Arborist's report recommendation. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she knows this property well and agrees that the new home will not be visible from the roadway. • Stated that as long as the owners like this design, that's fine and good luck to them. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that this is a good, nice-looking design that is well protected for privacy. • Agreed- that the architectural continuity is not evident but that it looks into a land slope and is perhaps more of an inside out kind of design situation. • Stated that this is an acceptable project. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that it is not good to ignore architectural design even if someone cannot see it. • Added that she has no other objections and agrees the project is well suited to the property even if it is not particularly attractive. Chair Barry: • Clarified that the two issues raised include having staff verify the proper count of the square footage for the foyer feature, charging double square footage if appropriate, and to ensure water retention on site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-045 to allow the construction of a new residence at 14920 Vickery Avenue with the added Conditions: • That staff review the total square footage to ensure that the project does not exceed allowable, paying particular attention to how the square footage of the entry foyer is counted, depending on maximum height and double counted if found to be higher than 15 feet; and • That on-site drainage be addressed as a Condition of Approval. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Roupe Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 5 NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Application #02-021 (Citywide): The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create standards to permit small wind energy conversion systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that as a result of State Assembly Bill 1207, each municipality is expected to not unduly regulate the establishment of small wind energy conversion systems but rather to encourage their use. • Said that if a municipality noes not adopt local review requirements by July 1, 2002, right to install wind energy conversion systems would allow any applicant that complies with the minimum guidelines established by the Bill. • Said that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment prohibits installations within scenic corridors, requires a minimum parcel size of one acre and establishes setback and noise requirements. Finally, if an installation is not used for 12 months, the property owner must dismantle it. Commissioner Kurasch suggested the added provision that cellular antennas not be permitted to be installed atop these systems for aesthetic reasons. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern for going forward with such an Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Planner Ann Welsh cautioned that though a municipality could pass on adopting such an Ordinance, it will have more controls if they do. Included in this draft aze limits on Hillsides, agricultural zoning districts, scenic corridors and scenic highways. Creating this Ordinance gives the City more controls. Commissioner Roupe said that it is important to have design control including how these units are painted. Asked why not do the same thing for cellular antennas. Commissioner Hunter said that due to the energy crisis, she supports wind power and is willing to pass this Ordinance to meet the intent of the Bill the Legislature and Governor have passed. Chair Barry asked if these types of installations will come before the Planning Commission for Design Review approvals. Ms. Ann Welsh said that her original draft had even more restrictions that this proposal before the Commission. However, the City's Attorney eliminated a number of them. The Ordinance before the Commission is a baze bones Windmill Ordinance. If the State finds that a local municipality's Windmill Ordinance is too restrictive, it would be found to be non-compliant and thrown out. The City cannot add a lot of restrictions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 6 Chair Barry asked if the application process for a windmill installation would be for a Use Permit or Design Review. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the application process would be for a Conditional Use Permit only. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the State would review the Ordinance. Planner Ann Welsh said that the State is relying on the prudence of each local municipality. Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are a big issue in some of the Northern California Counties that are more agricultural. Commissioner Kurasch said that a goal stated within the City's General Plan is to lessen the dependence on non-renewable resources. Commissioner Roupe said that a potentially 60 foot high tower, minimum height, plus blades, does not seem to fit anywhere in the City. Chair Barry said that the likelihood for such installations is low in Saratoga and stressed that it would not make sense to allow these windmills on a ridgeline. Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment does not permit windmills on a scenic easement, within an earthquake zone, on a scenic highway corridor, to name a few restrictions. Chair Barry said that with all respect to the City Attorney, she would support putting in additional restrictions and see if the Ordinance will stand up to State scrutiny. Planner Ann Welsh said that she would try to address ridgeline installations and present the changes to the City Attorney for review for compliance with the Bill's intent. Chair Barry stressed the need for controls over location and design issues for windmill installations. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to raise these issues with the City Attorney. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to also seek advice on the consequences of not adopting an Ordinance. Chair Barry agreed that it is worth the effort to push the envelope. Commissioner Garakani questioned how it is possible to ensure continuous operation of a windmill and how this could be monitored. Planner Ann Welsh advised *.hat abandoned windmill complaints would be handled on a Code Enforcement basis. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are dangerous for birds and that the Audubon Society is upset by the use of windmills. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that windmills will have a metering system, which will be a simple way to monitor whether a windmill is generating power. Chair Barry opened and closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:52 p.m. Chair Barry stated that the Commission will not take action this evening but rather would direct staff to revise the Draft Ordinance per the comments made by the Commission. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 DR-O1-021, BSA-Ol-002 & V-O1-012 (517-14-080) - HUSTED, Kittrid~e Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story, Craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area ratio of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 4,810 square feet. The maximum height of the residence .would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a two story Craftsman style single family residence on a vacant lot that is eight acres gross and five acres net. The FAR is 4,810 and the proposed maximum height is 26 feet. The zoning is Hillside Residential. • Said that the site has received geotechnical clearance. • Described the proposed structure as having cherry stained cedar shake siding and stone veneer. There are three acres of private access easements. • Said that a fire truck turnaround is proposed. This is a public safety requirement made by the Fire District. • Said that the average slope of the property is steep, except for the building pad, which is the only level pad on the site. • Said that story poles were constructed and the proposed structure is not imposing from the roads and residences in the area but rather the home will be tucked into the hillside, minimizing impact. • Said that two retaining walls are required for the driveway. One is approximately 20 feet high upslope at the highest location. Another is approximately 16 feet high on the downslope side. A 9 to 21 foot high retaining wall- is required near the proposed residence. The residence itself will minimize the impacts of that retaining wall. • Added that the retaining walls will incorporate a rock formation finish. • Stated that the application includes a Building Site Approval, Variance for retaining walls greater than five feet in height and a Design Review Approval for the new home. Also a grading exception is required to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that since the turnaround area is required by Fire, that issue is beyond the purview of the City Ordinances, etc. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if there is any liability to the City in the event that the retaining walls or hillsides should fail. Planner- Christy Oosterhous replied that the road was approved. The City has immunity from liability for any permits it makes. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Hold Harmless provision includes approval of a variance for retaining walls. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Barry asked if damage were to occur to a public road as a result of conditions on a private road that should fail, could the City recover costs. Commissioner Hunter reminded that Kittridge is also private. Chair Barry. asked if there is any City-owned road that could be impacted by this project. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she was not sure offliand. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has never seen a 20-foot high retaining wall in previous proposals and asked staff why they suppo-~t this request. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this was an issue of concern for staff as well who discussed ways to minimize the walls but there is not a way to do so. Added that the applicant's civil engineer can discuss thisissue further. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Chuck Husted, Applicant: • Made himself available for questions and introduced his team. • Said that he and his wife, Susan, are looking forward to joining the community. t Mr. Larry Kahle, Project Architect: • Described the 8 acre gross lot that is irregularly shaped with only one building-pad available. ` • Said that they have worked hard to lessen the impact of the retaining walls, which are required due to the slope of this lot. • Said, that they had originally proposed another retaining wall to create the fire truck turn around but that former Director Walgren had suggested the deck instead. This would be a solidly engineered deck. • Stated that they are prepared to go with the deck or a retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround, although they prefer the wall to the deck. Page 8 Chair Barry asked why. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 9 Mr. Larry Kahle replied because the wall would allow them to use some of the fill from this site. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Said he would answer any questions the Commission might have for him. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Helton for the highest wall height. Mr. Mark Helton replied 23 feet if a retaining wall were to be used for the fire turnaround. Commissioner Garakani asked if the walls would be visible. Mr. Mark Helton said it was possible but the he thought they would mostly be invisible. Commissioner Garakani asked how the walls are to be supported. Mr. Mark Helton replied that they `~rould drill peers and tie them into the hillside. This is a fairly common practice. While it is not difficult engineering, it is costly. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are any neighbor concerns. Mr. Mark Helton said he was not sure as it has not be his role to work with the neighbors. Chair Barry asked why it would not be possible to use staggered walls for the driveway instead of 20 and 16-foot high walls. Mr. Mark Helton replied that the height is due to the slope of the hillside. If the walls were to be broken up as suggested on this slope, it would give the appearance of being even higher than what is actually proposed. Commissioner Roupe asked how much fill could be used- with the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround. Mr. Mark Helton replied a substantial amount. While he could not be certain, he guessed about several hundred yards or about 10 truck. trips. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to realign the driveway by moving it five to 10 feet in order to get it away from the downslope that is requiring these high retaining walls. . Mr. Mark Helton said that he had thought of that and tried to see if it would be possible. However, it would be more disturbing to the hillside and would eliminate the building site itself, limiting to approximately 2,500 square foot floor area. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the retaining wall is necessary to accommodate the size of this house. • Said that this is an intensively developed home for this property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 10 • Asked; if the garage were to be shifted to the east, what would the impact be on the retaining wall heights. Mr. Mark Helton said that the garage is located where it is because the fire turnaround needs to be above it. If they had to drop the garage elevation, it would add another three feet of height to the retaining wall. They actually rr_oved the garage up to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Commissioner Kurasch asked, if the house were smaller and reconfigured, if there_is any way to reduce the retaining walls. Mr. Mark Helton replied no. It would have an impact on the existing driveway to access the neighbor's property. Commissioner Kurasch suggested shrinking the house away from the slope. Mr. Mark Helton said that it would not be possible. Commissioner Hunter said that she had heard that the pad on this property was cut into the mountains in the 1950s but also heard 15 years ago, approximately 1985. Asked if Mr. Helton know more concisely. Mr. Kahle replied that they obtained the 1950s date from the Fire Department. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the staff report actually says prior to 15 years ago rather than specifically 15 years ago. Commissioner Kurasch asked who would assume the burden or responsibility for any problems from this project on adjacent property. Mr. Mark Helton said that from an engineering standpoint, this project was designed very well, using proper engineering sense. It would take a major event to have something happen. Commissioner Kurasch read an excerpt from the General Plan and pointed out that there is a policy to plan for 50 and 100-year events. Mr. Bruce Ashford, Project Overseer, 3741 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon: • Said that he is the project overseer. • Said that the nearest public street is Norton Drive in one direction and Bohlman in the other: Kittridge is private. Mr. Glenn Romig, Soils Engineer: • Said that he prepare a Geotechnical Report. • Advised that the pad was cut prior to 1971 but no one is sure exactly when: • Said that this is one of the most stable sites they have looked at up there. • Said that the house will have a retaining wall at the back to stabilize the steep cut slope. • Informed that they took a boring of the area for the fire truck turnaround. They can put in either a good deck or retaining wall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 11 • Said he was available for any questions. Chair Barry asked if it would be possible to plant around the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround to further screen it without destabilizing it. Mr. Glenn Romig replied that landscaping would enhance it as long as it did not include eucalyptus trees. Chair Barry asked if there are known slide areas on this site. Mr. Glenn Romig replied that there are no mapped landslides. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the downhill neighbor is concerned about the drainage on site and where water runoff would go and how it would be controlled. Mr. Glenn Romig replied that t1~e roof and driveway runoff would be directed to two dissipaters. Commissioner Roupe asked if any additional water would go down the drive. Mr. Mark Helton said that they plan to retain the historic drainage pattern and that culverts were installed with this in mind. Commissioner Kurasch suggested establishing an open space or scenic easement for the bulk of this property and that the General Plan supports this and might be appropriate as a mitigation for this development. Would the applicant support this addition to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Chuck Husted said he had no problem with that provision and would be happy to do so. Chair Barry reminded the Commission that they had done so with the Sobrato property recently. Added that the natural vegetation and terrain would remain as it is. Mr. Chuck Husted agreed with the exception for screening landscaping for the retaining walls and a few walkways on the property. Commissioner Roupe pointed nut that the two properties to the east of the proposed turnaround do not belong to this applicant. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this is correct. The turnaround is located at the property line and the applicant does not have control of the property to the east of the proposed fire truck turnaround. Ms. Heather Rose, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto, CA: • Said that she owns the property to the east. • Said that she will be planting redwood trees to help stabilize that gully around a documented slide area on her property. • Added that her landscape architect has designed a plan using mature as well as littler trees. • Said that she is willing to plant other trees. • Advised that she has been working with other residents on development of a joint road association. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 12 • Said that there is a road association for Kittridge Road. This road is not up to code. • Said that she has had patchwork done on Kittridge Road and has asked her developers to take care of the work. They bring equipment up on rubber tires to prevent tearing up the road. • Said that she has a tree bond to replant trees on her property. • Added that she removed non-indigenous trees. • Suggested a "good developer" bond to ensure that the road is cleaned of any construction spillage and that repairs are made to any damage caused to the road by construction equipment and traffic. Commissioner Roupe supported Ms. Rose's suggestion for a bond to ensure the condition of the -road and asked her if she has any suggestions on how to establish a value for the road bond. Ms. Heather Rose said that the bond would be calculated on the potential damage to the road. She added that it maybe cheaper to replace the road rather than repair it. Commissioner Roupe questioned how to implement such a bond. Commissioner Hunter suggested that this is a question for Director Sullivan. Commissioner Garakani said that there is a bond for the private road he lives on. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Rose if she is proposing an assessment district. Ms. Heather Rose: • Said that there is a lack of City support for the roads, water and sewer, which are private in this area. • Said that the residents are uncomfortable legally with an assessment district. To establish one, 80 percent of the residents would have to agree to do so. • Added that the residents are comfortable enough for an association to work together on road maintenance. • Mentioned that there is even more development occurring in the County jurisdiction using the same roads, sewer and water hook ups. Chair Barry thanked Ms. Rose for her leadership. Commissioner Hunter agreed that there is additional development pending in the area. Ms. Heather Rose pointed out that there are three new homes on Quickert Road in County jurisdiction and that there are also other developable lots. Commissioner Roupe encouraged staff to look into sphere of influence, particularly for those projects that require travel over Saratoga private and public roads for access. Commissioner Hunter asked why the Cooper-Garrod project in County jurisdiction came to this Commission for review while other projects in the County do not. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a member of the Board for a private mutual water company. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 13 • Said that there are 10 connections pending in this area. • Said that as far as the road maintenance has been handled, in the past they have held go and fix the road Saturdays, where neighbors would spend the day cleaning up the roadway and repairing it as necessary. • Said that there is road damage and spillage of gravel and cement from construction and that the concept of a bond is appealing. - • Pointed out that last month he watched a tractor drive down the street as it tore up the roadway. • Said that he is looking for the heavy hand of authority from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roupe said that the concept for a bond to leave the road in an "as is" condition is not unreasonable. Chair Barry said that there is a practical problem of determining who is responsible for any damage. Mr. James Campagna, Bohlman. Road, Saratoga: • Said that he lives just below the subject property. • Stated that the proposed Craftsman style house fits nicely and that the variance is unobtrusive and tastefully done. • Urged support and approval as submitted. • Pointed out that in a major emergency exiting is possible from Bohlman Road. Mr. Bob Samsel, 15300 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Advised that he had forwarded a complaint to Code Enforcement regarding the tractor that tore up the. roadway recently. • Said that he is here this evening to raise the issue of water runoff and expressed concern over additional water being run down Quickert Road. • Said that the culvert is ineffective along this property and suggested that water be collected and sent somewhere. • Asked that the Husteds not use the dirt road to access their site as only Parcel 83 has access rights along that dirt road. Commissioner Roupe said that any water would be going down the road and not down the dirt road. Mr. Bob Samsel said that this would be wonderful. Commissioner Roupe said that the road runoff should be directed down the over slope and not down the dirt road. Chair Barry questioned who would need to cooperate in the water runoff issues as it clearly is not just this property involved. Mr. Bob Samsel said that he was not sure. He suggested one more catch basin to divert water. Chair Barry stressed that impacts have to be evaluated on a number of properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 14 :. Commissioner Roupe said that the suggestion for a bond gives assurance of road repair as necessary and the application has no objection. The structure'of the bond would need to be worked out by staff. Mr. Chuck Husted agreed that he has no problem with the concept of a bond. Assured that he would not do anything to negatively impact his neighbors. Chair Barry pointed out that the issue of policing subcontractors is horrendous. It is a challenge to stay on top of what is occurring. Mr. Chuck,Husted said that this is the reason he has hired Mr. Ashford to oversee this construction. Mr. Bruce Ashford, 3741 Noms Canyon Road, San Ramon: • Assured that he will enforce all subcontractors and will use wood to protect the roadway from damage when construction equipment is brought to the site. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the road be graded so water runoff is directed toward the uphill side and not downhill. Asked what could be done so drainage occurs appropriately. Mr. Bruce Ashford said that they plan to maintain the historic route of water. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Said that a natural drainage ditch at the hairpin turn solves the problem. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the retaining wall, currently proposed at 16 feet in height, at the rear of the house, could be reduced if the house were moved away from the larger hill. Mr. Chuck:Husted replied that this retaining wall is well behind the house and not visible as it is backed up to the slope. Commissioner Kurasch said that the impact concerns are not just visible impacts but also include environmental impacts. Less disruption of the slope will be more stable and she does not want to set a precedent for extensive use of retaining walls on Hillside developments. Mr. Chuck Husted said that the home has been placed to mitigate impacts of the retaining walls and that these walls have been designed to deal with a one to one slope. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Said that moving the house further from the hillside slope would not reduce the walls. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the house is moved and retaining walls not installed would it be okay. Mr. Mark Helton replied that it might be okay for 20 years but not longer. Mr. Mark Husted said that he appreciates the comments from his neighbors as this is a good way to learn. Assured that they will mitigate impacts as possible. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 15 • Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this is a very well designed project that will fit nicely into the Hillside as it is tucked in and not very evident. • Said that this project is just fine. • Agreed that the retaining walls are big and an issue but that this is probably as well as can be done. • Commended the retaining wall material choice. • Expressed support for a retaining wall fire turnaround instead of a proposed deck, especially since this would reduce the soil exported from the site. • Said that the bond for road maintenance makes sense and would propose leaving the details to staff to work out. • Said that any water runoff generated on site should not add to water flow already there. • Suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors. • Said that this is a good project that he can endorse. . Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she cannot support this use of retaining walls and does not believe that this is a good building lot. • Declared that the turnaround is an abomination on this hillside. • Said that she cannot support this project despite the fact that the house design itself is very nice. Commissioner Garakani asked if a variance for the retaining wall for the fire turnaround is required. Commissioner Kurasch: • Replied that that particular retaining wall is outside the purview of the Commission since it is a Fire Department requirement. • Stated that this is a massive use of this site and that the need for these tall retaining walls point to the difficulty of building on this lot. • Said that she cannot support this proposal. • Said that she could support the establishment of ascenic-easement. Chair Barry asked Commissioner Kurasch if she will support the project with the scenic easement. Commissioner Kurasch replied no. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that there is provision for variances if findings can be made. • Said that there are good arguments for a variance in this situation. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not know how strongly she felt against the retaining walls until this evening and that she does not agree with the staff findings. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any way to design without a 23-foot retaining wall. Commissioner Roupe replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 16 Chair Barry asked staff to clarify whether there is already an approved building site. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Commission is being asked to grant a Building Site Approval this evening. Commissioner Garakani stated that if the Commission does not grant a Building Site Approval, this applicant has a lot on which they cannot build. Chair Barry pointed out that the Commission's decision can be appealed to Council. Restated that the question here is whether this parcel can be approved for building of any kind. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the required criteria for an approved building site includes six findings. Commissioner Garakani asked if the applicant just recently purchased this property. Chair Barry: • Stated that while the Commission may have empathy for the applicant, it is not a criteria for basing its decision. • Said that she strongly agrees with the sentiment that she does not want to encourage these kinds of retaining walls, although they can be partially mitigated with landscaping. • Said that she would like to see screening vegetation planted as a Condition. • Said that she believes that this road and area will be improved if these improvements are made and saying no to this proposal will not improve the situation for this whole area. Commissioner Kurasch asked v•hat the criteria for this decision would be. Chair Barry: • Pointed out that staff has advised that the variance criteria is met with this project. • Suggested a continuance to a Study Session. • Said that her main concern with the retaining walls is the perceived creation of a canyon effect. • Said that she does not feel good about denying this application and sees value in going forward with a Study Session. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out the letter from the neighbor raising issues about too many trucks and the instability of the road. • Said that these proposed retaining walls make the hillside more stable. Chair Barry said that this is half yes and no. The hillside is stabilized with retaining walls but the construction traffic is detrimental to the roadway. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the problem is the long-term potential for non-predicted events. • Said that every time there is a cut into a hillside, it destabilizes the hill in some way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 17 • Said that she is not sure about the cumulative effect and that she cannot support the scale and form of this project as it is proposed. Chair Barry suggested asking the applicant to provide conceptual alternative site plan possibilities at a Study Session. Commissioner Roupe suggested that there is a threshold question here, is this a buildable site or not. If it is deemed not, there is no point in going forward with a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch said there appeazs to be a question as to whether this is a buildable site. Chair Barry pointed out that the cuts are there. Added that she is not happy with the canyon effect of the retaining walls. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the hillside has been stable for 50 years, which speaks for itself. Added that he has no problem with the concept of a Study Session but the Commission must let the applicant know whether it believes this is even a buildable site. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether redesign is possible. Commissioner Gazakani pointed out that the Geologist Report says that this is a buildable lot. Commissioner Roupe proposed putting a motion forward for a yes or no vote as to whether this is a buildable site. The response will support either going forward to a Study Session or coming to a conclusion tonight. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission proposed to approve the vacant parcel at Kittridge Road as a buildable site with the question of specific structures to be the subject of a future Study Session. - AYES:Garakani and Roupe NOES: Barry, Hunter and Kurasch ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Roupe The motion.failed. Commissioner Garakani suggested more direction for the applicant for a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch said that direction would include minimizing the face of the retaining walls, scaling them back in height and perhaps use smaller jumped walls if possible and including as small a structure on the site as possible. Commissioner Gazakani asked if Commissioner Kurasch is concerned about hillside stability or the appeazance of the walls. Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants the project to adhere more closely to the City's standards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 18 ; • Commissioner Hunter asked why not let Council decide. Chair Barry replied that it is the role of the Commission to work out these types of issues when possible. - Commissioner Hunter pointed nut that two Commissioners are absent from this discussion. Asked if it might be better to discuss this project when all Commissioners are present. Commissioner Roupe replied that there is a quorum present tonight. Chair Barry asked for clarification on the nature of concerns with the retaining walls. Commissioner Kurasch replied their location, scale and size. Chair Barry said that these comments should provide adequate direction to the applicant. Commissioner Hunter said that she disagrees with staff about these retaining walls but is fine with holding a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is looking for the lowest retaining wall possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission proposed to continue consideration of construction a residence on a vacant lot on Kittridge Road to a Study Session to review different conceptual designs and use of land and provide proposals that have less impact on the environmen t with the following guidelines to the applicant: 1. Include vegetation to screen the retaining walls, 2. Process a Hold Harmless Agreement to be recorded with the deed, holding the City harmless in the event that failure on this property causes any damage to adjacent parcels and/or the public right-of--way, 3. Include a fire turnaround constructed with a retaining wall as opposed to the proposed deck; 4. Process a bond to ensure the road is left in its current condition upon completion of construction; 5. Process an Open Space Scenic Easement; and 6. Enter into a lower road drainage agreement. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Kurasch NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry said that the applicant can choose to go with this recommendation for a Study Session or can simply appeal to Council on the Commission's vote against the Building Site Approval. Commissioner Garakam questioned why the Commission should even go forward if it has found that this is not a buildable site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 19 Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Bruce Ashford: • Said that there is a misconception regarding the concept of a canyon being created by the retaining walls. • Advised that there are not walls on both sides that would create a canyon effect. • Added that the lower wall will be camouflaged with vegetation. _ Commissioner Garakani asked if these retaining walls would help stabilize the road. Mr. Bruce Ashford replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Ashford for more clear drawings to demonstrate the retaining walls. Mr. Chuck Husted asked for more information about the format for the Study Session. Chair Barry advised that a Study Session is not a formal hearing as occurred this evening but rather is held as a roundtable discussion. There are no votes taken at a Study Session but a direction is established for a project. Mr. Chuck Husted asked if he would leave a Study Session with more of an idea on what the Planning Commission would more likely support. Chair Barry replied yes. Mr. Chuck Husted said that he is willing to go forward with the Study Session. Chair Barry directed staff to schedule this Study Session with the applicant as soon as is possible. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Addition to Museum Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended a Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at which a proposed addition to the Museum was discussed. ' Business Meeting Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Business Meeting and that the Gateway project is quite something, incorporating lots of trees, fancy pavers and will be quite good looking. Added that Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 20 there are approximately 25 new residents to Saratoga per year and the group is proposing a Welcome Wagon program. Sidewalks Commissioner Garakani expressed his concern for the safety of children in walking to school due to the lack of sidewalks in Saratoga. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the City was purposely designed to be without sidewalks. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the City did not have traffic problems when that decision was made and suggested that sidewalks are probably appropriate along major arterials. Chair Barry said that right now the City's policy decision is not to include sidewalks. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that it would fall under the purview of the Public Works Department to evaluate this issue. Commissioner Garakani pointed to the Argonaut area where children walk in the street to get to school. Commissioner Hunter suggested designating bike lanes where people could also walk safely. Drivers stay off of bike lanes to prevent being ticketed. Chair Barry suggested that Commissioner Garakani contact someone on the Public Safety Committee. Commissioners Subcommittees Commissioner Roupe asked if a.ny discussion on basement standards would occur this evening. Chair Barry advised that the next Planning Commission meeting would be devoted to Commission Subcommittee reports, including Basements.- Safety Plaza Designs Commissioner Garakani advised that Council would be presented with the conceptual Safety Plaza Designs at 7 p.m. on March 6`h during the Council meeting. Boilerplate Conditions of Approval - Chair Barry advised staff that the Commission would like to review boilerplate Conditions of Approval. County Sphere of Influence Planner Christy Oosterhous added that the Commission's desire to review the relationship with the County on review of projects within the City's sphere of influence will also be added to a future meeting agenda. e Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 21 ,COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • 4 ~~ • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-025; Conditional Use Permit/20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Applicant/Owner: Erik Doyle/Deerfield Realty Corporation Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner~r~ Date: March 13, 2002 APN: 517-09-020 Department Head: 0 .~ '' ~. '\ ` ;~ '~' ~ , ~~ /; s ~ ~ d,. d~~ ``~ 9~,1 °s ~~ ~o s~ \ a N F i ;~ ,~ OAK 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road OOOOO~i ~- CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 02/08/02 02/20/02_ 02/27/02 02/27/02 02/22/02 The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to establish an orthodontics practice in a portion of an existing office building located on a 25,699 square foot parcel in the CH-1 zoning district. The building has 4,282 squaze feet at the street level and 1,015 square feet at the basement level. The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the street level of the building, modify the adjacent planter area and add windows to the blank facades. The proposed building modifications do not require Design Review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-46.020. The proposed orthodontics practice will occupy 2,667 square feet of office space at the street level with frontage along Sazatoga-Los Gatos Road, and the entire 1,015 square foot basement level. The remaining 1,935 squaze feet at the street level will be available for lease. Establishment of the 3,682 (gross) square foot orthodontics office at the street level with street frontage in the CH-1 zoning district requires Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning Commission pursuant to MCS 15-19.040 (b). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit A • • !©OQ~3n~ ------- ----- ---- ------ -- - - - File No. 02-025; 20514 SatatogxI.os Gatos Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1, Historic Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 25,699 squaze feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the street level of the office building, and modify the facades by adding windows on the front, rear and side (west) elevations. There will be both transpazent and translucent glass at the proposed building addition area. The composition shingle roof and the wood siding at the side (east and west) elevations will remain. The wood siding at the front and reaz elevations will be modified for the addition of the new aluminum frame windows. All siding will be repainted in neutraVearth tones. The proposed concrete planter modifications and the new plant materials will match existing. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another and a minor addition to the existing structure is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act . (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • 0~0~03 File No. 02-025; 20514 SaruogaLos Craters Road PROJECT DISCUSSION • The applicant, Deerfield Realty Corporation, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish an orthodontics practice in a portion of an existing office building located along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The applicant is in the process of selling the 25,699 square foot lot with the office building to Dr. Anthony Ellenikiotis, who will be conducting the orthodontics practice. The proposed orthodontics office will have 2 full-time dentists/orthodontists, 4 full-time clerical staff, 5 full-time dental assistants and 4 part- time general staff employees. The existing building has 4,282 square feet at the street level and 1,015 square feet at the basement level. The building was built in 1969 and was once occupied by a bank, and most recently used as office space. The office building has been vacant for approximately 9 months. Adjacent uses include a photography studio to the left of the subject property and a home decor retail establishment to the right. Across the street are the properties owned by the Saratoga Fire District and the Post Office. The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the street level of the office building, add windows on the front, rear and side (west) facades, and modify the planter area adjacent to the building. The proposed orthodontics office will consist of 3,682 (gross) square feet. The remaining 1,935 square feet of space at the street level will be used as tenant space available for lease. The proposed building modifications do not require Design Review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to MCS 15-46.020 (b). However, Staff has added a condition in the attached draft Resolution that Staff must review and approve all exterior changes, including materials and colors, prior to issuance of building permits. Parking and Circulation Pursuant to MCS 15-35.030 (1), the parking requirement for the proposed orthodontics practice is 1 space per 200 square feet of gross Iloor area. Therefore, the proposed 3,682 (gross) square foot orthodontics office will require 18 parking spaces. The 1,935 square foot tenant space will require 10 additional spaces, if it will also be occupied by a medical office, professionaUadministrative office or financial institution. Therefore, parking for the building will be adequately provided on the site, which has 28 parking spaces, in addition to 3 handicap spaces. Orthodontics Practice as a ConditionallyPermitted Use The orthodontics practice will occupy 2,667 square feet of office space at the street level with frontage along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and the entire 1,015 square foot basement level. Establishment of the proposed 3,682 (gross) square foot orthodontics office at the street level with street frontage in the CH-1 zoning district requires Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning Commission pursuant to MCS 15-19.040 (b). Tllis process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. nnnnn.~ • File No. 02-025; 20514 SaratogaLos Craton Road The applicant also proposes that the remaining 1,935 squaze feet at the street level be used as tenant space available for lease. The applicant envisions this space being occupied by a similaz medical office or a professionaUadministrative office use. Anew tenant who occupies the 1,935 squaze foot space may be exempt from obtaining Conditional Use Permit approval because MCS 15-19.050 (b)(1) lists professional, administrative, medical offices and financial institution; ~ as conditionally permitted uses when located at street level and having street frontage. The proposed tenant space will not have any street frontage, as shown on Exhibit A. Economic Development Analysis Staff has reviewed this application in light of the importance of having more retail uses along the street frontage in the Saratoga Village. However, Staff finds that there is sufficient basis to recommend approval of the proposed orthodontics practice because the project site is not located along the more pedestrian-oriented Big Basin Way, where it is imperative to have retail store frontage. Sazatoga-Los Gatos Road is a busy thoroughfaze with little or no pedestrian traffic in front of the project site. In addition, Dr. F1lenikiotis is proposing to relocate to this subject site from his present office on Village Drive in Saratoga. Since there already is an established patient base, relocation to the subject site will draw more visitors to the Saratoga Village and may benefit surrounding businesses. The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Hours of Operation Monday through Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday: CLOSED Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated above to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of operation. Signage The applicant has not yet proposed any signage. A condition of approval iias been included in the attached draft Resolution which requires that the applicant submit a Sign Permit application for review and approval by Staff. Tree Protection No protected trees will be impacted by the proposed exterior modifications. The existing trees on the property and the two street trees in front of the property aze surrounded by hazdscape. Correspondence No correspondence regazding this application has been received to date. nnnnn~ File Igo. 02-025; 20514 saratogaL.os CrAtos Road COIlC1USI011 - - Staff finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The proposed orthodontics office meets the objectives of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will draw more people to the Saratoga Village and " maybe mutually beneficial to the surrounding businesses; • The proposed orthodontics office will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to 11Lnim;7e potential impacts; and • The proposed orthodontics office will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. (1(~nnn~ File No. 02-025; 20514 SaratogaLos Gatos Road At I.G~C~men 1. RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 02-025 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Erik Doyle/Deerfield Realty Corporation; 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road W>~~,~s, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 3,682 (gross) square foot orthodontics office in an existing office building; and WxEx~.~.s, 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 Wi~xtr.~s, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WI~x~AS the Plannin Commission finds that all of the findin s re uired within g g q Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The proposed orthodontics office meets the objectives of the Saratoga Zoning . Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will draw more people to the Saratoga Village and may be mutually beneficial to the surrounding businesses; • The proposed orthodontics office will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to IlLnimi~e potential impacts; and • The proposed orthodontics office will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Now, TxE~FOxi~, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: ' Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: nnnnn~ File No. 02-025; 20514 Saratoga•Ios Gatos Road PiaNNIlVG 1. The orthodontics office shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit A. 2.. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and relay, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for internal tenant improvements for the proposed orthodontics office, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the approved Exhibit A plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy of this Resolution as a separate plan page. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, all proposed exterior modifications, including a materials and colors board, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 6. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issaes. 7. A Sign Permit Application shall be submitted to the Planning Division for any proposed signage for tYie new business establishment. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga prior to opening the orthodontics practice. FII2E PROTECTION DISTRICT 9. The proposed occupancy classification was not identified on the drawings. As a general dentistry office, it can be assumed that the occupancy would be "Business" as defined in the. California Building Code, and the comments that follow are based on that assumption. However, should the location perform oral surgery wherein general anesthesia must be administered, the occupancy classification of the project will be I-1.2 and the more restrictive requirements of that occupancy classification shall be complied with. 10. Afire hydrant must be located within 225 feet of the entrance of the property from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. If none is present, it must be provided by the developer. (California Fire Code. Section 1004.2.4) ®Q~~n~ File No. 02-025; 20514 Saratogal.os Crdtos Road 11. An off-site supervised, early warning fire alarm system (EWAS) shall be provided within the structure in accordance with City of Saratoga Ordinance requirements. Fire detection shall be provided on both floor levels and within all room spaces. 12. Separation ofExits -Proposed Main Floor Level. Exterior exits shall be separated a minimum of %Z the maximum overall diagonal of the floor of the building. The centerline of the two exterior doors of the main floor must meet this minimum separation. (California Building Code. Section 1004.2.4) CITY ATTORNEY 13. 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. 14. 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. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. 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 City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. ~~00~9 _ ~ --- File No. 02-025; 20514 SarstogaLos Gatos Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of March 2002 by the following roll call vote: r AYES: NOES: ,ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no .force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date r • •i • nnnn->o n I r~ N wm'spai!4~e1Q'~ ~ a N h uoi'cos'ste ~~ y «vrcos•s~ro ae~ < t ~ : EO~b6 pJ "ms+~uey ues ~,~a~ Nd ~ ~eags 6pe~9 S6 ~ Sl'J311H`J21t/ A3lNMOF{L ~ Wllb~B ~~ o" --~ ~ z p a j OLOS6 eiuao~i~e~ 'e6o~e~eg D; peon so;e~ sol-e6o~e~eS bLSOZ ~~I~~O 1d1N3a L.~~~ N ~ ~ 0 a p[ 1.~ `n Q R.M O O~ ~`, ~ Q ~ ~ [ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ w ~ 3~ ~~~~ t ~ ~ € ~ n ~ F ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~~~ ~ 3~ ~~/ ~ _ g € ~-- U w gg f9 8 ~ ~iEs Ybt 6py~iF~~ ~~~~ +{~+~ Owed }~p3 g{ °~l~Y ~~80A ~~agdkk AN/ ~~.~!! B~S~tly S~AApe tltl S ,~~Ad~~~ ~ U W ~ p~ !5 y~n ~y y U~y L~ 9~ y$6y Cy ~~ 3y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O 3 a ~dC ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ Z a 8 ~ ~~~~~ _!1 _ _~- z U ra- 4 w y w- ~' ll.~ Z w T U ~ W W Q ~~ ~ O ~ _ LL a y ~~N~w o ~ a 'P w 1 ~~,~~ ~ ~~ o~ ~ gaGq ~ Y Q 6 6 'f "~ Z 4 W = ~`~' r v.~ • • • Z wm'fl~ell4yeL4'~xu+ F y ~ ~ w o a ~~~ W} a N < LL4L'fOS'SLb ~xe} ' ' ~ Z'° ~¢ s U'e'd ~ ~ ~ w ~ fn LLbI fOS SLb ~lel ' i W K > ~p OL056 eiwo~i~e~ 'e6o~e~eg ~ n W Q msi~ueq uef fOL66 WJ Leeits Lpep 98 U m ~? ¢ m ~y '_ iy ~ N N peon so}e~ sod-eBo}e~eS ~690Z ~ ~ `~ WW U2 m^ 0 a$ 3~1~~0 ~d1N3a S10311H021y A31N210Hj I Wf1V 8 w J~ ' 9~ J X ~ a W w j N YUf q mt gFLL < L] O d ~ N ------ ------- ----- ----- ------ -- ~ ~ R ~ - - - k» av ~ 'o v k ~ $ ~ ~ 4 ; ° ~ J Y _ ~ M g _ N - ~ " :~ ~ .. oa so s _ ~old~- ---- _ - 6 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 9 • ~ N /: 4 ~ i ~_ yT,/~ .fBTO JBaii / yB1Gh M yy0~ ~ .-. i Jh ll'Ul in 8 q n ~ ~ ~ _ -~ fO 11YJ M>mB at3 ..ln~i MAT - -_ J. ti ~ ~ MOB I1f4N ~ 0 j2 M,f2 .1 f ~ o.u \ ~ 1 a sear ~ a ~ ~ 0° M a ~ ` ~ .f a M A'~ an S I a - oo ~4 .. ao 1D s p ~ L ~ ~ I _ a--~-s-~-~~ ~- _ - ~ -c-«_~~._. ._~ ._~ _ __ ~--_ _ _ . ~=1-.-~ inL ~J L MIN _ = _ _ t O H~ _ _ ,r _p_F ~= ~9 _ _ F ~ _ Z,N_~.__-,fl Q y ~ ~ _~O=S _. =--~~F- ~ O _ -_ _ _ ° _ ~_ _ J~ _ ___ - -.o~-~-- ` a <LZ 0 OJT J Of • JL'- Jv v _ 0 ~ y ay ~ v Z N ~~ t I ) Q a J nf : k ` i I ee % ~ ~ a ~ L7~ J rn 3t I v I 1 W X,J~Nm // 8 ~ . intro ,y ut O Y O d O 8.S a~ x ~ • e~ e I Xaf ]0 30 -~ anfv o f ¢w$ inf 0} 1 a ~~N O ON ~ .i°'rfl ° aB c M1BS i n /N /e W 0~ a n f Q ~+ ~ 1 JB~L h O N ~ ~ •£i ,~ , l sr N a t0 iNa¢+r ~r t W h p,<< i ~ 553J~ ~ Q J~ ZN VO ~ o R ~ ' ~ f\~ ~ ~ ~~ "~ anG NA ~ A~ ~ ~ F F O a AA R ~ •! O Li P• i iQQ ~~pp iaF ifb Q J ~ g ... $ a y J ~ O v S y -O MM 'i]N J'1 f J'~- [-a S l k q b a.e • rnJ - __ - ,rte __~.-_ _ - ~ a b p ~' ~ 189[2 / yfJCh N ~ lON J e u _.._ ;KmBC~_M ~a !g !' ~~ S ~ ~ ~ ~g a ~b z B d • eu z. O Z a ~ 1 a o~ ~~ = `I 1 8 Z Q J ~ ~ d ~ f *~ ~ ! \ v N". IJ I .. ` , I qi ! p~ ~ ~ \ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ $'ga ggi3~t 1 I I Y O~ ps~4 I a 41 H~ Z= U 5 <~ 3 z a~ m f7~ m a ~ ~Ey x/8 8Le ~a.s °°~ -$. Tag °~'S ~~~ o B ~° s a6 5 0 '~ ~s5 sL~~•t^ Fs_6 59b3~'~is°~ e SYOYpp L-1 Yc ~~OS S.Lugi Laggt~`L= Z ~~ fii~8pa 6a ~~ ~~-;~ y3i ~o. a 66 ~~"~ 9s~uues 4~~~; `z~ep~5-SRS 6J 2' s 8 Ss 3Y 6'~ 8'~Smy s°9 °,4 ~v7i~frs Y o'"et s 8s fr ~5. $E ~ W ~ " =S ~~ sa ~gS4 ssrro°osgr ~ ~ o Q ~~ $ rt@ ~~ cs~ $ ~ ~H~ Ssi'gE~,~S~Yc w js a as5g ~_-$~ g ~E"~~ .~o$sg6A6~~Y' L.' J >r"o 9iofi Civ~~3. a s-ofra d~fr~~SnoWZO J fiN~s °° i o AS<$~€,og ~ ~ N ~' Srd~~ssss ~ "j a3vt Ue~~6~ tl gsF€~~ ,gg~ ~ v << g~~t'^,. ~5» EN F ~"~~ E~F~d3Y5 3~< w < s s~as~ gbh ~ ~3~ z~gg~6eyfs~P 0 6„ ~~€6€~~~a_ 'e 06 .8{~g jo r- L~iL @'~~ ~=ails°:'§°6~a6 "8 z q ~~ 3 ~ 3~ ~ ~ 9 ~~ gg g ~ ~ ya N § ~hlg ~b ~~~~~~~~~~~~sg~~~~ ~ ~a~~~~~ II d B 2~ g ~8 ~ g$°Y zo' c ' ~ i ~ fr o ~ ~ ~~° ~U $ ' oS ~ ¢ 3te ~~ ~' 7 ~~ ~ p s s~ ~~~ ~ ~'~ ~ o C •~EES ~"g ..3 a :~•• ~ fi~~ ~s s ~g,~i o~m~° ~. _ ~ o ~=ai Via: .Y~ . ~ ~a°'a ~3~e~ ~ s° ~ Wn~o -b.~~ yy 8 ~ s . fr ~fr$fi~ o$s~5 :o 3 ~frt a ~ ,~ ~ 6 ~ ~3g6Y Yas Ec ~° ~8 u s= l.b~ ~ - 8; Es6~ sy ~~$Sa 2'~ ° =g8 >, Pb 6 fr ~ 3 ages ~ °g~ s8 fi y E ~4 `3fr 3~'~S t~ E°5 ~ ~ ~ € ~ v`~n°i ° '`e g~v ~+ b ~J~YO Es$i~E a~g r $ %~ ~~~~ -3° ¢ C$S 'is~ $ ~ ~ i°aa`~j ~ ~ aP ~ e $~ ~ zg i~^m g{ g ~ 8$ 8 ~ ~ Y~ AaE-~ ~ o ~- 5~o~ a ~ ss~ a a, b ~ § °5g~$•~8g ~ a~ ° oho ~ ° ~c 05 go Z ~~ 1 N '~ j H E ~ ~ xi fr m sB ~co e n ~ ZoE d I U3ltlLf Of1911d Y) ~~ i la3ais aaiFu w L L L 1 s~man S' °~a fr r •s.~oc i ,I ~ Wo~'sF~e1141e1C'~+,Wn+ < ~ ~p o V N H B N ~ ur~'eos•s~o~Xw ~ 6 ~ < «v~'eos'sw ~re~ of * „ o OLOS6 eiwo~ge~ 'e6o;e~eg fOtvs ~YJa~s P~9 S6 ;,''~ ~°K ° peon so~e~ sol-e6o~e~eS ~ISOZ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ f 3~1~~0 lt/1N3a S10311H02iy A31N2lOHl I w~d8 ~ (\~ ° ~° _ n # ~w `. ~mr3a5 hl~ r---- - I I =I ~1 ~I ~I ~ 1 I I -~ I I T I 1 3 ~~ I c D~~ ~m-I 1 3 I I I a? $= I i r~ t-~ o I ~ a ~.- _ _ _ ~ __ __ _ - ------Y- _ ~ _--- I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 a a~~ G i W r B a § I" ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~~ ~ ~,~ zOZ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ F r _ ~ ~ a W Q x W N 0 w p N p ~ ZO ~ y z _~ ~ :'g~ s ~ 0 y ~~ ~~ s o J a ~ s ~T 3 J r (' b Z F- L c~ u~ - - --_-_ - __ __ -__ N ~.~.. ."S ~ ~ I >Y ~ I I o ~ ~ I o I I I I I I I I I 1 1~ I I I I I I Z I ~ ~ I ~ O ~ I ~ i I I I J ~ I W I I ~ I J I _ o~ S~ I Z Q 1 I I I I I C7 °. I I Z I I H I I ~ > I ~ I I R.t[ 1 I I a,c~ I I I I I I I _____ __________________________________________________________J I I I ~~Ij 4V7 • ~ • W Z O U 2 O Z Z X_~ W O O O .. d M r ~.~ ~ a y ~ ww'sUelNwel9'~+ t ti S ~ uviceos's~o ~i H «areos~s~r 181 02 ~ o EOL66 V'J'o~sl~uei~ues ~,~t ~8ti ~ leers ~PeW S6 ~;~~~a~ S1~311H~2ib/ A31N2101i1 Wf1V 8 ~ , ~ OtlOH SO1MJ SO1-tl'JO1VdVS ~w' o OLOS6 eiwo~i~e~ 'e6o~e~eg peon so}e~ sol-e6o~e~eS ~6SOZ 3~I~~O 1d1N3a -- -- r---- ----- --------- ---------- ------------------- I Q I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ° I € € € I I I I I ^ I I I I a.il I I I I I I I o 0 0 0 I 3 '. I I I ~o ~~~ ~ NJ i~J~ ~ ~% ~ j '~/ > I ,. I ------- I I ------- I o Z s W O ~ zl a m ~ ~ s i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y 'e 1 I,, Z ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >s a .- - I 1 ~ I I I R ~ ? I ~ ~ 5 I I ~ I ~ ~~ € ~ 3~ I ~ I B I a I r3 I I I I . ~ I ~ I K t I ~ {n I _~ --~~--~ ______ J I 2 I _~ _______ I yJ s I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I e~ 3 I +~ a' ~ a a I F I W ~ S ~ " ~ 1 8 ~ I I ~ i 8 .~. .. ~ _ __________ I I € `^ ~ -------- -- I I I € I I I I I I ~ 8 , - _ _ 1 } ~ I I 3 ~ 1 s, I I ' a I I 8 - ~ I I I ___ I I --- - I ~~ I I ___ I I --- I I I I ~~ ~ I I I ~ = ~ I ~ I I I ~~ 3 I 1 I I 7 ~. ~°~ I ~~ r I I I I IZ I I I I I I I I ? I JQ I ~ I o I '~ ~ IW ~ I 1 I J I Z e I . I ¢ ~ I g O I N e ~ I O $ I ~ I O ~I _ I p_ ~ 6 I 1 ^ I I b I 4 I £ I ~ I ~ 4 I I I I .______________________________________________J • ~ o o ~ ~ F ~~~ w p I.I.I Q QJZ O y U f a d O Q, = Q O W '~ ° a F D7 y a QJQ O d y N ~ i ZI a eS €~ ~ ~ J ~~ ~~ o ~a J 4y ~ ga w n O ~~ ~4 0 1 ,3lli 4V9 0 Z 0 0 0 0 r 'S3iJX M1' ._. _ ~__ _____ __ -_ ~i~ ;y ' SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT City of Saratoga MEMORANDUM Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 2002 TO: Honorable Chair Barry and Planning Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi FROM: Lata ~'asudevan, Assistant Planner .:~'t/ SUBJECT: Planning Commissioner Erna. Jackman's Sub-Committee on Basement Standards ATTACHMENT: Topics for discussion at the March 13, 2002 Planning Commission meeting regarding Basement Standards Attached is a summ of issues re ardin basement standards that Commissioner Jackman and I ~' g g would like to discuss at the March 13, 2002 Planning Commission meeting under "Commission Items." We look forward to hearing your comments at this meeting. i ~~ March 13, 2002 City of Saratoga Planning Commissioner's Sub-Committee on Basement Standards Members of this sub-committee are Commissioner Erna Jackman and myself, Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner Definitions of "Lightwell" and "Basement" Commissioner Jackman and I would like to include a definition of "Lightwell" in our Zoning Ordinance. We propose that the definition say the following: "Lightwell" is an excavated area adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4'), as measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and that provides an emergency exit for and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have either a 36" high guardrail with self closing gates or a grate that can be opened from inside the lightwell." Commissioner Jackman and I suggest that Section 15-06.090 "Basement" in our Zoning Ordinance be revised to say: « „ °~° *^ *~° ^°~'~^^ ^~'*'~° ~°°°^~°^*. "Basement" means a space in a structure that is partly or wholly below grade and where the vertical distance froria grade to a finished floor- directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. if the finished floor directly above a basement is more than 42 inches above grade at any point, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Basements are subject to the requirements of Section 15-80.xxx As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. ~, Planning Review Requirements for Basements and Lightwells The construction of a baserent may have significant impacts on the surrounding properties in relation to the hauling away of large quantities of soil. We propose that all new basement applications require Administrative design review approval. Section 15-45.065 "Administrative design review" shall be amended to include "new basements and lightwells, and additions to existing basements and lightwells." Our current Zoning Ordinance requires only an `over-the- ,~% ~a counter' approval for applicants who propose to construct a new basement under an existing house. In `over-the-counter' approvals, neighbors are not notified of the proposed project. On the other hand, the Administrative design review process requires that the ten closest neighbors be notified and given the opportunity to review and voice any concerns regarding the project. Development Requirements for Basements and Lightwells As indicated in the revised basement definition, we propose that all basement and lightwell requirements, titled "Requirements for Basements and Lightwells," be inserted in Article 15-80 "MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS," and contain the following standards. Please beaz in mind that the following is merely a list of requirements that need to be included in our Zoning Ordinance. We will eventually work on the proper wording and organization after receiving all of your comments. 1. Abasement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, and may not be located within any required setbacks. In no case shall any basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. 2. Lightwells may not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. 3. Abasement shall be a one-level structure; sub-level basements are strictly prohibited. 4. Abasement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. 5. The allowable azea for a basement shall be reduced by 5% for each foot in excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. 6. Applicant shall submit to the. Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report -shall include an analysis of groundwater conditions prepared by a certified hydrogeologist. 7. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. 8. The Planning Director may limit the size of a basement or deny the proposal to construct abasement based on soil or groundwater conditions. ` r _ ti • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~~.~4 -t • SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner Planning Commissioners Mike Garakani and Lisa Kurasch DATE: February 13, 2002 RE: Energy Efficiency Subcommittee The Conservation Element of the General Plan (C0.4.0) states the following: "Encourage energy conservation, maximum energy efficiency and the utilization of renewable energy resources, keeping aesthetics in mind, in order to reduce dependence on nonrenewable resources for satisfying basic and non-basic energy needs." The General Plan then gives four policies to implement the above goal. 1. Consider developing an Energy Element within the General Plan to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. 2. Promote cooperation with other governmental and private agencies to formulate and implement energy planning programs. 3. Facilitate dissemination of information on energy conservation techniques and alternative energy resources. 4. Support voluntary recycling efforts. After reviewing the above goals and policies of the General Plan, the subcommittee came up ~~~ith a plan to increase the energy efficiency of homes in Saratoga. EDUCATION The first part of the plan is education. This can be broken down into two sub categories. The first part of education would be to develop and provide handouts and information at the front counter. Staff could also collect and maintain a library of information that could be available to the public for review. The information could also be provided on the City Web Site. Attached to this memo are some of the reference materials akeady collected by other cities. The second part of the education process would be to invite local builders, architects, and homeowners to City sponsored workshops. Local providers of energy efficient materials and nonprofit organizations would give presentations at a City initiated workshops. The workshops would provide public awareness of green building techniques and resources, as well as opportunity to explain City policies and goals for energy efficiency. ORDINANCES The subcommittee reviewed several possible ordinances that are currently being used or are in the planning process. The following is a brief summary of some of the possible ordinances. Marin County's BEST program is an incentive based program to get builders to voluntarily improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The program gives builders who participate expedited processing and waiver of the Title 24 fee. In order to participate in the program the builder must complete one of the following three alternatives: 1. Exceed Title 24 energy performance by at least 10%. 2. Install an on-site renewable energy system producing at least 75go of building and site annual energy usage. 3. Complete prescriptive requirements outlined in Marin Counry's energy efficiency checklist. The subcommittee liked this program but felt that the incentives were not enough to promote voluntary program participation. 2. Marin County is currently working on an ordinance for Big and Tall residences. The ordinance as proposed would require any residences over 4,000 square feet to either comply with the Title 24 energy budget fora 4,000 square foot house, or install on-site renewable energy system that produces a minimum of 75% of annual energy use for all buildings and site amenities. The above ordinance is preferred by the subcommittee. The subcommittee's intent would be to have basement included - 3. -San Francisco -Proposition B, just approved by 73% of .city voters, allows the city to issue up to $100 million in bonds to build solar energy systems for city buildings: 4. Palo Alto- A policy was adopted last April for Palo Alto to become a sustainable community. The work plan to implement it includes a community resource inventory, a recently passed construction and demolition recycling ordinance, and a water and energy management plan that so far saves the city $161,000 annually. 5. .Santa Monica -adopted performance based ordinances for reducing energy consumption and water runoff for commercial, municipal, institutional and multi-family buildings. Targets for compliance are 20-25% higher than state or federal requirements. The measures so far save the city $200,000 annually. 6. Davis- requires additions to CA Title 24 requirements for alterations and remodels of residential structures in that alterations cannot increase annual energy use in btu's/square feet. 000002 7. Austin -started the nation's first municipal green building program funded by money the city saves by following its own energy conservation guidelines. These require city buildings to be built to a sustainabiliry standard. The program offers free educational and consultation resources, fact sheets and newsletters to residents. In addition, the Manage It Green program provides assistance to government agencies in establishing green building programs. 8. Aspen- has a program called the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP). This program requires new homes or remodels over 5,000 square feet to offset a small portion of their fossil fuel energy consumption through the use of on-site renewable energy or through a flat fee payment to REMP. The mitigation money is then spent on energy efficient programs in the community such as retrofit lighting projects and solar hot water for affordable housing projects. ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION The subcommittee reviewed to whom the proposed ordinances would apply to and feel that the opportunity to install energy efficient measures is the greatest with new single-family homes. New home construction is also the most inexpensive time to install energy efficient measures. The subcommittee feels that after gaining more experience with energy efficiency measures the ordinance could in the future be expanded to remodels over SO% of the existing home size. RECOMMENDATION The Energy Efficiency Subcommittee is recommending that the education plan as discussed above be implemented and that further investigation into the Big and Tall ordinance being implemented in Marin be continued. The Energy Efficiency Subcommittee would like the Planning Commission's feed back on the above items or any additional items not mentioned above. If the Planning Commission supports the subcommittee's recommendation, a -more detailed package of information will be provided for further review. ALTERNATIVES Continue to use the current Residential Design Handbook Energy Efficiency section to promote energy efficient designs. Two recent new homes approved by the Planning Commission on Fruitvale Avenue and Sobey Road incorporated several of the design elements in the handbook with the addition of each project providing a source of renewable energy. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of the County of Marin's Big and Tall handout 2. Copy of the County of Marin's energy efficiency checklist 3. Copy of the City of Saratoga's existing energy efficiency guidelines 000003 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • nnnnnd Attachment 1 ~~ ~~ +- ~c Marin's .BEST Building Energy Efficient Structures Today Marro County Community Development Agency Big and Tall Houses Sustainability Opportunities Residences that are 4000 square feet or more in gross floor area are classified as "big and tall" and must comply with the development code requirements for improved energy efficiency by choosing one of two options. Option #1: Meet title 24 requirements for a building of 4,000 square feet regardless of the actual size of the building. For example, a house of 7,000 square feet can only use the title 24 requirements for a house that is 4,000 square feet. Option #2: Install an on-site renewable energy system that produces a minimum of 75% of the annual energy use for the building and site amenities. Examples of energy efficient design techniques and building materials are included below to help your project meet the development code standards. 1. Building Design ~ Cross ventilation for cooling, and night cooling of thermal mass • Operable window/door vents . • Raised floor with outside air delivery • Unobstructed air path on the floor plan - Orient building to south: aspect ratio greater than or equal to 1.5 (width e/w divided by width n/s) or at least 40% of total glazing on south and more than 8% and less than 13% area of solar glazing as a ratio of floor area. - Window shading requirements: south side horizontal shading 9 inches deep for every 12 inches of window height on at least 7~% of south glazing or trellis shading with deciduous plants or functional equivalent as determined by Chief Building Official. - Window shading requirements: deciduous trees (certain species in the fire zone) on east and west side or exterior roll down. shades on all windows or exterior vertical fin shading elements (projecting 1' for 3' of window minimum) on 75% of east and west glazing. 2. Envelope - Insulation • Roof: derived R-value* is 30 minimum or radiant barrier and reflective roofing material or structurally insulated panels or green "living" roof for 75% of the roof area or functional equivalent (such as strawbale) as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Walls: derived R-value is 24 minimum or structurally insulated panels or functional equivalent (such as strawbale) as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Crawl space: derived R-value is 24 minimum. • Slab edge is R-10 minimum. - Doors and Windows • Center of glass U-value all windows is less than or equal to 0.26 or less than or equal to 0.3 with fiberglass frame • Tuned orientation SHGC: south is greater than or equal to 0.7, east is less than or equal nnnnnc ^; LED exit signs ^. Renewable energy systems to provide 25% of modeled baseline electrical load (examples: photovoltaic system, wind energy conversion system, micro-hydro system, and hydrogen fuel cell). Project meets electrical systems criteria: 5. Cooling System - if provided Check zone building box and one other box: ^ Zone building so that "temporary use" spaces, if provided, will only be cooled when occupied (required for ILD). • o Occupancy sensors to automatically shut down cooling supply to unoccupied zones. ^ Evaporative cooling system ^ No mechanical air conditioning (example :raised floor with outside air supply for cooling) ^ Space cooling appliance with SEER*** not less than 14 for ILD and 13 -for ELD. Project meets cooling system criteria: 6. Heating System Check one box: ^ High efficiency HVAC equipment with AFUE not less than 92% ^ Occupancy sensors to automatically shut down heating supply to unoccupied zones ^ Air heat recovery system ^ Solar air heating system ^ In-floor radiant heat o Ground source heat pump ^ Raised floor air supply system Project meets heating system criteria: • ~iTiT~T~T~i Attachment 2 ~~ '~ ~-~ ~ - .~- ~ Marin's BEST Building Energy Ei~icient Structures Today Mario County Community Development Agency .Residential Checklist To comply with the BEST program requirements for residential structures a project must either exceed title 24 requirements by at least 10%, or meet the criteria in this checklist, or install an on-site renewable energy system that produces a minimum of 75% of the annual energy use for the building and site amenities. By complying with the BEST program you will receive building permit fee rebates and expedited permit processing. Inspectors will sign in the blanks below each section when the requirements have been met. 1. Building Design Check one box: ^ Small building: Residential house with a maximum of 1000 gross square feet of conditioned area per dwelling unit. Or check one box: ^ Orient building to south: aspect ratio greater than or equal to 1.5 (width e!w divided by width n/s) or at least 40% of total glazing on south and more than 8% and less than 13% area of solar glazing as a ratio of floor area. ^ Window shading requirements: south side horizontal shading 9 inches deep for every 12 inches of window height on at least 75% of south glazing or trellis shading with deciduous plants or functional equivalent as determined by Chief Building Official. ^ Window shading requirements: deciduous trees (certain species in the fire zone) on east and west side or exterior roll down shades on all windows or exterior vertical fin shading elements (projecting 1' for 3' of window minimum) on 75% of east and west glazing. Project meets building design criteria: 2. Envelope Check one box: ^ Small building: Residential house with a maximum of 1000 gross square feet of conditioned area per conditioned area. ~' Or check both boxes: ^ Insulation • Roof: derived R-value* is 30 minimum and radiant barrier and reflective roofing material in non-coastal areas or structurally insulated panels with minimum R-30 or green "living" roof for 75% of the roof area or functional equivalent as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Walls: derived R-value is 24 minimum or structurally insulated panels or functional equivalent (such as strawbale) as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Crawl space: derived R-value is 24 minimum. • Slab edge is R-10 minimum ' ~0040~ ^ Windows -• Center of glass U-value all windows is less than or equal to 0.26 or less than or equal to 0.3 with the frame. • Tuned orientation SHGC: south is greater than or equal to 0.7, east is less than or equal to 0.4, and west is less than or equal to 0.4. Project meets Envelope criteria: 3. ' Hot Water Systems Check one box: ^ Solar domestic hot water system ^ High efficiency EnergyStar** hot water heater/boiler ^ On demand gas water heater Project meets hot water system criteria: 4. Electrical Systems . Check energy efficient appliance box and one other box: o . Energy efficient appliances - EnergyStar** refrigerator, dishwasher (if installed), stove, washer and dryer (self certification required) o Maximum general lighting load: less than 1.0 watts per square foot ^ Efficient general lighting: greater than 401umens watt Project meets electrical systems criteria: 5: Cooling System - if provided Check one box: ^ Evaporative cooling system o Space cooling appliance with SEER*** not less than 13 ^ Whole house fans Project meets Cooling System criteria: 6: Heating Systems Check one box: ~ . ~, ^ High efficiency HVAC equipment: AFUE not less than 92% ^ Air heat recovery system o Radiant heating system o Solar air heating system ^ Ground source heat pump Project meets Heating System criteria: 'Derived R-Value takes the entire wall construction into consideration for calculating thermal transmission. •' Energy star is a program under the US EPA that establishes rnergy efficiency guidelines for building equipment and materials. "'SEER is the Seasonai Energy Efficiency Rating • Attachment 3 O m N z 'n rn z rn ~o rn r rn z n 1' Q F+ H W 7< ID 0 'Q d IT'O < Q -3 1~ Ip 7 w w 7 M+ O lD ID O ID r S 7Ar~~pRfD rmn-tKfC fD fD R rt c r- K N w .- >• w •c CI N wfDO'CGn~7rt N ITrN7'C~'C7.Q000.V~ fACAIC Vfr~+-ANHN Artm rtr-rw A SrtS O r~S w~ dh ~-7 O tD rn< ArtO e?rt7J]'O'Q O ID w ~ NIOOAGr'ICrt Qw Art ~~C l0 O K O rtrrl ~~o~'wNOO ~°9w ~G ~ fOA OHO ~ ~ IKD ~ rftw?C ~wGr.S ~ROtN+~"~C~N-w+ 7 fD !D A w? ru d l R -~' G C~ f77 Ix+~N ? d 7 m"C F+-~ dfp W ~ Krt< O R d C A 1p r~ G? ~+ r~ O fplQ W~MNWF+wJ-t1+-F+ I rt 7 1 1 N A fA r ~p I W W O C~ ()00009 ~ ~ ~~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. °~ P i •_ ' ~ _ A ~ x D ~ ~ 3~ 3 x ~ ~ _ _ Z ~~ ~ .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ ~' ~. ~~ ,. ;,- ..., ~\ ,.. ,:\ ~ ~ .~~ j ~~ " ~ ~~ 'T ~ ?~- ~ ~ n `• r ~ ~ ~, ~ ,\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~\~~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ ,~ ~ ~~~ N O ~ ~. n~ Z .. v H 3 ~~ a 3 ~. rt C ~~ Q. • • • 444410 ~ - ---- • ~ ~~ ~~ ~,~ ~~ F~~ ~~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~ r T ~_ ~. ~\,, ~,~~ ,~ 2 ~ ~~~~ a Z .~ o ~ ~. n~ s z c N 3 N O \/ 3 rt O t~ K O H C O y C 3 3 3 a nr~nn~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~F ~ ~~-~ ~~~ -~ ~~ ~ u ~~ ~~~ ;~ , ~~ \~ (~~ iC] Q '~ O ~ `c c .~ W .~ ~. tQ rt v ~~ 7 a 0 as H rt O !~ `' rt O y ~~~~~~ ~. ~ _ '' ~ ~+ ' i1.~r Q J • ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ',. ~ ~ ~, N .~ .~ ~, ~, I~ i ,~ ~~ ~\ O A m~ ~~ z ~c ~ ~. ~~? .~ A O O 3 -e H ... 3 ~i c ~~ n t~ H 3 O ,,~ rt~ s a N 3 nnnn~ ~ ,. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • nnn~14 Ciry of saratoga Community Development Department MEMORANDUM SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: .Thomas SuIlivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: March 13, 2002 _ RE: ~.oning Ordinance Review The subcommittee comprised of Chair Barry, Commissioner Jackman and I will be reviewing the foIlowing major items for conformance with the needs of the City, past practices and current policies. • The entire Building Site Approval process, including the purpose and where it is physically located in the Municipal Code. • mooning Code Section 15-55.030, Variation from standards. The committee will review the impact this code section has and make a recommendation regarding setting limits on how much variation can be granted through a Use Permit process. • Establishing an Administrative Hearing process for Administrative Design Review to ensure greater opportunity for the neighbors to gain access to the review process. • Establishing a notification process regarding Tree Removal Permit applications. The current language provides fora 10-day appeal process but does not require notification of an application. As we finish these topics we will bring recommendations to the Commission for review and guidance. • ~~ -lti._ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 16, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Attorney Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956:~(c): (1 potential case). Consideration of Liability Claims (Gov't Code 54957): Claimant: Patrick Leung Agency claimed against: City of Saratoga Conference With Legal ~ounsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey Ann Waltonsmith, "Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney " Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator • City Council Minutes 1 January 16, 2002 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 16, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 16, 2002 was properly posted on January 11, 2002. COMMUNICATION- FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Mel Rabedeau, 18631 Harleigh Drive, requested the City Council agendize Measure E. Mr. Rabedeau explained that this proposed measure would impact the residents of Saratoga. Mr. Rabedeau requested that the Council have a discussion and take a position on Measure E. Mr. Rabedeau noted that he is aware of the fact that the City has always been opposed to a stadium at West Valley College and pointed out that this bond measure has a provision for $5.5 million for a stadium. Mr. Rabedeau noted that the bond would increase the number of classes and enrollment by 40%, which in turn would increase property taxes and traffic significantly. Mr. Rabedeau stated that he feels this is a valid subject for discussion by the Council. . Jay Burke, 19960 Angus Court, noted that he has been trying since December to gather information on the lawsuit filed by West Valley College. To date he has not been very successful in obtaining any information. Mr: Burke requested that the City agendize this issue and provide the public with a status report on the lawsuit. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she would like to have a discussion to decide if the City wants to take a stand on Measure E and also provide the public with a status report regarding the lawsuit. Councihnember Mehaffey supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request. Mayor Streit directed staff to agendize Measure E at the next meeting. CEREMONIAL ITEN:S None City Council Minutes 2 January 16, 2002 • CONSENT CALENDAR lA. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 7, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2001. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSTAINING. 1B. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -DECEMBER 11, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Gouncilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 1B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Gouncilmember Waltonsmith requested that the following be added to her comment on page 2, "Gouncilmember Waltonsmith thanked her fellow colleagues for their continued support and noted that she was looking forward to supporting Mayor Streit's list of projects ". WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 C. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 19, 2001 STAFF RECOM'VIENDATION: Approve minutes. Gouncilmember Baker requested that Item 1C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Gouncilmember Baker requested that the following be added to his comment on page 10, "Vice Mayor Baker referred to several articles he recently read in Western Cities Magazine -December 2001, regarding housing and housing needs. Vice Mayor Baker suggested that his colleagues read them if they have not already done so". BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. City Council Minutes 3 January 16, 2002 1D. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 2, 2002 STAFF RECOMTy1ENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 1B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the following be added to her comments on page 8, "Councilmember Waltonsmith expressed her concern with the excessive speeding through the Village. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the Public Safety Commission investigate this issue and asked if staff has addressed Dr. Cordon's concerns". WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 2, 2002 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Vice Mayor Baker requested that staff try and submit minutes to the Council within sixty days of the meeting. lE. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1F. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2002 _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE ACTION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2002 MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 G. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept records. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 4 January 16, 2002 1H. ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING "YES ON 42" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1H be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked how this item got placed on the agenda. Mayor Streit responded that it was his request. Councilmember Bogosian stated that it is his understating that currently gas tax money goes into ~he general fund to be put anywhere the legislation wants it. Councilmember Bogosian stated that currently the City get 20% of the tax to fix streets. Councilmember Bogosian asked how the allocation process would change if Proposition 42 passed. City Manager Anderson responded that a large portion of the gasoline tax goes to transportation issues. Furthermore, City Manager Anderson stated that in recent years there have been debates on whether the money goes to streets, highways, or mass transit. Over the last four or five years most of the money has gone to transportation. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING "YES ON 42". MOTION PASSED 5-0. lI. CLAIM OF SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; CLAIM NO. GL-053408 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO REJECT CLAIM OF SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1J. FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 5 January 16, 2002 1K. CONSIDER JOINING AMICUS BRIEF IN CHAPTER COMMUNICATION V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, C99-1874 WHA (N.D. CAL.) REGARDING ATTORNEYS FEE AWARDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve request to join amicus brief. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST'TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the Public Hearings and requested to move to Item 4. Consensus of the Council to move to Item 4. OLD BUSINESS 4. CLAIM OF PATRICK LEUNG; CLAIM NO. GL-0053005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reported that on Apri130, 2001, a former assistant planner approved the submittal of a single story, 3,361 square foot dwelling to be submitted for building permits without being subjected to Administrative Design Review. The existing dwelling is 2,980 square feet on a 13,873 square foot lot. According to the Saratoga Municipal Code the proposed project needed Administrative Review. Director Sullivan noted that it was the former staff's interpretation that if a replacement house was less than 50% greater in size than the original dwelling that it was exempt from Design Review. Director Sullivan noted that he facilitated a meeting between the applicant, the designer and the concerned neighbors. Minor adjustments to the proposed dwelling were agreed to and these changers were memorialized via letters to all interested parties. The $680.00 of increased costs are not City fees, but charges Mr. Leung's architect is charging him. Director Sullivan noted on August 20, 2001 the claimant presented a claim for damages regarding his project. As a result of the demands of the City the claimant asserts he incurred additional planning and copy charges totaling $680.00. Mayor Streit asked if in most cases when a project goes through the design review process there are changes in the plans. City Council Minutes 6 January 16, 2002 Director Sullivan responded that most of the time there are changes after the design review process. Mayor Streit asked if once staff found the error was extra effort made to get this project through the process properly. Director Sullivan responded yes. Councihnember Mehaffey publicly apologized for all the problems the City has had over the past two years with errors the Planning Department has made prior to the hiring of Director Sullivan. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO REJECT CLAIM OF PATRICK LEUNG. MOTION PASSES 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO REQUIRE SOUND MITIGATION DR. JOHN OLIVER, PROPERTY OWNER 12240-12250 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; deny the appeal and uphold Resolution 91-03. Director Sullivan explained that the appellant requests that the Council rescind Resolution 91-03 adopted on January 16, 1991. Resolution 91-03 requires the construction of aneight-foot masonry wall along the rear property line between the subject commercial property and the adjoining residential district. The subject property is occupied by several businesses. Director Sullivan explained that in 1991 the Planning Director's decision to require the masonry wall at the subject commercial property was appealed to -the City Council by the property owner. The City Council upheld the decision and adopted the resolirtion. Director Sullivan explained that in 2001, the appellant approached him and requested that he review the requirement. After reviewing the project, Director Sullivan stated that he upheld the Planning Commission's decision that the sound wall is necessary to mitigate the noise generated by the businesses. Director Sullivan noted that an acoustical analysis of the noise generated by barking dogs, was performed by Edward L. Pack and Associates on November 7, 2000 and included in the staff report. The results of the acoustical analysis revealed that noise levels generated at the property exceeds the limits of the noise ordinance. To achieve compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, the following noise mitigation measure was recommended: Construct aneight-foot high acoustical-effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residences to the east. City Council Minutes '] January 16, 2002 Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Jolie Huston, Berliner Cohen, 10 Almaden Blvd. San Jose, CA, noted she represented Dr. C liver. Ms. Huston explained that her client hoped he would have settled this matter without coming before the City Council. Ms. Huston noted that her client is willing to build a wood barrier but when they submitted the proposal to the neighbor he offered a counter proposal of a fence that is more expensive than a masonry wall. Ms. Huston noted that the need for a noise bamer has been greatly reduced. Ms. Huston noted that the nuisance activity that was there 10 years ago no longer exists at the property, a masonry wall is no longer necessary. Ms. Huston noted that in the past ten years Dr. Oliver has done a lot to mitigate some of the nuisance activity at the property. Ms. Huston noted that Dr. Oliver has evicted several tenants and installed enclosed trash containers. Ms. Huston noted that her client is willing to extend the existing fence, but feels a masonry wall is overkill at this time. Vice Mayor Baker and Councihnember Waltonsmith both asked why the City Council's direction was not carried out 11 years ago. Ms. Huston responded that Dr. Oliver tried to mitigate the problems himself. Dr. John Oliver, PO Box 729, Mendocino, CA, briefly described the history of the property regarding the tenants and his noise mitigation efforts. In response to Vice Mayor Baker and Councilmember Waltonsmith's question, Dr. Oliver noted that he knew he had plans on mitigating the noise himself and felt the concrete barrier was not necessary after the sound engineers report was completed. Dr. Oliver also commented that a masonry wall was very expensive so he felt it would be cheaper to remove the problems on his property rather than build the wall. Vice Mayor Baker reiterated the fact that Dr. Oliver decided to ignore the Council's direction eleven years ago and take the matter in his own hands and not build the wall. Vice Mayor Baker asked Dr. Oliver why he did not discuss other options to abate the noise with the City Council eleven years ago instead of building a masonry wall. Dr. Oliver responded he did not remember what happened eleven years ago. Dr. Oliver noted that spending $15,000 on a masonry wall would have been a waste of money because he knew he was taking steps to eliminate the noise himself. Dr. Oliver stated that currently he has been trying to work with Mr. Mallory to build an esthetically pleasing wall, but unfortunately Mr. Mallory is insisting on a masonry wall. Mayor Streit statf d that it took Dr. Oliver 3-5 years to remove all the tenants that caused the noise problems after the Council directed the construction of the wall. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, stated his property abuts commercial property and noted that he supports masonry walls because of safety hazards and the effective noise mitigation. City Council Minutes g January 16, 2002 John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, noted that he has lived at this address since 1967 and during this time he has had many problems with Dr. Oliver's property such as: • Security problems • Large trucks • Dead trees - • Poorly maintained landscaping • Stacked material along fence, which in turn is destroying the-fence Mr. Mallory noted that Dr. Oliver is not a good neighbor and requested that the Council uphold the 1991 resolution requiring Dr. Oliver to build a masonry wall. Mr. Mallory noted that a masonry wall along the entire length of their property would match the other neighbor's walls. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, requested that the City Council uphold the 1991 resolution and require Dr. Olive to build a masonry wall. Ms. Huston noted that she contacted City staff and was only told that there have only been three complaints in the last ten years at this property. Dr. Oliver is willing to continue the existing barrier. Responding to Mr. Mallory's concerns on the security of the property, Dr. Oliver stated that there has only been one occasion when the police was called to his property for a domestic violence situation. Dr. Oliver noted that Mr. Mallory's property has never been in danger. Dr. Oliver noted that in response to the trees, he has them cut regularly. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he puts some of the blame on the City for not following up Council's decision eleven years ago. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports the construction of a concrete masonry wall. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that as she drove along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road she noticed that at Azule Crossing the barrier between the businesses and the houses was a masonry wall. Director Sullivan noted that a masonry wall is now a standard improvement with new projects, which also includes landscaping. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked what guarantee does the Council have that the wall will be built in a timely manner. Director Sullivan responded that the City's Code Enforcement Officers would make sure the wall is constructed in the agreed amount of time, if the wall does not get built it could be declared a nuisance. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. City Council Minutes 9 January 16, 2002 Councilmember Fogosian noted that he sympathizes with Dr. Oliver on the expense he has to incur, but the wall should have been built 10 years ago. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports denial of the appeal. Councilmember Bogosian requested that the City enforce the construction of the wall in a timely manner. 3 Vice Mayor Baker noted that any decision made by the City Council or the Planning Commission should not be ignored by an applicant and then try to come back ten years later and ask the Council to rescind the original resolution. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he supports denial of the appeal. Mayor Streit stated that he concurred with his colleagues and added that there are even more reasons to build a masonry wall today. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD RESOLUTION 91-03. MOTION PASSES 5-0. USE OF CITY PARKS FOR RECREATIONAL SPORTING EVENTS: DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION ORDINANCE STAFF RECOM_vIENDATION: Conduct public hearing; waive the second reading; approve ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 202 ORDINANCE OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING PARKS AND RECREATION Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that on December 19, 2001 the Council approved the first reading of the ordinance to (1) prohibit objects from being hit or thrown into public rights of way near City parks, (2) clarify the City's authority to enter into season-long agreements with AYSO, Little League Baseball, and other groups, subject to conditions imposed by the Director of Parks, and (3) make several technical "clean-up" amendments to the Code. City Attorney Taylor reminded the City Council that at the first reading the Council revised the ordinance to state that the group permit requirement applies to any "publicly advertised" assemblage rather than a "pre-advertised" assemblage. The Council also directed that the City Parks and Recreation Commission consider the ordinance. The Commission considered the ordinance at its meeting of January 7, 2002 and proposed no changes to the ordinance. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and invited any public comments. City Council Minutes 10 January 16, 2002 Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO WAIVE THE 2ND READING OF THE ORDNANCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKERBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE PARKS AND RECREATION ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED S-0. Mayor Streit declared a 5 minute break at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. NEW BUSINESS 5. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK -APPROVAL OF USER AGREEMENTS AND DISCUSSION OF USER FEES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and authorize City Manager to execute agreements. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that currently organized youth sports groups pay a lump sum User Fee of $1,500 a year for the use of Congress Springs Park. The proposal before the Council is to change the current structure into two separate fees, a maintenance fee and a use fee. Director Cherbone noted that representatives from AYSO, Saratoga Little League, and Saratoga Pony League participated in two public meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission to discuss the amount of the User Fee. Director Cherbone explained that the maintenance fee is based on the additional park maintenancE that will be needed to keep the park well maintained given the high annual use it receives, and will be reviewed on an annual basis. AYSO and Little League each have different needs and place different demands on the park's infrastructure, thus they have different maintenance fees. The fee for AYSO and Little League are $12,306 and $8, 11. The maintenance fee for Saratoga Pony League is included in the Little League's fee. Director Cherbone explained the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends a use fee for the use of the park in the amount of $15.00 per person (resident) and $25.00(non-resident). . Director Cherbone noted that staff has identified the following options: 1. Council could waive payment of both fees for Saratoga Little League and Saratoga Pony League for a period of three years in consideration of their donations to the Saratoga Youth Sport Fund. Saratoga Little League has donated $156,700 and Pony League has donated $60,000. 2. Since the Parks and Recreation Commission will be working on a comprehensive examination of all parks and Recreation fees in conjunction City Council Minutes 11 January 16, 2002 with the FY 02-03 budget, Council could revisit the use fee at that time. 3. Develop a sinking fund for each sports group based on the amount each group donated to the Saratoga Youth Sports Fund. The sinking fund would then be withdrawn annually against the amount of fees charged. Director Cherbone also noted that .staff is requesting that Council approve the two user agreements between the City of Saratoga, Saratoga Little league and Saratoga Pony League. Once the agreements are executed they would give the two groups the rights to use the park. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested clarification between what maintenance fees and use fees are. Director Cherbone explained that maintenance fees cover additional cost beyond the normal use of the park and use fees are paid to rent out a city owned facility. Director Cherbone noted that the user groups support the maintenance fee, but as far as the use fee there are still some questions on the dollar amount. The Parks and Recreation Commission have looked at the issues, held two public meetings, and are recomme~iding a $15 dollar per head use fee. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the fees collected go back into the City's General Fund unrestricted. Director Cherbone responded that the money goes back into the General Fund unrestricted, but could be restricted if directed by Council to do so. Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, 12357 Saraglen Drive, noted that Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to examine all use fees throughout the City. The Parks and Recreation Commission started with Congress Springs Park because of the need to get signed user agreements. Chair Clabeaux explained that tonight she would like to read a letter which was unanimously approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission explaining the history behind the renovation of Congress Springs Park and the process they used to come to a consensus on the use and maintenance fees. Chair Clabeaux explained that a year ago the Parks and Recreation Commission was tasked with the problem of with field quality and the safety at Congress Springs Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission-knew if something was not done at Congress Springs Park the City could face possible liability issues. After the Parks and Recreation Commission and others reviewed Congress Springs Park, it was determined that a complete renovation was needed. The Parks and Recreation Commission then committed $600,000 of Park Development funds towards the project. A Task Force was formed to address the details, which included three members from the Parks and Recreation Commission, John Cherbone, Cary Bloomquist, Nick Streit, representatives from AYSO, CYSA, Pony, Little League, -and any interested citizens. City Council Minutes 12 January 16, 2002 Chair Clabeuax sited the following facts in regards. to the steps taken to develop Congress Springs Park: _ • Ideas for the park ranged from a showcase facility only to be used on weekends or a turf overhaul. • Due to the general lack of facilities and the interest of the user groups, it was agreed the field should be able to handle high stressed use six days a week. • An agronomist was contracted to advise on the project. The recommendations from the agronomist included a specific type of turf that would be able to withstand this type of heavy usage. • This turf is not used anywhere else in the City so new equipment has to be purchased to maintain the fields. • Tennis and the basketball courts were to be moved to other facilities in order to make room for more fields. • Determined that a fulltime maintenance worker had to be hired to maintain the field and also to help police the usage. • A Landscape Architect was hired to design a park for the specific usage • Bids went out and the cost came back twice as high as the budgeted amount, approximately $2 million. • Council allocated $1.2 million of parks and general funds to the project. The remaining amount was to be funded by donations from the user groups. • A donation brochure was developed and a small number of donations were received. • After several pleas the user groups finally donated funds. Chair Clabeuax noted that Congress Springs Park is almost completed and the next task the Parks and Recreation Commission had to address was the use and maintenance fee. The Parks And Recreation Commission deliberated two issues: 1) should there be a fee at a112) what the unit of measure would be. Chair Clabeuax noted that use fees are not new to the City: Chair Clabeuax explained that if someone wants to rent any City owned facility they have to pay three fees 1) $25 processing fee, 2) $300 refundable security deposit to cover possible damage to the facility 3) a rental fee determined on the facility being rented. After reviewing all the rental fees the City charges it was determined that the average is about $1.00 an hour. Chair Clabeuax asked the question why charge a use fee. Chair Clabeuax stated that a use fee generates funds that could be used to complete the renovation according to the Master Plan, help pay for future renovations, help pay for the maintenance of the park, and replenish park development funds. Chair Clabeuax noted that use fees should be obtained from the people benefiting from the park, which is about 6% of the population. Chair Clabeuax noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to char e g a fair method that represented the amount of time and the wear and tear on the City Council Minutes '13 January 16, 2002 facility. The only unit of measurement that met this criterion was a fee per player. Chair Clabeuax stated that 40 cities were polled and half of those charged a fee. The average chazge per head was $20.00. The Pazks and Recreation Commission held two public meetings to discuss the use fee. After the second public input meeting and after a lot of deliberations the use fee. was set at $15.00 and non- resident use $25.00. Chair Clabeuax noted that the Pazks and Recreation Commission also discussed the proposed deferment of the use fees based on capital improvement donations by the user groups. Chair Clabeuax sited the specific donations made to capital improvements not for sports specific items. Chair Clabeuax noted the Parks and Recreation Commission was recommending to off set the use fees equal to the amount of the contributions donated to the City for capital improvements. Chair Clabeaux expressed that a user fee needs to be determined tonight in order to credit the user groups for money contributed. The Parks and Recreation Commission would agree with deferring the fees up to three years, but encourage the Council to set the use fee tonight. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked when all the use fees are reviewed would the Parks And Recreation Commission go back and review Congress Springs Park. Chair Clabeaux responded if Council desires them to do so they would review the fees for Congress Springs Park. Councilmember Cherbone asked what specialty equipment would need to be purchased for Congress Springs Pazk. Director Cherbone explained that specialty equipment to maintain the grass needed to be purchased,. which totaled approximately $120,000. Mayor Streit noted that Saratoga Little League donated.$156,400 and Pony contributed $60,000. Mark Linsky, President/AYSO, 14240 Bazksdale Court, noted that he struggled with the need of ~. user fee, but came to the conclusion that the fees should exist. Mr. Linsky noted that in most cities one or the other fee is chazged not both. Mr. Linsky briefly described the beliefs and practices of AYSO. Mr. Linsky stated that Sazatoga soccer provides a great service to the City and brings increased values to every homeowner in Saratoga. Mr. Linsky noted that it seems incongruous to chazge Sazatogans who use Sazatoga pazks in such a valued way that does not cost the City any more because of the maintenance fees. City. Council Minutes 14 January 16, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey stated that prior to this year, AYSO paid $1500 for approximately 1000 players, would the additional fees be passed on to the players. Mr. Linsky responded that the fees would not be passed on to the players; it is in their budget. Councihnember Mehaffey asked what the cost for a youth to participate in AYSO. Mr. Linsky responded that the registration fee is $100.00. Early registration is $50 -$75. _ Keith Simon, President/Saratoga Little League & Board member/Pony League, 20450 Montalvo Lane, noted that this agreement should have been discussed prior to the park renovations. Mr. Simon noted that Little League fees would go from $1,500 to $15,000 for the use of Congress Springs Park. Mr. Simon requested that the Council defer the fees for three years. Mr. Simon noted that lack of maintenance was one of the factors that caused the deterioration of Congress Springs Park. Mr. Simon noted that when the donations were not coming in as strong as they hoped Pony and Little League stepped up and donated $220,000. Mr. Simon personally thanked Director John Cherbone for all his help during this project. Mr. Simon requested that the City Council consider deferment of the fees for three years. Mr. Simon commented that their registration is down this year from 470 to 420. Tony Marsh, 13676 Bonnie Way., noted that he has lived in Saratoga for 23 years, has four kids, and have all participated in organized sports. Mr. Marsh noted that he feels City parks are the greatest benefits we have as a community. Mr. Marsh noted that he doe:; not support charging a fee to use City parks. Tom Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, noted that his concern is the ongoing maintenance of Congress Springs Park. Mr. Soukup stated that it is his understanding that the annual maintenance for this park is going to be roughly $100,000. Mr. Soukup pointed out that he doesn't feel the maintenance fee is high enough to cover costs and requested that the Council restrict the funds to be spent only on Congress Springs Park. Mayor Streit asked if the Council decides to waive the fees for three years is it necessary to set the use fee tonight. Director Cherbone responded that the fees would not matter if the Council does not base the deferral on a specific number or a sinking fund. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that there has been a good discussiori on this item and appreciated the interested parties for coming to tonight's meeting. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that Congress Springs Park is not a general use park; it was designed for specific uses. Councilmember Mehhffey noted that he supports the maintenance fee and suggested the user fee be $10.00 and the money received be restri:;ted to provide amenities for Congress Springs Park and not be put back into the General Fund. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports City Council Minutes 15 January 16, 2002 waiving the use fees for three years for the groups who contributed money to the park, but noted that the maintenance fee should be charged from the beginning. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Mehaffey that Congress Springs Park is a specialty use park. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she feels $15.00 is a reasonable use fee. Councilmember Bogosian noted that Congress Springs Park is for a specific use. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he agrees with the speaker who stated that organized sports benefit the community. ~ _ Councilmember Bogosian noted that he thinks the $15.00 user fee could be negotiated downward and stated he supports deferring the user fees for three years, implement the maintenance fee from the beginning and restrict the money for uses only for uses for Congress Springs Park Vice Mayor Baker noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission has worked diligently to give the Council their best recommendation for a user fee of $15 and noted that he supports their recommendation. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he also supports defemng payment of the user fee for three years based on the contributions made by AYSO, Pony League, and Saratoga Little League. Vice Mayor Baker concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith's suggestion that the Parks and Recreation Commission revisit the fees set for Congress Springs Park after they have completed their review of all the City use fees. Mayor Streit noted that he does not agree that the user fee should be set tonight if the City waives the fee for three years. Mayor Streit noted that the fee should be set after the Parks and Recreation Commission has completed their study. Mayor Streit commented that both the user and the maintenance fees should be waived for three years because of the substantial funds these three major user groups have donated. Mayor Streit noted that although a lot of money was spent for specialty uses but he disagrees that it is a specialty park because of the great picnic areas, flat grass, and all the other added amenities. Councilmember Mehaffey commented that he agrees wit Mayor Streit that setting the price for the use fee should be postponed until after the Parks and Recreation Commission completed their study. Councilmember Mehaffey made the motion to approve the maintenance fee and waive any use fees for three years and direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to come up with a unified fee structure for Saratoga. Vice Mayor Baker noted he-could support that motion. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that they cannot support Councilmember Mehaffey's motion because they feel that the use fee should be set tonight. City Council Minutes 1C January 16, 2002 City Attorney Taylor noted that tonight the only issues Council can vote on is the maintenance fee and the use fee for the agreements before them tonight, not for along-term fee schedule. City Attorney Taylor explained that if the City Council decides to waive either the maintenance or use fee, Section 4 of the proposed agreement should read as follows " In recognition of donations that have been made, no maintenance or use fee be charge for the duration of the agreement"..City Attorney Taylor noted that adding this statement makes it clear that there are such fees, but are not charged this year. A discussion took place amongst the City Council in regards to expiration date for the contract. City Attorney Taylor noted that for planning purposes it would help the user groups if the use fee were set tonight so they can plan their budgets. Councilmember Mehaffey withdrew his previous motion. Mayor Streit noted that he strongly supports waiving both fees for three years and also execute the contracts for three years. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he could support athree-year agreement but disagrees with waiving the maintenance fee. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the donations that have been collected have been spent on amenities for the three user groups, public funds should not be going to the maintenance of this park, the user groups should be paying for it. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Council should accept the agreements with the proviso that the maintenance fee is charged, execute the agreement for three years, accept the user fee at $15, and waive the use fee for three years. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith and strongly stated that he is not willing to drop the maintenance fees. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE USER AGREEMENTS WITH PONY LEAGUE AND SARATOGA LITTLE LEAGUE FOR THREE YEARS, APPROVE THE MAINTENANCE AND USER FEES RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, WAIVE THE USER FEE FOR THREE YEARS AND DIRECT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO REEXAMINE THE FEE WHEN THEY HAVE C OMPLETED THEIR STUDY ON ALL CITYWIDE USE FEES. MOTIOIJ PASSED 4-1 WITH STREIT OPPOSING. City Council Minutes 1'7 January 16, 2002 6. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES WITH MPA DESIGN IN CONNECTION WITH THE AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist reported that Request for Proposals were sent out in November to landscape architects for professional planning and design services for the development of Azule Park. Interviews of the five qualified firms were held on January 2, 2002. Analyst Bloomquist noted that MAP Design and Amphion, Inc. were the top candidates. Analyst Bloomquist reported that after references were checked and after speaking to each firms' Principal, MPA Design was clearly more motivated to take on the project and made an unsolicited offer to reduce their fees by $5,000.00. Staff then asked if they would lower their offer by an additional $8,700.00 for a final cost proposal of $67,000. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed MPA Design's proposal and chose them as the top candidate for the Azule Park Improvement Project. Thomas Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, encouraged Council to move forward with this contract. Mr. Soukup noted that he and his wife had the opportunity to review the material provided by MPA Design and after reviewing the documents were quite impressed with them. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES WITH MPA DESIGN IN CONNECTION WITH THE AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED $69,500. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING A STUDY TO CREATE A SINGLE STORY ZONING OVERLAY REQUIREMENT FOR THE BROOKVIEW AND SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOODS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-003 & 02-004 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA City Council Minutes 18 January 16, 2002 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan reminded the City Council that last spring the Planning _ Commission considered an application to allow a second story addition to a dwelling in the Brookview neighborhood. This application was granted by the Planning Commission and then appealed to the City Council. The City Council overturned the Planning Commission's approval. The appeal process brought out large numbers of property owners of the area. Staff has had discussions with the neighbors who filed the appeal with regards to how to change the zoning so that - they did not need to be so vigilant. The concept of a single story overlay restriction was suggested. Director Sullivan noted that Vice Mayor Baker has also discussed this issue with staff. Through those discussions it was determined that this has been an ongoing issue in both the Brookview and Saratoga Woods neighborhoods. Director Sullivan explained that both of these neighborhoods are predominately single story dwellings. Staff has attached copies of maps indicating where two story structures exist to the proposed resolutions. The maps distinguish between original construction and newer additions. The Brookview neighborhood had three original 2-story dwellings and has had 13, second story additions constructed over the years. There are a total of 323 dwellings in the Brookview neighborhood. In Saratoga Woods, there were 26, original 2-story homes, this includes three that finished attics aLove the garages. In Saratoga Woods, there have been seven- second story additions. There are 394 dwellings in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood. Director Sullivan added that during the appeal hearing of the Polumbo's proposed second story addition at 19208 Brookview Drive there was .overwhelming sentiment to overturn the approval of the project. A poll needs to be taken to determine what the level of support there is to have the City adopt regulations restricting the neighborhoods to single stories. Staff suggests the use of mail-in post cards with a simple explanation of what is involved and an opportunity to vote, yea or nay.. Unless there is substantial property owner support, it might not be wise to move forward with such a restriction. Director Sullivan stated that the existing two story dwellings should be specifically exempted from any provision limiting the area to single stories so as not to create non-conforming structures. This should also be explained in the information regarding the poll. Councilmember Bogosian asked Director Sullivan if he has ever seen this kind of request in his carper. Director Sullivan responded that in a past position he has prepared a zoning overlay that prescribed the exact height per lot so that the surrounding neighbors' views of the ocean were not blocked. City Council Minutes 19 January 16, 2002 Councihnember Bogosian asked if this is a change in the General Plan. Director Sullivan explained to the Council this would be a zoning overlay that restricts the height to single story in those prescribed neighborhoods. Councilmember Bogosian asked Director. Sullivan if a person bought a home in these particular neighborhoods with the hope of someday adding a second story and if this overlay passes, that property owner would not be allowed to do so. Director Sullivan explained the homeowner would be limited to a single story addition unless a future Council rescinds the resolution. Director Sullivan noted that this is why a poll of the neighborhood is extremely important. Councilmember Bogosian asked who was going to write the poll. Director Sullivan responded that he would be writing the poll explaining the proposed overlay. Director Sullivan noted that this is the only way the City Council would find out what homeowners want. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that Lolly Drive is predominately atwo-story neighborhood and suggested excluding this particular area from the overlay. Director Sullivan noted that it is his understanding that this subdivision was one of the last one constructed by J. Lohr and annexed into the neighborhood. Director Sullivan added that Council has the authority to direct staff to leave this area out. Vice Mayor Baker explained the history behind that particular area that Councilmember Mehaffey referred to. Vice Mayor Baker noted that there are 14 two-story homes out of 36 homes in the subdivision built by J. Lohr. None of the two-story homes back up against the original Saratoga Woods track. Vice Mayor Baker noted that there are five two-story homes out of 12 on Lolly Court, which is the most recent subdivision, built by Pinn Brothers. Pinn Brothers negotiated with the Saratoga Woods Homeowriers Association on how many homes could be two- story. Vice Mayer Baker noted that there are a total of 394 homes in Saratoga Woods track which includes five original two-story homes, 14 two-story homes that were added in the J. Lohr track, five two-story homes added by Pinn Brothers, and seven remodels. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would rather leave those areas in the poll. Their response card would tell the City if they are interested or not. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would not recommend excluding those areas from the proposed overlay. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he believes there are six sets of CCR's in the Saratoga Woods neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he has never seen CCR's for the J. Lohr and Pinn Brothers subdivisions. All of the CCR's call for single story, ranch- style homes. City.Council Minutes 20 January 16, 2002 Mayor Streit asked if these overlays go forward and family needs change could the City consider relaxing the square footage covered on the first floor and rear setbacks. Director Sullivan noted that square footage coverage is somewhat relaxed already compared to some other areas in the City. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he is uncorr~fortable including the J. Lohr and Pinn Brothers subdivision in the poll. Other than that he is for the overlay. Steven Blanton, 345 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, noted that he represented the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors and offered his assistance in this proposed overlay. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INITIATING A STUDY TO CREATE A SINGLE STORY ZONING OVERLAY REQUIREMENT FOR THE BROOKVIEW AND SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INITIATING A STUDY TO CREATE A SINGLE STORY ZONING OVERLAY REQUIREMENT FOR THE SARATOGA WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin explained that on October 4, 2001 Council created an Economic Development Coordinator position in order to facilitate economic revitalization efforts in the City of Saratoga. In May 2001, Coordinator Surdin noted she was hired. Coordinator Surdin noted that in the last six months staff has been focusing economic efforts on business retention and promotion, developing personal relationships within the business community, and has been developing marketing materials to create basic promotional material. Coordinator Surdin explained that the Village Lighting project has been completed, the Village Streetscape Improvements are ready to present to the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC), and staff has been working with consultants on the Gateway Taskforce. At the request of the City Council, Coordinator Surdin noted that staff is presenting options for future economic development efforts and outlining the roles and function of several local economic development organizations to accomplish City Council Minutes 21 January 16, 2002 these tasks. Staff has provided Council a variety of economic development options under the three categories of new business attraction, local business retention, and promotion. Coordinator Surdin briefly presented options and strategies for new business amaction such as working with commercial real estate brokers and commercial builders to attract desirable businesses to the community and form a new business incentive program. Coordinator Surdin briefly presented options and strategies for local business retention such as disseminating information and alerting business to businesses assistance programs and creating a quarterly business newsletter highlighting marketing tips, sale techniques and other business related activities. Coordinator Surdin briefly presented promotional options and strategies for local businesses. She noted that through effective marketing materials, advertising, and special events the City could help make residents familiar with what our business community has to offer. Coordinator Surdin described various promotional ideas such as: Marketing portfolio Website tour of Saratoga Special events to draw residents into the commercial district Coordinator Surdin explained that the Economic Development program should focus and build civic-minded broad-based relationships with the local community's key players such as the Chamber of Commerce, West Valley College and the Saratoga Business Development Council. Councilmember Bogosian commended Coordinator Surdin on a great presentation. Councilmember Bogosian commented on new business attraction and asked if using tax revenues would be a good indication if the City was successful in attracting new businesses. Coordinator Surdin responded that in the cities she has worked before, tax revenues were usually the first and foremost tool to judge the success of new business attraction. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Bogosian on the presentation and noted that she supported Coordinator Surdin's efforts in getting to know the business groups and supports the business retention and promotional options. In regards to business attraction, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City has to look at this very judicially if the city goes after targeted businesses amaction. Councilmember Waltonsmith reminded Council Patrick James has worked only because it was a destination business, known outside of Saratoga, and because of the contract they had with the city, we were guaranteed to get our money back. City Council Minutes 22 January 16, 2002 Coordinator Surdin noted that brokers are her best contacts; it is in their best interest to work with the cities. Vice Mayor Baker stated that Saratoga has many real estate offices, which pay no sales tax. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that Coordinator Surdin pinpoint her efforts on the areas where she could make the biggest difference. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that business attraction, retention, and promotion are all important but maybe not to the extent that is listed in the staff report. Coordinator Surdin responded that with Council direction she could come back with a proposal. Councihnember Bogosian concurred with Councilmember Mehaffey and added that he supports business attraction and suggested Coordinator Surdin identify the most effective use and role of the various key members in the community and suggested that their roles be clearly defined. Mayor Streit noted that he thinks Saratoga needs a better mix of businesses and not concentrate on how much sales tax a business could provide to the City. Mayor Streit stated that the City of Saratoga has several great assets to offer a visitor such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo and suggested that package tours might be away to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Councilmember Bogosian noted that the City cannot rely on the promotion of the existing businesses; the City has to consider bringing in new businesses and possibly a franchise as long as it fits the character of Saratoga. City Manager Anderson noted that the sales tax is relatively flat and TOT is down $100,000. City Manager Anderson noted that the hotel occupancy is down from 80% to 40%. City Manager Anderson noted that Coordinator Surdin could work with the travel agents to promote Saratoga as a destination city utilizing the City's spas, music venues, restaurants and hotels. 9. COMMISSION ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer explained that the City of Saratoga has never memorialized by resolution or by policy establishing eligibility requirements for the City's Commissions and/or Committees. City Clerk Boyer explained that in the past the City has requested that an applicant be a resident of the City of Saratoga and at least 18 years old. The exception to the age requirement has been the Youth Commission and the exception to residency City Council Minutes 23 January 16, 2002 requirement has been that one member_ of the Library Commission is allowed to be from Monte Sereno. City Clerk Boyer noted that staff conducted a statewide survey requesting information regarding commission and committee eligibility requirements. Upon reviewing the information, staff has concluded that the following requirements were the most consistent requirements amongst the cities that responded to the request. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he strongly supports all of the recommendations listed in the staff report. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would support a policy allowing Council to remove a commissioner if that person does not fulfill their obligation either by participation or attendance. Councilmember Bogosian noted he supports the requirements of being a registered voter and a resident of the City. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not support the limitation of the number of commissions a person may serve on. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports the requirement of being a registered voter. City Attorney Taylor noted that Council's direction tonight gives the City an opportunity to update the City's Municipal Code and bring this item back as an ordinance which can include eligibility and rules of procedure so all the commissions are operating under the same set of rules. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Council liaison rules also be addressed sometime in the future. Councilmember Bogosian noted that are no guidelines on how Councilmembers interact with the commissions Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to include the following requirements in a Commission eligibility requirements policy: • Register voter • Resident ~f the City of Saratoga • Applicant must attend a commission meeting prior to participation of the interview process COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Mehaffey had no reportable information. Mayor Streit had no reportable information. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he attended his first Finance Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Baker reported that the Commission is working on developing Mission Objections and reviewing the Mid Year Budget. City .Council Minutes 24 January 16, 2002 J Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission was preparing for the Mustard Walk scheduled for February 10, 2002. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted the Arts Commission would hold its first meeting in February 2002. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff prepare a summary of progress of the Construction Noise Ordinance that was passed last year. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that the projection screen be elevated higher so everyone could see it better. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Mayor Streit adjourned .he meeting at 11:4$ p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Minutes 25 January 16, 2002 Fl NIINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 20, 2002 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: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Baker reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Vice Mayor Baker stated that at the conclusion of the Open Session the Council would reconvene in Closed Session in the Administration Conference Room. Vice Mayor Baker called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker ABSENT: Councilmember John Mehaffey, Mayor Nick Streit ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 20, 2002 was properly posted on February 15, 2002. Vice Mayor Baker announced for the viewing audience and anyone present tonight that there are two upcoming community meetings scheduled. First, on February 21,2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Adult Day Care Center, Senator Byron Sher would be discussing issues that are before the State Senate that concern the City of Saratoga and surrounding sister cities. City Council Minutes j February 20, 2002 ~: 5 Also, on February 26, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Theater, Mike Evanhoe from the Valley Transportation Authority would be discussing the Highway 85 Noise Mitigation Report. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF ART COMMISSION MEMBERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Administer Oath of Office TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-012 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE ARTS COMMISSION BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING SYLVIA WOHLMUT AND TRACY HALGREN TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION PASSES 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT. Vive Mayor Baker invited Sylvia Wohlmut to come forward and directed the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Sylvia Wohlmut. Tracy Halgren was not present at the meeting. City. Council Minutes 2 February 20, 2002 ~; 1B. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-011 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING THOMAS EDEL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSES 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT. Vive Mayor Baker invited Thomas Edel to come forward and directed the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. Cathleen Boyer, ~~ity Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Thomas Edel. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT AI35r;N'1'. 2B. JANUARY FINANCIAL REPORTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT JANUARY FINANCIAL REPORTS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT. 2C. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. City Council Minutes 3 February 20, 2002 WALTONSMITHBOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE ACTION ' MINUTES FROM JANUARY 23, 2002. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT. 2D. CLAIM OF LAVINA LING; CLAIM NO. GL-052984 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize ABAG to settle claim. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED. TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT WITH LAVINA LING CLAIM NO. GL-052984. MOTION PASSED 3-0=2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT. 2E. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK IMPROVEMENTS -FINAL ACCEPTANCE/NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND DONATION UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Notice of Completion. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that item 2E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmerrtber Waltonsmith asked who approved the $90,400 listed purchases of amenities for Congress Springs Park. Director Cherbone responded that the City Council approved the amenity list that was in the donation brochure a few months ago. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT FINAL ACCEPTANCE /NOTICE OF C~JMPLETION AND DONATION UPDATE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT 2F. CONSIDER REQUEST TO JOIN FRIENDS OF THE COURT BRIEF IN OAK CREEK ESTATES V. TOWN OF PARADISE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize request. Vice Mayor Baker requested that item 2F be pulled from the Consent Calendar Vice Mayor Baker stated that he felt the actions of the court were unprecedented. The court made the City take action to overturn their municipal code. City Attorney explained that Oak Creek Estates concerns the Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act and the circumstances under which a tentative subdivision map maybe "deemed approved" under the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The PSA provides that under certain circumstances a development project maybe "deemed approved" if the local government fails to act on the City Council Minutes 4 February 20, 2002 project within a specified period of time. In this case, City Attorney Taylor explained that the development project in question required a general plan amendment for approval and went through a lengthy review process including a number of changes proposed by the applicant. The Town Council ultimately approved an 82 lot subdivision. Following the approval the developer sued the Town, claiming that the project had been "deemed approved" as a 177 lot subdivision three years earlier. The Superior Court ruled that the City was obligated to accept and record a final subdivision map creating the 1771ot subdivision. The Superior Court denied on procedural grounds Oak Creek's claims that the approval of an 82 lot subdivision constitutes a taking. Both Oak Creek and the Town have appealed. Councihnember Bogosian noted that he supported the amicus participation in this case. Councihnember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Bogosian. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE REQUEST TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF IN OAK CREEK ESTATES V. TOWN OF PARADISE. MnTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSENT. Vice Mayor Baker requested that the City Council move to Item 5 Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 5. NEW BUSINESS 5. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES GRASSROOTS COORDINATOR NETWORK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Rebecca Elliot, Regional Representative, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to speak before them tonight. Ms Elliot noted that she would give a brief background on the League of California Cities and her role as the City's representative. Ms. Elliot explained that the League is an association of 476 California city officials who work together to influence policy decisions at all levels, exchange information and combine resources. The League's main goals are to keep local dollars local and protect local power. Ms. Elliot explained that the League accomplishes their goals by helping local cities in the following ways: legislative advocacy, legal advocacy, training and education, information resources, and special reports and publications. Ms. Elliot noted that a year ago the League created the Grassroots Network to build relations with local officials, business groups and the media and to focus on major issues of the member cities. City Council Minutes 5 February 20, 2002 Ms. Elliot noted that she was the Government Affairs Director for the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors in which she actively participated in a wide variety of professional and public officials dealing with their concerns with local and state issues. Ms. Elliot noted that she also worked as an intern for former Congressman and current U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Ms. Elliot explained that she serves as a Director of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and is a member of the Santa Clara County's Housing Leadership Council. Ms. Elliot noted that she would be providing periodic status reports and encouraged the City Council to keep in contact with her. Councilmember Bogosian welcomed Ms. Elliot to the City of Saratoga and noted that this was a tremendous step for legislative advocacy for California cities. Councilmember Waltonsmith welcomed Ms. Elliot. Vice Mayor Baker thanked Ms. Elliot for coming tonight and apologized that she was not able to speak at the meeting on February 6, 2002. Vice Mayor Baker encouraged Ms. Elliot to be a regular attendee at Board of Directors meetings of the Santa Clara County Cities Association PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE ADOPTING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY COMMISSIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; waive first reading. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at the City Council meeting of January 16, 2002 the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance establishing qualifications for membership on City commissions. The attached ordinance would require that commission members (1) be Saratoga residents, (2) be registered to vote in Saratoga, (3) attend at least one commission meeting prior to being interviewed for a position on that commission, (4) not be a Saratoga employee or hold any public elective office. The attached ordinance would also establish uniform rules applicable to all commissions for attendance, removal of commissioners, filling vacancies, and holding and conducting meetings. • City Attorney Taylor briefly explained each of the following topics in the proposed code section as follows: • The "Qualifications" section of the new ordinance establishes the eligibility requirements discussed above. This section allows the Council to make case-by-case exceptions for given Commissions or Commission positions Ciry Council Minutes 6 February 20, 2002 such as the Youth Commission (which does not apply the voter registration requirement) and the Library Commission (which allows a Monte Sereno member). This section further provides that a Commissioner's seat automatically becomes vacant if the Commissioner ceases to satisfy the membership requirements at any point during the term. Commissioners are responsible for reporting all address changes to the City Clerk. The "Term" section establishes a standard term of four years. In addition, this section establishes term limits for Commissioners such that no Commissioner can serve more than two full consecutive terms. This is consistent with the term limits resolution adopted by the Council in March 2001. The ordinance clarifies the resolution by stating that Commissioners maybe reappointed to a Commission after two full terms if there is a one- year hiatus between the two temis and the reappointment. If the Council wishes, this requirement could be revised to establish a longer or shorter hiatus. • The "Attendance" section includes a provision that would automatically remove a Commissioner who is absent without permission from all regular commission meetings for 60 days from the last meeting attended. This provision is based on the attendance requirement imposed on City Council members ny state law. The language is included to provide Council with an opportunity to address the manner in which it wishes to promote attendance. As an alternative to the automatic disqualification required by subsection (b), the Council may wish to simply address attendance issues on a case-by-case basis. The next section of the ordinance (2-12.13, "Removal") makes clear that the Council may remove a Commissioner at any time. This would allow removal of Commissioners for non-attendance and any other reason. Alternatively, the Council may wish to revise subsection (b) to require automatic removal after 90 or 120 days rather than 60 days. The "Removal" section allows the Council to remove any Commissioner at any time. The section requires the affirmative votes of three council members for removal regardless of the total number of members voting. • The "Vacancies" section of the ordinance establishes procedures for filling vacancies on commissions. Consistent with past practice this section makes clear that appointments to fill vacancies are for the remainder of the term only. This section also requires special posting of vacancy announce- nent for unscheduled vacancies in accordance with state law. • City Council Minutes '7 February 20, 2002 ~ The "Meetings" and "Rules of Procedure" sections of the ordinance simply establishes common rules for Commission meetings. The rules of procedure are based on the rules followed by the City Council. This will provide guidance to Commissions as to the proper manner in which meetings should be administered. The Rules of Procedure section does not apply to the Planning Commission because the City Code already establishes clear rules for that Commission. Councilmember Bogosian asked if any provisions were added to the code on 1) how the Commission selects a chair and 2) prohibiting a person from serving on more that one commission or committee. City Attorney Taylor responded that he did not address either of those issues, but noted if the City Council desires to address these issues tonight the proposed ordinance could be amended. Vice Mayor Baker opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and invited any public comments. Vice Mayor Baker closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked for direction on how the Council should proceed. City Attorney explained that this is the first reading. City Attorney Taylor stated that tonight the Council should make any proposed amendments, move that the ordinance be introduced as amended and the first reading be waived. The ordinance will come back at a second meeting for adoption and if there are any changes at that time the whole process would have to start all over again. Councilmember Bogosian proposed that a provision be added to the ordinance that prohibits a person form serving on more than one commission or committee. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would support adding a provision limiting membership to a single commission. A discussion took place on how long a commission or committee member should have to wait to reapply for a commission after they have served their two terms. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he could support a 2-year hiatus. Councilmember Bogosian and Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that they support aone-year hiatus. Consensus of the City Council that one-year is sufficient between an expired term and a new appointment. City Council Minutes $ February 20, 2002 Council requested clarification on how a commissioner is removed from a commission for excessive absences. City Attorney Taylor explained in the proposed ordinance a commissioner would automatically be removed if absent without permission from all regular commission meetings for 60 days from the last meeting. In regards to attendance, Vice Mayor Baker noted that most commissions do not meet more than once a month; he noted that 60 days does not seem appropriate. Although commissioners are volunteers, Councilmember Bogosian stated commissioners should know what is expected of them. Councilmember Bogosian noted that 90 days seems more reasonable. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated she does not agree with 60 or 90 days. Councihember Waltonsmith noted that she would rather set a specific number of unexcused meetings missed. Also, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she believes in education and stated that the Commissioner should be counseled on their attendance before they are removed. City Attorney Ta~ ~lor responded that the attendance section of the proposed ordinance could l;e amended to state if a commissioner misses three consecutive unexcused absences they are automatically removed and after the second the City staff liaison could write them a letter reminding them of the consequences if they miss one more meeting. Vice Mayor Baker noted that Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council, so the Council has the right to remove the Commissioner if they do not fulfill their commitment. Vice Mayor Baker noted and does not support Councilmember Waltonsmith's suggestion of "counseling". In regards to the requirement of the required attendance of a commission meeting, Councilmember Bogosian suggested that a verification of attendance be attached to their application prior to the interview. In regards to the section of the chair of commissioners, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that a rotating chair every year is very important. Consensus of the City Council to add a provision in the selection of a chair on a rotating basis. City Attorney Taylor asked for a specific definition of "rotation" Vice Mayor Baker suggested that an annual rotation of the chair not to repeat .itself within a four year term. Vice Mayor Baker reiterated consensus of the City Council to direct staff to amend the ordnance be amended as follows: City Council Minutes 9 February 20, 2002 • Commissioners be limited to sitting on one commission at a time • Automatic removal of a Commissioner if they have three consecutive unexcused absences of regular meetings • Warning letter sent by the staff liaison after the second consecutive unexcused absence • The Chair of the commission rotate each year with no repeat during a four year term WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPT ORDINANCE AS AMENDED TO RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 6, 2002 FOR A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION PASSES 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSEN'T'. OLD BUSINESS 4. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY ARBORIST SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Director Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that last fall staff brought a report to Council requesting an amendment to the City's contracted arborist for greater compensation. Council directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposal for arborist services and return at a later date. Director Sullivan stated that the City received five proposals in response to mailing out 21 Request for Proposals. Of the five received, three were considered worthy of inviting the firm to be interviewed. Director Sullivan noted that the three firms were: • Barrie D Coates and Associates • David Babby of Arbor Resources • .Deborah Ellis, MS Director Sullivan noted that this morning Mr. Coates called and withdrew his proposal, but recommended the City consider the services of Mr. Babby. Director Sullivan noted that Mr. Coates stated that whenever the City needs his services on a single project or to write opinion letters he would always be available. At this point the City can move forward with Mr. Coates' recommendation and form an interview committee. Councilmember Bogosian asked to what extent was the advertising and why were two firms eliminated. Director Sullivan responded that staff sent out 21 Request for Proposals and advertised in the San Jose Mercury News and the two firms that were eliminated was due to their limited experience and the quality of their proposal. City Council Minutes 10 February 20, 2002 Councihnember Bogosian asked if staff advertised in any arborist journals. Director Sullivan responded no. Councihnember Bogosian noted that he is uncomfortable with just two candidates and stated that staff should continue the search. Vice Mayor Baker concurred with Councilmember Bogosian and suggested that a committee be formed to conduct the interviews. City Manager Anderson suggested that staff could go back through the list of firms and contact them and ask why they did not submit a proposal. Perhaps knowing that Mr. Coates is no longer in the running. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that staff should contain the search locally. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to consult with Mr. Coates, contact the firms previously solicited, solicit local arborist, and come back to Council at a future date. NEW BUSINESS 4. REVIEW OF L1t'rGISLATIVE CONSULTANT CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained that at the meeting of January 8, 2002, the City Council directed staff to review the City's legislative consulting contract with Anthony Gonsalves & Sons. City Manager Anderson stated that the City contracted with Gonsalves & Sons on Apri14, 2000 to provide services in the areas of legislative advocacy and governmental affairs. Gonsalves helped the City with special legislation of SB 1883 and AB 613. City Manager Anderson stated that the City renewed the contract with Gonsalves in December 2000 and added that the City's experience with Gonsalves has been positive, supportive, and professional. Councilmember Bogosian asked how much does the City pay Gonsalves & Sons. City Manager Anderson responded $3,000 a month. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that she has noticed that their reports have changed. City Council Minutes 11 February 20, 2002 City Manager Anderson explained that the legislation is slow and so the reports are standard legislative monitoring. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the League of California Cities formed the Grassroots Network because small cities cannot afford to pay a lobbyist. Vice Mayor Baker reminded his colleagues that when the City first discussed hiring Gonsalves & Sons, the City Council wanted to hire the firm on a case-by- case basis and Mr. Gonsalves said no. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that this item be continued when there was a full Council. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports terminating the contract and using the $36,000 on other projects such as a skateboard park or Warner Hutton House renovations. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he could support continuing this item before a full Council. Vice Mayor Baker concurred to continue this item. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to contact Rebecca Elliot and discuss with her what she can and cannot do in regards to legislative advocacy for the city of Saratoga. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Arts and the Library Commission would not meet until next week. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: • Library Expansion Committee -reported that Phase I is closing out and Phase II is starting on the Library Renovation Project. Projected grand opening is February 28, -2003. • Heritage preservation Commission -met at the Historic Museum located on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The Commission was given a tour of the museum and a brief explanation of the proposed remodel. Next meeting will discuss the proposed design of the kiosk. Vice Mayor Baker reported the following information: • Parks and Recreation Commission -working on the task of planning the review of all City use fees. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith asked for an explanation of the section of the agenda titled "Communications from Boards and Commissions". City Council Minutes 12 February 20, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian stated that since the City's commissions have a Council liaison that reports their activities, this section is rarely used. Vice Mayor Baker added that this gives the Commissions the opportunity to make a report to Council, since they do not have the authority to place items on the City Council agenda. Councilmember Bogosian requested an alternate Councilmember to attend the next meeting of the Cities Association Task Force on February 28, 2002. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded that she could attend the meeting on February 28, 2002. Vice Mayor Baker referred to a letter he received from Mayor Ron Gonzales of the City of San Jose inviting the City of Saratoga to participate in a new discussion group with Monterey Bay Area Government. Vice Mayor Baker requested a staff report on the background of this group. Referring to a recent article in the League's Primary Focus, Vice Mayor Baker requested a staff report in regards to SB709. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson announced that the City of Saratoga has been recently written up in Sunset Magazine. City Manager Anderson noted that he hopes this would boost tourism this summer. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Baker noted at 8:45 p.m. that the Saratoga City Council would reconvene in the Administrative Conference Room to continue Closed Session discussions. Vice Mayor Baker Adjourned the Closed Session at 9:40 p.m. with immediate adjournment of the Open Meeting thereafter. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Minutes 13 February 20, 2002