Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-2002 Planning Commission Packet• r~ L CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: PLACE: TYPE: Tuesday, Apri19, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. City Hall Parking Lot,13777 Fruitvale Avenue Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA I. DR-OI-02I, BSA-Ol-002 - HUSTED Item 1 ~ V-O1-012 Kittridge Road 2. Application #02-049 - BUSH Item 2 18627 Ambleside Lane LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site , ~~isit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: 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 March 27, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member o f the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda ?'he law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 4, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish 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. DR-O1-021, BSA-Ol-002 Est V-O1-012 (517-14-080) - HUSTED, Kittridge 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 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) 2. Application #02-049 (397-06-069) -BUSH, 18627 Ambleside Lane; -Request for Design Review and Variance Approval to replace a detached garage, which was destroyed by fire. A setback variance is requested to replace the 13 foot high, Ei93 square foot garage within the rear and side yard setbacks. The garage is to be located v~rithin 10 feet of the rear and side yard boundaries, which is nonconforming since r_he required setbacks are 20 feet for the side yard and 50 feet for the rear yard. The property is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS NEW BUSINESS Discussion and direction regarding the polling results for single-story overlay in the SaratogaWoods and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • Ordinance Re~~iew -Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee v~~ill address. (SULLIVAN) (Continued from April 10, 2002) COMMUNICATIONS Written - Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of February 6, 2002 and March 6, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - .Wednesday, Apri124, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers%Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us; .f • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Arm Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of March 13, 2002. ~gQ~~ Motion: .Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the regular Planning Commission minutes of March 13, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 22, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Associate Planner John Livingstone 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 March 27, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO 1 GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028): - To approve the Resolution which found the Garrod Farm project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning commission approved Consent Calendar Item No. 1, approving the Resolution finding the Garrod ~ Farm project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S Application #02-047 (517-19-040) SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road: Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove a provision in the resolution for DR-99-006, which permitted construction of their new home. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on their property, parallel to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, be omitted from the resolution approving the home, which is now built. (WELSH) Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02-047 to a date uncertain. This item will be re-advertised anti re-noticed. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi _ - NOES: - None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Application #02-025 (386-O1-008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purposes of teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. The building contains 2,500 square feet and is zoned CV-Commercial. The lot is 18,590 square feet ;end the property has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for 20444 Prospect Road, within a CV-Commercial zoning district. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 3 • Described the parcel as a 18,590 square foot parcel with a 2,500 square foot building. Of that building; 1,000 square feet is occupied by a medical practice. The applicant proposes to occupy the remaining 1,500 square feet for an educational center offering tutoring, teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. _ • Said that the applicant proposes operating-three classes at a time with 10 students per class. The students range in age from five to twelve years in age. There would be three employees. Operational hours would be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through_ Friday. Typically, classes would run two hours, most of which occur after traditional school hours. In the summer, earlier classes would be held • Added that there are 12 parking spaces provided on site. The medical practice requires five spaces, leaving seven for.this proposed educational center. The parking requirement for institutional uses is one space per instructor. • Advised that staff does not believe that the parking available is sufficient to support this proposed use, however, it may be possible to restripe more parking spaces on site with the removal of sheds. Another option might be to reduce the allowable number of students, perhaps two classes with eight students. Additionally, staggered class start times (perhaps by half an hour) would also be a means of dealing with the traffic for the drop off of students. Commissioner Kurasch sought further clarification as to what staff modifications to the proposal staff is recommending to deal with the parking shortfall. Planner Ann Welsh replied that based upon concerns raised by the Commissioners at the site visit, staff is suggesting a reduction in the number of students. Commissioner Roupe said that a periodic review, much like was recently conditioned for the orthodontic practice, would be a means of assuring adequacy of parking. Planner Ann Welsh pointed out Condition of Approval 2. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Commission can add to its motion the same Condition that was added to the approval for the orthodontic practice. . Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:20 p.m. Ms. Jean Wu, Agent for Applicant: • Reiterated that her clients will be teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and providing enrichment programs. • Assured that they will comply with all imposed regulations. Ms. Gin Ju, Applicant: • Described her business as a learning center where second languages and the gospel message are taught. • Said that she is proposing 10 students per class for two-hour periods. She plans on having three teachers. • Assured that they will not create traffic impacts. • Stated that staggered class times and/or having a student drop off process might be methods used to avoid parking problems. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Roupe asked if the majority of the classes occur after school hours, between 3 and 6 p.m., and would consist of three classes at a time for a period oi~two hours per class. Commissioner Hunter suggested that moving the storage sheds on the property will allow more parking spaces to be striped on the parking lot. Commissioner Roupe said that he believed that staggered start times will help prevent parking problems. Mr. Jim Yeh, Property Owner: • Agreed to move the storage shed to create up to five more parking spaces. Commissioner Kurasch questioned what occurs on site before :3 p.m. and whether there would be more than just three classes per day. Ms. Gin Ju said that every two hours a class would start. She added that the youngest children attend class for an hour to an hour and a half. During the summer, classes occur all day. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that for the one-hour classc;s, it may not be practical for a parent to drop off a child but rather would require that parent to stay and wait for their child. Asked if the shorter classes would also be conducted three at a time. Ms. Gin Ju said that she could ask parents not to wait. Pointed out that she already runs a .school in Sunnyvale without parking problems. Commissioner Zutshi asked again how many classes would be <;onducted at any given time. Ms. Gin Ju replied that she is hoping to operate three classes at a time- with 10 students each with staggered start times. Commissioner Zutshi said that the plan for drop off seems fine: but the pick up process would be more difficult on this site. Pointed out the traffic tie-ups that occur on Cox due to the parents collecting their children from the Challenger School. Ms. Gin Ju pointed out that her school will have fewer students than the Challenger School. Ms. Jean Wu reminded that the students would leave at staggered times. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is just one way in and one way out of this site. Mr. Jim Yeh said that he visited the Sunnyvale location. He added that most likely the children will be delivered to the site by van pool from their schools so that parc;nts would not have to individually drop off the students. Commissioner Jackman: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 5 • Expressed concerns about the need to make right turns onto Prospect followed by a U-turn to return to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Said that this site does not have a smooth flowing driveway and questioned if there is some way to improve that. • Stated that she has very real concerns about the traffic flow. Chair Barry said that she believes that at least four new parking spaces can be added to the right side of the building. Mr. Jim Yeh agreed to remove the shed. Chair Barry asked Mr. Yeh if he is willing to mark the driveway and tell the other tenant that there will be additional parking marked on their side for use by the school. Mr. Jim Yeh said that the medical office does not use all of their parking as they have but four employees. Chair Barry asked 1VIs. Ju what her minimum class size must be to be profitable. Ms. Gin Ju replied eight students. Chair Barry asked Ms. Ju if she would be willing to stagger the class start times by as much as 45 minutes so that there is as little overlap as is possible. Ms. Gin Ju replied that she would appreciate the limit to 30 minutes. She added that she has operated at her Sunnyvale location for the last nine years. Mr. Herbert Grabau, 12136 Atrium Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he is in favor of this proposed program but cautioned that there are four driveways within 600 feet with a lot of traffic. • Pointed out that there is much traffic on.Prospect as well as turning off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and DeAnza Boulevard. • Recommended that the City's Traffic Department make a serious study. • Cautioned that this parking lot is shallow with people nearly backing out at the street line. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the parking lot for the Atrium only had a couple of cars in it when the Commission went on its site visit. Mr. Herbert Grabau said that this lot is parked more at night and that there is no problem during the day or any concern about use of that parking. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Roupe said that the recommendation for a Traffic Study is an excellent one. Asked who has jurisdiction over Prospect Road. Planner Ann Welsh replied that she was not certain of the City's jurisdiction over Prospect Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Jackman said that the Traffic Engineer could evaluate existing conditions. One solution might be to have a smaller garden to allow cueing around back. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed that this is not a good location for this use. • Added that there appears to be too many children, on too busy a street, within too -small a building. • Said that this is too dangerous for children. Commissioner Jackman expressed her agreement that this may not be a suitable spot due to traffic concerns. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Traffic Study should be done before a final decision is made. Commissioner Hunter disagreed, saying that this is still not a ;;ood location and it would be important to find a more suitable location. Chair Barry: • Agreed with the assessment that this is not a very safe piece of property and does not lend itself well to the proposed school use. • Said that she agrees a Traffic Study is necessary if this proposal is to be considered. • Said that it would be necessary to significantly cut down on the number of students and classes. • Stated that, as proposed, this use would not work on this site;. • Said that she is willing to suggest the Traffic Study but would also seek to limit the number of students per class to six and stagger the class start times by one hour. Commissioner Garakani said that he sends his own kids to after school programs and agrees that it is hard to find space to park at 6 p.m. when it is time to pick them up. Chair Barry said that perhaps a van could return the children to an off-site pick up point, such as a school or park. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that schools are not open that late and are dark at night. She added that she is in support of a school but that she would prefer a safer location for children. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Traffic Study might be helpful in determining the feasibility of this proposal. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Traffic Study determine the number of students and class schedule although it appears that many of the Commissioners do not find this to be an appropriate location for this use. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:52. Mr. Eric Soldan, 20746 Lowena Court, Saratoga: • Asked who would be paying for the cost of the Traffic Study. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 7 Planner Ann Welsh replied that it would have to be a consultant. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that a consulting firm performs the traffic counts and such. Chair Barry added that the applicant pays the cost for the Traffic Study. She added that there are two options to the applicant. One is to select an alternative site. The second is to go forward with a Traffic Study to better evaluate the potential for this site to accommodate this school. Commissioner Hunter advised that she would be voting against this project due to the insufficient parking spaces. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether they would have to have enough parking to be approved. Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the requirement for parking is one space per employee with the remainder of the parking requirement up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Chair Barry said that the applicant is hearing the thoughts of this Commission that this does not seem to be a workable site. Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that there is no guarantee that this use will be approved even with a Traffic Study. " Commissioner Roupe agreed but said that this Traffic Study is needed to support this use. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02-025, for a proposed institutional learning center at 20444 Prospect Road, to allow time for a Traffic Study to be prepared, with the cost to be borne by the applicant, which should take into consideration the proposed class size and staggered start times. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Hunter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry stated that she is in favor of this school but has concerns about traffic. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #02-008 (366-027-003) HSU/BURROUGHS, 20802 Norada Court: Request for Design Review Approval to create asecond-story addition to the existing residence and a Variance to the "floor area reduction rule." The existing home, in the R-1-12,500 District, contains 2,769 square feet on a 12,712 square foot lot. The proposed home contains a 651 square foot second story and proposes a 216 square foot addition to the first floor for a total area of 3,636 square feet. (WELSH) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 8 Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants are seeking a Design Review Approval for an addition to an ~ existing 2,769 square foot home on a 12,712 square foot lot. The proposed addition includes 216 square feet on the first floor and 651 square feet on the second floor, i:or a total square footage of 3,636. The proposed height is 22 feet. • Added that this proposal requires a Variance to the height: penalty and another Variance to allow 149 square feet in excess of allowable FAR. With the setback penalty, a 14-foot side yard setback is required, four feet more than exists. • Informed that seven neighbors have provided written support and that one neighbor objects due to a . loss of privacy. • Stated that the required findings to support the Variance may not be met and that granting this Variance would represent a special privilege. • Added that a landscape plan could address the privacy concerns. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the size of the other homes in. the immediate area. Planner Ann Welsh replied that per the information provided by the applicant, the homes in,the area range from 3,100 to 3,600 square feet. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the second story addition. could be approved without need for a Variance since that addition would not be expanding on a. existing non-conformity. Could the necessary findings be made to support that part of the proposal. ' Planner Ann Welsh said that the non-conformity is increased with an addition. Chair Barry asked if the project would be non-conforming without a second story addition. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. Chair Barry added that only with the second story addition does the sideyard setback become non- conforming. ~ . Commissioner Kuraasch pointed out that staff is recommending; a revision to the proposal to reflect the 14 foot setback and reduce the floor area. Chair Barry said that with the elimination of 149 square feet, no Variance is necessary except for the setback Variance. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m. Ms. Kathy Hsu, Applicant and Property Owner, 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commissioners for their site visit. • Provided a background of their project. • Advised that when they. purchased this home, there was an approval for an addition even larger than the one they now propose. • Stated that they have spoken extensively with the Planning Department. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 9 • Added that they learned later that their home is 200 square feet larger than they had been told which meant that they could add 200 square feet less to their proposed addition. • Said that they met with Director Sullivan in August 2001 and he suggested they apply for a Variance. • Pointed out that theirs is predominately atwo-story neighborhood. - • Explained that the City once had an Exception Clause, in effect when the original addition was approved. That Exception Clause has since been removed -from the books and now a project such as theirs requires a Variance instead of an Exception. • Said that the size home they are proposing is in keeping with the neighborhood and would not represent a special privilege. • Said that they respect their neighbor's concern for privacy and distributed photographs to demonstrate that their addition will not result in privacy impacts on their rear neighbor's home or pool. Mr. Warren Heid, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Advised that he typically does not ask for Variances. • Said that this neighborhood is predominately two story and of 57 properties depicted on the area map, 36 are two-story homes or 63 percent. • Stated that his clients are hoping to enlarge their family room, and add a study and two bedrooms, for a total of five, without having to lose their large rear yard, which is used as a playground for the children. • Pointed out that there is but one window on the two-story elevation facing the rear neighbors. It is 71 feet from the property line and the neighbor's yard and pool would not be visible from that window. Additionally, they are willing to plant buffer landscaping. • Said that the style of the addition would be match the existing, .with a new Class A fireproof roof, a maximum height of 22 feet. The home will tie into the neighborhood. • Informed that he had tried alternatives including asingle-story and tri-level design. • Advised that he could take off part of the garage and make a carport, which is allowed in the setback, but to do so would lose 236 square feet from the garage. • Stated that a Variance is a tool for the Planning Commission to work with and represents a part of Ordinance requirements. • Declared his belief that they have proven their case for a Variance. Commissioner Roupe suggested that reducing the width of the family room addition, to approximately 10 feet by 14 feet, would make the total square footage conform. Mr. Warren Heid said that they had considered that option. Said that the family wants a large family room and that family rooms typically face the backyard. Commissioner Roupe said that if the square footage can comply, there is more chance to get past the setback Variance. Asked staff whether the 14 foot setback would still be required if no first floor addition was made. Planner Ann Welsh said that this would not increase the non-conformity. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 10 Chair Barry added that the strict interpretation requires that atwo-story needs the 14-foot setback. She added that it is arguable that if there is no first floor addition, this project would not be increasing the non-conformity and could be okay. Planner Ann Welsh replied as long as they cut three feet. Commissioner Roupe asked if no side yard setback Variance would be required if there is no first floor addition. Planner Ann Welsh said that the Commission could make that ,argument. Mr. Warren Heid suggested that they could reduce the height acid gain 110 square feet. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that they still would require the 14-foot side setback. Commissioner Kurasch said that per the dissenting neighbor, there are two upstairs windows overlooking his property. Mr. Warren Heid said that there is only one window that faces ghat rear yard. Ms. Judy Alberts, 24747 Lowena Court, Saratoga: • Said that her Court is adjacent to Norada Court. • Stated that she knows the applicants very well and that they are friends but that she has concerns. • Informed that on Norada there are six two-story homes and five one-story homes so there is not a majority. • Said that this project would set a precedent and that she wants to be sure the Commission and Staff are clear on the requirements and use caution when approving a Variance. Mr. Eric Soldan, 20746 Lowena Court, Saratoga: • Advised that he purchased his home in 1999. • Said that he had wanted a neighborhood without Variarices since his previous neighborhood had lots. • Stated that he remodels homes and has read the requirements and is prepared to accept the rules of Saratoga. • Said that if a Variance is approved it sets a precedent. • Stated that he does not consider this a predominately two-story area. Mr. Richard Leash, neighbor behind project site: • Said that he will be able to see this addition from his home and has concerns about plans for windows to overlook his yard. • Expressed doubt that the majority of homes in the area. are 3,100 to 3,600 square feet and said that most are actually one-story homes. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that the Variance is not to allow the two-story addition but rather for exceeding floor area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Richard Leash said that his primary concern is having atwo-story house overlooking his yard. Chair Barry reminded that the second story window would not look down onto his property but rather what he would see would be a blank wall. Asked whether a screening tree to block visibility of this wall could be an acceptable solution. Mr. Richard Leash said that if he cannot see the addition and they cannot see his property from that addition, it would not bother him. Mr. Eric Soldan asked how a records flaw could overlook 200 square feet of existing home. He added that the fact that the home is larger than originally believed is not a sufficient reason to support this Variance. Ms. Kathy Hsu: • Assured that they are happy to plant an evergreen tree to provide screening for their rear neighbor. • Declared that it is not setting a precedent to grant them this Variance and that each application needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Warren Heid: • Distributed an alternative set of drawings, in which he has dropped the ridge over Bedroom No. 3, dropped 152 square feet and removed three feet of depth to the family room addition. Planner Ann Welsh said that this proposal could work if the roof is lowered by two feet. Commissioner Roupe said that the project still needs to get down to the proper square footage. Commissioner Jackman asked what the new roof height would be. Mr. Warren Heid replied 20 feet when the original ridge was 22 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked if the side extension is reduced by 144 square feet, eliminating the need for a Variance, whether this project could be approved tonight. Chair Barry replied yes, if the Commission makes the determination that this would not be increasing a non-conformity. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that she has worked with Warren Heid and that he stays within City regulations and appears to have come up with a different plan. Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the setback penalty requires one additional foot of setback for any height above 20 feet. If the project height is reduced to 20 feet in addition to an approximate three percent reduction in FAR, this project does-not require a Variance. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Roupe suggested that staff and Mr. Heid have been given adequate direction. If no Variance is necessary, for square. footage or setbacks, this project can be made to comply and be approved. Chair Barry asked for a sense of where the Commission is at. Commissioner Garakani said that if this were a new home, he would approve it. Said that with no need for a Variance, he can support this proposal. Commissioner Hunter said that there have been seven letters of support. There are no windows overlooking the rear neighbor's home. Stated that she does not like granting Variances. Said that she supports both the original and alternate proposal by Mr. Heid. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that by reducing the area and eliminating the need. for a Variance, she can support this application. • Pointed out that there are no special circumstances to support a Variance and that Variances do have an impact on others. • Stated that she does not agree with the statement that this; is a predominately two-story area but rather is more evenly a mixture of one and two-story homes. • Said that she is more comfortable allowing the applicant to work out the remaining issues with staff. • Expressed support for staff's recommendations. Commissioner Jackman said that she cannot support this Variance as there is no justification to support it. Added that she thought it would look odd to cut the roof off and that it would look less attractive. Chair Barry wrapped up by saying that it appears the consensus is that the Commission is willing to recommend the interpretation that this proposed addition, as modified, will not be increasing a non- conformity. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated support for adequate screening;. Chair Barry suggested that the screening tree be quick growing and evergreen. The specific species should be recommended by the Arborist. Commissioner Garakani suggested growing ivy on the wall. Chair Barry: • Said that it is important to have a strict criteria for approving Variances and usually the basis for support is topography. • Stated that it is her impression that it is not fair for this type: of application to get this far before the Planning Commission sees it. • Declazed that there are no real grounds for a Variance here. • Pointed out that the neighbors who support this request are not as directly impacted as the one neighbor who opposes. • Expressed support for the interpretation that this project will not extend anon-conformity as long as there is adequate screening of the addition and no Variance required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Niarch 27, 2002 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow a residential addition on an existing home at 20802 Norada Court subject to the following: 1. That the applicant work with staff to revise the design so that no square footage or setback Variances are required; 2. That the applicant provide screening across the back to protect the privacy of the adjacent rear property; and 3. With the understanding that this addition does not perpetuate a non- conformity. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 Annlication #02-044 (386-52-032 & 0331 MAMMINI CORPORATION; LONGAY GUITAR CENTER (Tenant), 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct music classes in an existing 1,733 square foot commercial space located in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District. (VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a music school, for classical guitar, within an existing commercial space. • Described the parking as including 23 spaces in front and 14 spaces at the rear of the building for a total of 37. The music school would require 16 spaces. The school would have four studios with an instructor and student in each one. Therefore approximately 10 vehicles would be affiliated with the use. Staff finds that the provision of parking is adequate. • Stated that twice a month, recitals are held on Saturday afternoons where approximately 24 vehicles are expected. When that occurs, there would still be 13 spaces open to the other uses on the site. • Said that staff can support this project with review and monitoring of parking. • Added that three more spaces would be marked for "10 minute parking" in front of the convenience market. Some are already reserved for short-term parking by patrons of the cleaners and salon uses. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the deficient spaces would come from when the recitals occur. Associate Planner John Livingstone reminded that street parking is also available. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the traffic circulation in this area compared to the earlier application this evening for the instructional use. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the circulation is better on this site than the previous site considered this evening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Zutshi asked if this business is akeady in operation before issuance of this Conditional Use Permit- Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that a signal is pending; on Seagull Way that will help traffic circulation. Chair Barry said that at the site visit she asked about growth and suggested to the applicant that larger recitals could be held off site. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:14 p.m. Mr. Frank Longay, Owner/Director, Longay Guitar Center, 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Said that he is glad to be in Saratoga. • Described his school as operating a unique program that teaches classical guitar per the Suzuki approach. • Expressed regret for not obtaining the required Use Permit prior to establishing his school. • Stated that he understands concerns for potential parking conflicts and has the flexibility to reduce his class sizes by working longer hours. • Pointed out that having 40 students in the program does not mean 40 cars since this is a family- oriented approach and parents accompany their child. • Said that he wants to provide good service to clients and has 27 years of experience teaching. Commissioner Kurasch asked about attendance at recitals. Mr. Frank Longay replied that there would not be more than 40 people at any event. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the potential for extended hours due to the site's proximity to residential uses. Stated that her only concerns ~Nere the proposal for larger groups and later night lessons. Said that she would not want to see extended weekday lessons. Mr. Frank Longay stated that his evening hours run from 7:30 to 9 p.m. and that there would be five to six people on the premises maximum at that time. Chair Barry inquired about the hours of operation for the convenience store. Commissioner Hunter replied that it is open 24 hours. She added that it is terrific to have a guitar center in the area and that she is glad to see this business come t:o Saratoga. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that his home is located just behind this site. • Thanked staff and said that this proposed use is a fantastic use and asked the Commission to vote in support. • Said that he has some issues regarding impacts to his property as a result of this property. These impacts include noise, damage to the shared fence, trash, etc. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Mazch 27, 2002 Page 15 • Suggested a closing time of 9 p.m. and a prohibition of amplification. • Proposed that a sign be posted for staff to park in the back instead of students. • Said that street parking should not be encouraged for overflow parking. Commissioner Roupe suggested that Mr. Walker contact the Code Compliance Officers to deal with some of the problems raised. Chair Barry asked if the fence in question is on the shopping center property or shared property line. Mr. Jeff Walker replied shared property line. Mr. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has lived in this neighborhood since 1967 and is in favor of this business. • Said that he is concerned about the excess parking needs and asked the Commission to pay attention to that part. • Pointed out that 20 new houses are currently under construction and he does not want to encourage parking along Seagull Way. • Said that the commercial property owner should be a better citizen to the area. Commissioner Jackman said that a brick or stucco fence should be required to separate this commercial property from adjacent residential properties. Asked staff to look further into the impacts on parking in the area as a result of the Azule Crossing Project. Mr. Jack Mallo said that com liance and monitoring of a roved standards needs to occur. rY P Pp Chair Barry asked staff how the owner of this commercial center fits into this Use Permit application. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the owner is looking to get a tenant for his building and is responsible for the improvements. Chair Barry asked if placing conditions for site improvements fall on Mr. Longay. Commissioner Roupe questioned whether the Commission could impose fencing requirements with this application. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that if the owner wants to obtain a tenant, he would make the required improvements. Chair Barry asked if the owner is part of this process. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked who was responsible for allowing this business to establish without the required Use Permit. Associate Planner John Livingstone said he did not know. C Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Hunter said that she didn't notice the fence and did not feel comfortable requiring a fence of this tenant. Added that if there are problems with the convenience store clientele, the Code Enforcement Officer should address them. Chair Barry reminded that the condition for the fence replacement would fall on the property owner. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if the fence is located on the property line, both neighbors would share the cost. Mr. Jeff Walker: • Said that the fence was probably not noticeable since it is c;overed in ivy. However, it is at an angle and propped up. He added that he did not want to see the fence replacement as a condition of this Use Permit approval but was interested in talking with the property owner himself to work out this issue. • Added that a commercial property owner is responsible foi- fencing that separates a commercial use from residential uses. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Jack Mallory how he was able to get his fence installed to separate his property from adjacent commercial property. Mr. Jack Mallory replied that the issue was that the commercial property was causing problems and an eight-foot masonry fence was required. Encouraged that City to place this requirement as a strategic item. Mr. Frank Longay: • Told Mr. Walker that he has an ally regarding concerns over property maintenance of this commercial center. • Said that the problems raised by Mr. Walker would be of concern to him too. • Stated that he would not want his students exposed to those problems either. • Assured that he would restrict his students from parking on Seagull Way. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Longay split his recitals into smaller groups if they get too large to be accommodated by the available parking. Mr. Frank Longay said he can do that if they get too large. Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Longay ask his staff to park in the back. Mr. Frank Longay said he had no problem with that requirement. Ms. Erin Donovan: • Advised that her son and daughter attend this guitar program. She drives them to the school together. • .Said that once the lessons are done, they leave the site. Ms. Kim Buller, Administrative Director: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 17 • Said that this center's property management company is very responsive and will be addressing the garbage issue by installing a garbage enclosure. Additionally, a van parked on site will be moved. • Stated that the fence issue could be addressed by the owner. • Advised that her son has studied in this program for six years and that it is an amazing thing for children and an asset for the City of Saratoga. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Hunter said that this project is just great and that she would support it. Commissioner Zutshi agreed to support this request -with the added requirement for six and twelve month review. Commissioner Garakani said he was also in support. Commissioner Jackman said that she too is in favor. She asked staff to follow through on the idea for a masonry wall and contact with Azule Crossing Homeowner's Association to ensure that garages are being retained for parking uses. Chair Barry said she agrees with the idea to contact Azule Crossing regarding parking but that she did not see the requirement for the masonry fence being applicable with this request. Commissioner Jackman said she just wants to encourage staff to initiate the study of the issue of masonry walls separating commercial and residential areas. Commissioner Kurasch: - • Said that she is in support of this application with a caution on the possible traffic impacts on Seagull Way. • Said that she was also in favor of limiting hours and limiting the number of recitals to once a month on a Saturday and twice a month with a maximum of 15 students plus guests. • Stated concern for traffic in the area. • Supported the proposal for review of the adequacy of parking and circulation in six and twelve months. • Said that she was in favor of requiring the repair of the fence, finding it an appropriate request. • Expressed support. Chair Barry said that the applicant should stress to employees to park at the rear lot to leave parking at' the front for the students as a means of limiting noise impacts on the adjacent residences. Commissioner Roupe said that this guitar school will be an excellent addition to the community and it appears the applicant has the flexibility and control to deal with parking on site. Additionally, there is recourse if the use does not work out. Suggested approving the project as is. Commissioner Garakani asked how the City would know how many recitals are held on site. Associate Planner John Livin stoner lied that the Ci would res and on a com Taint basis. g eP tY P P J Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 18 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved a Conclitional Use Permit to allow the establishment of the Longay Guitar Center at 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added conditions of approval: _ 1. That there be no on-street parking on Seagull Way; 2. That additional parking spaces be marked for "10 minute parking" in front of the convenience store; 3. That-there be no amplified music; 4. That the use close at 9 p.m.; and 5. That staff and the applicant work with the property owner on the issue of fence repair. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Explanation of Santa Clara County referral process Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that County projects. regarding discretionary review are routed to the City of Saratoga for comment. Staff often emails comments to the County. Typically the reviews are for single family residences. Chair Barry advised that staff has found no review files on Quickert Road. Recommended that a letter by Council be drafted to ask the County to look into this matter of project review further. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any pending applications for review. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that he checked the file cabinet where all County referral information is retained. There is no new info for the, Quickert Road area in the last year and a half. Added that he has called the County Planning supervisor who found no pending projects on Quickert. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to continue to investigate. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that the projects could also be on Bohlman or Kittridge and not just Quickert. COMMISSION ITEMS Energy Efficiency -Review Conservation Element of the CTeneral Plan and consider adopting an Enemy Element to form the basis .for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff update as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 19 :,. ;~ • Advised that the General Plan has a Conservation Element to encourage energy conservation. The subcommittee wanted to look at improving the energy efficiency of homes in Saratoga in a two-part plan. The first part includes education using handouts and materials on the Internet and to sponsor a workshop with contractors where providers would be present to provide information on green building technologies and resources. • Next the subcommittee recommends adoption of a new Energy Efficiency Ordinance. • Said that they have looked at different Ordinances nationally. In Aspen, new homes over 5,000 square feet must offset fossil fuel use through on-site energy generating or payment of a fee. In Marin County, a community most applicable to Saratoga, they have a "big and tall residence" Ordinance. Homes over 4,000 square feet must comply with Title 24 or install on-site renewable energy systems that provide 75 percent of the energy, such as solar. -- • Advised that the subcommittee likes that approach the best. " • Asked the rest of the Commission to advise if the subcommittee is on the right path and then staff can seek out more information. Commissioner Zutshi said that she thought Title 24 was akeady in place. Chair Barry pointed out that the subcommittee is proposing improvements to the Title 24 requirements. Commissioner Roupe said that even if a home is larger than 4,000 square feet, the home must be as efficient as a 4,000 square foot home. Chair Barry said that if Green Building Guidelines are used, the efficiency levels are between 15 to 30 ~~ percent more efficient that Title 24. Commissioner Hunter asked about recycling building waste. Commissioner Kurasch advised that this is a separate issue. In fact, an Ordinance is currently under consideration by Council on that subject. Commissioner Roupe said that this report is a good start and that the subcommittee is heading in the right direction. Said that one alternative is to pay a fee if a project is unable to achieve compliance for energy efficiency. Chair Barry agreed but stated the importance that these fees not go into the City's General Fund but rather be earmarked specifically for energy efficiency projects. Commissioner Kurasch said that Marin County is starting to implement this fee. " " Commissioner Roupe suggested involving experts such as architects in this process. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the City of Davis also has a similar energy efficiency fee program. Said that the subcommittee prefers to see home energy efficiency implemented rather than payment of a fee. ~~ Commissioner Roupe said that both options are worth looking into since they would provide flexibility. Saratoga Planning.Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 20 Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he will call Aspen to see how they spend their collected money. Chair Barry suggested that an Energy Efficiency Report should be required with development applications. Commissioner Hunter stressed that a lot of education needs to be provided on this issue. Suggested working together with the other West Valley Area communities, such as Los Gatos and Campbell: Commissioner Roupe endorsed the need for education on this subject. Chair Barry agreed and added that education also has to do with financing for energy efficiency. It is not just the up front costs but rather education on the long-term benefits and savings. Commissioner Roupe said that a pay back period might be needed. Does energy efficiency need to pay for itself in 7 years, 10 years or 40 years. Associate Planner said that there is information available for large commercial buildings but there may not yet been such data for smaller single-family residential projects. Said that he would work to find tables on how long it takes to see a return~on investment for energy efficiency. Commissioner Roupe said it is important to set some sort of criteria and establish some set standards. Commissioner Kurasch added that staff training is an important part of the educational process. Commissioner Hunter reiterated her suggestion for some sort of consortium of West Valley communities. Chair Barry pointed out that-some of the larger communities are more likely to have models in place. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that the costs, impacts and benefits must all be considered. Benefits include cutting greenhouse gases and pollution. Secondly, energy efficient methods provide independence in case of natural disaster. There is also the security benefit that local sources of material are more secure. • Stated that costs are dropping every year for energy efficiency methods in significant numbers. Chair Barry: , • Stated that this subcommittee report on Energy Efficiency was great and agrees that further education on energy efficiency methods makes sense. • Suggested that should the City decide to redo its City Hall, it could become a "Green" building. • Reminded that there is a financing issue and suggested that City staff learn about that issue and treat it as a high priority. • Said that the City should push forward in the directions the subcommittee has suggested. Miscellaneous Items l - Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 21 Commissioner Jackman pointed out that she has a new homeowner's insurance plan that includes as excepted perils issues such as Planning and Design Errors, Earthquake, Flood and Volcanoes. Commissioner Zutshi advised that there will be a Library site visit on Apri13, 2002, at 10:30 a.m. Commissioners Kurasch and Zutshi are unable to attend the April 10, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, April 10, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • r~ u e= s ~ 04 a~ ITEM 1 ~~ G~B~4 OO Q~° ° BOO C~L~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner !~•~ DATE: Apri110, 2002 SUBJECT: Husted Residence - Kittridge Road (APN 517-14-080) COliNCIL MEMBERS: Evan.Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehalfey Nick Streit Ann Wattonsmith At its duly noticed meeting of February 27, 2002 the Planning Commission considered Design Review, Variance and Building Site Approval applications to allow construction of a two-story craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-caz gazage 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. Relevant background documents, including the staff report from February 27, 2002, are attached for your information. The public hearing of February 27, 2002 was continued to allow restudy of the retaining walls. The minutes of the Planning Commission deliberations during the February 27, 2002 public hearing reveal that the Commissioners were concerned with the height of the proposed retaining walls, drainage from the proposed development, and road damage during construction. Additionally, the Commission encouraged the applicant to construct the required turnaround as a retaining wall instead of the proposed deck configuration. The Commission also suggested that the applicant record a conservation easement on the property. • Retaining_Walls The Planning Commission held a duly noticed study session on Apri13, 2002 to review alternatives to the proposed retaining walls with the applicant. An alternative to the retaining wall at the upslope side of the driveway was presented at the study session. ;,' 000001 The applicant proposed to redesign the retaining wall at the upslope side of the driveway which is 20 feet at its highest location and tapers down in either direction. The redesign includes two 10 foot retaining walls in this location separated by a five foot planting area for landscape screening inchading fast growing native vines and other vegetation. At the Commission's request, the applicant will produce a visual aid to depict the revised upslope retaining walls including five foot landscape planting area: This visual aid will be presented at or prior to the scheduled public hearing on April 10, 2002. At the Planning Commission's direction the applicant wvill study the feasibility of three retaining walls under 10 feet in the subject location. These findings will be presented at the scheduled public hearing on April 10, 2002. Drainage from the Proposed Development The proposed project includes drainage facilities which improve current drainage in the area. The proposed drainage facilities mimic historic natural water flows by redirecting drainage into large, steep canyon areas utilizing asphalt berms, catch basins, energy dissipaters, and culverts. Drainage facilities are required to meet maximum capacity. Road Damage During Construction As a condition of final occupancy approval, the applic~mt has agreed to restore the private road to its condition prior to commencement of project related construction. Staff will document the condition of the road. Any and all dama;;e incurred by the proposed project shall be repaired prior to granting final occupancy approval. Conservation Easement Dedication The applicant proposes to dedicate all lands north of the right of way easements, which bisect the property, as a conservation easement (please see Exhibit "A"). This area will be subject to the following restrictions: the conservation easement shall to be kept free from buildings and,structures of any kind except public: service structures, including drainage control facilities and irrigations systems. Turnaround Built as a Retaining Wall At the Commissioners request, the applicant proposes to construct the required turnaround as a retaining wall instead of the deck structure originally proposed. The retaining wall turnaround structure will accommodate approximately 500 cubic yards of excess cut thus eliminating substantial off-site haul. Height of the Proposed Residence At the study session meeting, several Commissioners e:Kpressed concern at the height of the proposed residence. As a result of this concern, thc; applicant has reduced the height of the residence by approximately two feet by changing; the roof pitch from a 6:12 to a 4:12. This change will not adversely affect the architectural appearance of the residence. ®00002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see enclosed staff report dated February 27, 2002. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report dated February 27, 2002 2. Minutes from the February 27, 2002 Public Hearing 3. Exhibit "A" (includes proposed conservation easement, but does not illustrate alternatives to the proposed retaining walls.) • • 000003 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFC BLANK 000004 • • ., • Attachment 1 Application No./Location: BSA-Ol-002; V-O1-012, DR-O1-021; Kittridge Drive Applicant/Owner: METROPOLIS/HUSTED Staff Planner: Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner Date: February 27, 2002 APN: 517-14-080 Department Head: • • i i ~, j ~/ - ~ ~~ _-~, ~' \' ~~~- `',\ ;'\ 1 ~ ` ~~ ~- I. . REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Kittridge Drive 000005 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential GENERAL PLAN -DESIGNATION: Hillside Residenti~~l Conservation-Single Family MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 8.4 acres (gross), 5.11 acres (net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 0% at building site, 74% average site slope GRADING REQUIRED: Total cut and fill proposed is 1,728 cubic yards. • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project which includes construction of a new single-family residence is exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061(3) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The project is exempt from CEQA because the; activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the; potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect: on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA pursuant to section 15061(3). MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed materials and colors include cherry stain cedar shingle siding, stone veneer, and white- trim. Retaining wall material will be shotcrete with a rock formation finish. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve the following requested entitlements: Building Site Approval (BSA-a)1-002), Design Review including Site Development Plan (DR-O1-021), and Variance N-01-012). ATTACIIMENTS: 1. Resolution BSA-Ol-002; DR-O1-021, & V-O1-012. 2. Arborist Report, date stamped and received ~by the Community Development Department on July 11, 2001. 3. Public Comment Letter in Opposition of the Proposed Project, dated January 3, 2002. 4. Reduced plans, date stamped and received by the Community Development Department on December 18, 2001, Exhibit "A". ®®0006 (. File No. BSA- O1-002; `, .,1-012; &~ DR-O1- 021: KittridgeRoact Pro osal P Code Re uirements 9 Lot Maximum Allowable Coverage: 10% 25% Residence + Garage 2,683 sq. ft. Driveway 5,850 sq. ft. _ Walkway/Steps 717 sq. ft. 9,250 sq. ft. TOTAL 9,250 sq. ft. or 10% 15,000 sq. ft. or 25% (Impervious Surface) Floor Area: First Floor 2,242 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Second Floor 2,127 sq. ft. Garage 441 sq. ft. TOTAL 4,810 sq. ft. 6,900 sq. ft. Setbacks: - Minimum Requirement Front 120ft. 120 ft. Rear 240ft. 150 ft. Left Side 280ft. 56 ft. Right Side 75ft. 56 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. . -, c~xus«aS~ffR~n s~.aa 000007 File No. BSA-Ol-002; ' . ~1-012; &~ DR-O1-021: Kittrld~;e Roam . . PROJECT DISCUSSION The-proposed project is the construction of a two-story craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot consisting of 8.40 acres (gross) and 5.11 acres (net). The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 4,810 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and has received Geotechnical Clearance. The property contains approximately three acres of private access easements. The private access road dead-ends at the adjacent property owner's residence (Martin-Rose Project). A fire truck turnaround structure is proposed. The turnaround will be constructed as a deck structure which will be elevated up to approximately 23 feet above the sloping grade below the private access road. The average slope of the property is very steep with the exception of the proposed building pad. The proposed building site is the only level pad on the site. Story poles were constructed to illustrate the visual impact of the house anal retaining walls. The story poles indicate the proposed retaining walls and two-story residence will not be imposing as viewed from nearby access roads and residences in the ~~rea. Furthermore, the story poles illustrate the proposed residence will be tucked into the hillside minimizing the visual impact of the proposed residence. The proposed project includes retaining walls that vary in height. Retaining walls are necessary for the driveway and residence. Sheet number three of Exhibit "A", the Grading and Drainage Plan, depicts the height and location of the: walls on the site. Retaining walls for the driveway and residence exceed the five-foot height limit. Two retaining walls are proposed for the driveway. A retaining wall is planned along the upslope side of the private driveway. This retaining wall is expect to be approximately 20 feet high at its highest location and tapers down in either direction. A retaining wall up to approximately 16 feet high, at its highest location is planned down-slope of the private driveway. One retaining wall is proposed for the residence. The back wall of the residence will consist of a retaining wall that will vary from nine to 21 feet high. The location of the proposed residence will greatly mitigate the visual impacts of this retaining wall. The project architect has explored several design alternatives in an attempt to reduce the quantity and height of retaining walls required. No alternative to the proposed project was successful in reducing the height and quantity of walls proposed. Retaining wall materials include shotcrete with a rock formation finish. This material has the appearance of a natural formation. • C:~HastedscaHceport &uaLdoc ,'l.roooo~ r ~ File No. BSA-O1-002; . ~1-012; ~ DR-O1-021: Kittredge Roaa "~ The proposed project includes two fireplaces. Sheet A-3 of the architectural drawings indicate one fireplace is proposed to be wood burning and one fireplace is proposed to be gas burning. The total cut and fill proposed at the site is 1,728 cubic yards. The amount of cut required for the residence is b66 cubic yards. The amount of cut required for the driveway is 890 cubic yards. A total of 1,556 cubic yazds of cut aze required for the proposed project and 172 cubic yards of fill are required for the driveway. There are at least two-hundred trees on the 8.4 acre (gross) site. The majority of trees on the site are inaccessible due to steep slopes. The proposed project will result in the removal of nine trees. The Arborist has required replacement trees which equal the values of the trees proposed for removal and a $8,227 tree bond to ensure the protection of existing trees on the site. The application consists of the following entitlements: 1) Building Site Approval to construct on a vacant lot subdivided over 15 years ago (Municipal Code Section 14-20). 2) Variance to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet in height (Municipal Code Section 15-29.010(g)) 3) Design Review to construct a new two-story single-family residence (Municipal Code Section 15-45.060). 4) Site Development Plan in order to construct on a hillside lot pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-25.100 5) Grading Exception to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill -(Municipal Code Section 15-13-060) Evaluation: of Findings -Building Site Approval (a) The proposed single family dwelling is consistent with the goals .and policies of the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. The site is in an azea designated in the City's " General Plan as Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). The RHC designation allows .5 single-family dwelling units per acre. The proposed project involves the construction of a single-family dwelling on a 5.11 (net) acre site. (b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed. Portions of the property aze very steep; however, the slope at the building pad is relatively level. The proposed project has received Geotechnical Clearance. The conditions of the Geotechnical Cleazance ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. c:~uSCeaSm~R~n t~„~.aa ~"v00009 File No. BSA-Ol-002; _, ~1-012; list llR-O1-021: Kittrid'ge Roaa_ (c) The design of the building site or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There aze no raze, threatened or endangered species on any state or federal list located on this site and no fish habitat. Wildlife presc;nt at the site include deer, skunk, possum, and raccoon whose movement, foraging and migrating patterns will not be substantially affected because a large portion of the site vvill remain in its natural condition. (d) The design of the building site or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The City Geologist,l'sngineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions aze incorporated as conditions of approval to ensure physical suitability of the site for the proposed development. (e) The design of the building site or improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or apse of property within the proposed subdivision or building site. The site has several private access easements recorded on the property. The building site or improvements do not conflict with any of the designated right-of--way easements. (~ That a proposed subdivision of land which is subjec~" to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Y~illiamson Act') would not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient. size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 6Ci474.4. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor does it involve the subdivision of property. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed project. (g) The discharge of waste from the proposed building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing .requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to .Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. Sanitary sewer is available to the site.. The proposed single-family dwelling will not result in overburdening the system capacity. Evaluation of Findings Design Review and Site Development Plan (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main structure, wlien considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The minimum building site requirements in the project vicinity are large (40,000-48,000 squaze feet). The subject property is 8.40 acres (gross). In the surrounding area, topographical constraints result in large portions of undevelopable lands which provide an additional buffer between dwellings. 'The surrounding azea is sparsely developed with one- and two-story single-family residences. There are no established C ~F3ustedstaHcepoa final.dac ~.J~©~~~.V • • File No. BSA-Ol-002;' ~1-012; ~St DR-O1-021: Kit=tridgeRoaa residences in close proximity to the proposed project. The proposed residence is located below adjacent nidgelines. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed building pad is located on the only existing level pad on the site. Utilizing the existing level pad will minimize disturbance to the site including the amount of grading required. In addition, the proposed materials and colors will blend with the natural environment. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The proposed main structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The second-story of the proposed residence is setback from the first story. The roof of the first story, window treatments, stone accents, and gable ends add variation to the elevations and minimize the perception of mass and bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed residence is tucked into the existing hillside and is located below adjacent ridgelines. The residence will blend into the hillside due to the proposed earth tone colors and materials. Please refer to (c). (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed project requires a grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division. The plan shall contain all the provisions identified in the geotechnical reports and current erosion control methods used by the City. (~ As recommended in the Residential Design Handbook the proposed project illustrates the following design policies and techniques to minimize the perception of bulk: the building is tucked into the hillside; the roof slope follows natural grade; building floor levels are terraced; elevations are softened by using different materials; natural color materials are proposed; the height of roof elements are varied, higher portions of the structure are setback; the project is not designed to attract attention or to stand out; large wall expanses are punctuated with window treatments, stone accents, and gable ends. As detailed above, the proposed project conforms to the design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook with respect to mass, bulk, privacy and views. C:~I3usccds[aH:eport 6naldoc U00011 File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~1-012; &t DR-O1-021: Kittredge Roaa - . Energy efficient features of the proposed project aze discussed below: Design for maximum benefit of sun & wind: The proposed residence is protected on the south side by a lazge retaining wall and cliff above. This feature will shade the house in the summer and minimize the need for air conditioning. Landscape to control exposure to sun & wind: ' The existing eight-acre site is heavily forested, while the proposed residence will require the removal of nine trees, the overall impact will be minimal.. In addition; landscaping has been added to shield the tall retaining wall at the rear. Unfortunately, the existing building site has very little topsoil over bedrock, therefore the resulting pad does not have much flexibility in terms of planting lazge trees to protect the house from wind and sun. Allow light, air and solaz access to adjacent homes: The proposed residence will have no impact on the adjacent homes, in terms of light, air and sun exposure, as the structure is 75 feet from the nearest property line. Incorporate energy saving devices into the design: The proposed residence will have high-efficiency fixrnace;s to heat the proposed residence. Evaluation of Findings- Variance The applicant requests the following exception to construct retaining walls over five feet in height. (a) There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Topography at the site is very steep (74%). ]Due to the steep topography at the site retaining walls in excess of five feet are necessary to construct the proposed residence and access driveway. (b) The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and clcessified in the same zoning district. The variance request would allow the construction of a 4,810 squaze foot single-family residence. The variance requests would not constitute a special privilege because .the Hillside Residential zone district is developed with similar single-family structures of this " size. (c) The proposal would not be detrimental to public hea~!th, safety or welfare; or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinit)~. The City Geologist, Engineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions are incorporated as conditions of approval. C:~fLusted staff report finaLdoc ~DO~D012 ~- - File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~1-012; &~ Dk-O1-021: Kittredge Roaa • • Evaluation of Findings -Exception to exceed 1, 000 cubic yards of cut and fill in Hillside Residential Zone District (MCS 15-13.0500) 1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The proposed quantity of grading is necessary to provide access to the residence and to expand the existing level building site to accommodate a 4,810 square foot residence. The proposed project enlarges the existing building pad by building into the hillside with a retaining wall. The existing building pad is not being expanded outwards or towards the downhill slope. 2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. An existing level building pad is being utilized for the proposed residence. This building pad is located in close proximity to the edge of the lot and an existing access road. As a result, a large percentage of the 8 acre lot will be undisturbed by the proposed project. 3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The structure will be located on the low portion of the hillside below ridgelines 4) The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The additional grading will serve to tuck the residence into the existing hillside. S) The increased grading is necessary to reduce-the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant communities. Please refer to 4. 6) No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. An existing level pad will be utilized and expanded for the proposed residence. The grading will not result in a flat level pad surrounding the residence. The natural topography and slopes are maintained outside the immediate building pad and driveway. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Municipal Code Section (MCS) 15-45.080; MCS 15-70.060 (Variances); MCS 15-13.050(f) (Grading Exception), MCS 14-20.070 and 14-25.100 (Building Site ApprovaUSite Development Plan). The residence does not landscape to the extent feasible, compatible with the neighborhood. c:~x~«a s~ re~rt s~Laa interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural and will rriinimi~e the perception of bulk so that it is iD0001~ File No. BSA-01-002; ~ ~1-012; ~sz DR-O1-021: Kittredge Roaa . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve the following requested entitlements: Building Site Approval (BSA-O1-002), Design Review including Site Development Plan (DR-O1-021), and Variance (V-01-012). ; •i • c:~,~«as~n~tt s~ as 000014 ~~. Attacr~nent 1 _ _ RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION NO. DR-O1-021; BSA-Ol-002; and V-O1-012 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIJSTED; Kittridge Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Building Site Approval, Site Development, and Design Review approval to construct a new 4,810 square foot residence and attached garage on 8.4 acre (gross) site; and Variance request to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet in height; and a grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project which includes construction of a new single-family residence is exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061(3) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The project is exempt from CEQA because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty .that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA pursuant to section 15061(3). WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Building Site ApprovaUSite Development, and Design Review findings have been determined pursuant to the Municipal Code: Evaluation of Findings Design Review and Site Development Plan (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The minimum building site requirements in the project vicinity are large (40,000-48,000 square feet). The subject property is 8.40 acres (gross). In the surrounding area, topographical constraints result in large portions of undevelopable lands which provide an additional buffer between dwellings. The surrounding area is sparsely developed with one- and two-story single-family residences. There are no established residences in close proximity to the proposed project. The proposed residence is located below adjacent ridgelines. • 000015 File No. BSA-Ol-002;'l ~~~i-012; Fst DR-O1=021: kittrid~;eRoad (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree -and soil removal; grade changes. will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed building pad is located on the only existing level pad on the site. Utilizing the existing level pad will minimize disturbance to the site including tYie amount of grading required. In addition, the proposed materials and colors will blend wii;h~the natural environment. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The proposed main structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment. The second-story of the. proposed residence is setback from the first story. T'he roof of the first story, window treatments, stone accents, and gable ends add variation to the elevations and minimize the perception of mass and bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed mair. str-zacture will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed residence is tucked into the existing hillside and is located below adjacent ridgelines. The residence will blend into the hillside due to the proposed earth tone colors and materials. Please refer to (c). (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the Cit}~. `The proposed project requires a grading plan to be reviewed and approved by the ~ City Engineering Division: The plan shall contain all the provisions identified in the geoteclinical reports and current erosion control methods used by the City. (f) As recommended in the Residential Design Handbook the proposed project illustrates the following design policies and techniques to minimize the perception of bulk: the building is merged into the hillside; the roof slope follows natural ground; building floor levels are terraced; elevations are softened by using different materials; natural color materials are proposed; the height of roof elements are varied, higher :portions of the structure are setback; the project is not designed to attract attention or to stand out; lazge wall expanses aze punctuated with window treatments, stone accents, and gable ends. As detailed above, the proposed project conforms to the design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook with respect to mass, bulk, privacy and views. • C:~Fiusted staff report 6naldoc O ooO1 ^ File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~ ~-012; Est DR-O1-021: Kittredge Road Energy efficient features of the proposed project aze discussed below: Design for maximum benefit of sun & wind: The proposed residence is protected on the south side by a lazge retaining wall and cliff above. This feature will shade the house in the summer and minimize the need for air conditioning. Landscape to control exposure to sun & wind: The existing eight-acre site is heavily forested, while the proposed residence will require the removal of nine trees, the overall impact will be minimal. In addition, landscaping has been added to shield the tall retaining wall at the rear. Unfortunately, the- existing building site has very little topsoil over bedrock, therefore the resulting pad does not have much flexibility in terms of planting large trees to protect the house from wind and sun. Allow light, air and solaz access to adjacent homes: The proposed residence will have no impact on the adjacent homes, in terms of light, air and sun exposure, as the structure is 75 feet from the neazest property line. Incorporate energy saving devices into the design: The proposed residence will have high-efficiency furnaces to heat the proposed residence. WHEREAS, xhe applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following Variance and Grading Exception findings have been determined pursuant to the Municipal Code: Evaluation of Findings- Variance The applicant requests the following exception to construct retaining walls over five feet in height. (a) There are special circumstances, applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Topography at the site is very steep (74%). Due to the steep topography at the site retaining walls in excess of five feet aze necessary to construct the proposed residence and access driveway. (b) The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The variance request would allow the construction of a 4,810 square foot single-family residence. The variance requests would not constitute a special privilege because the Hillside Residential zone district is developed with similaz single-family structures of this size. • C:~I-Iusrcdsraff¢portfinaldoc oooO~~ File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~._ ~-012; ~ DR-O1-021: KittridgeRoad (c) The proposal would not be detrimental to public heu~lth, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The City Geologist, Engineer, Arborist, and Fire District have all reviewed the proposed plans. Their comments and conditions are incorporated as conditions of approval. Evaluation of Findings -Exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill in Hillside Residential Zone District (MCS 15-13.050{0 1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site. The proposed quantity of grading is necessary to provide access to the residence and to expand the existing level building site to accommodate a 4,810 square foot residence. 2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. An existing level building pad is being utilized for the proposed residence. This building pad is located in close proximity to the edge of the lot and an existing access road. As a result, a large percentage of the 8 acre lot will be undisturbed by the proposed project. 3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. The structure will be located on the low portion of the hillside below ridgelines 4) The increased grading is necessary to.integrate an architectural design into the natural topography. The additional grading will serve to tuck the residence into the existing hillside. 5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant communities. Please refer to 4. 6) No building site shall be graded so as to create a jlat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. An existing level pad will be utilized and expanded for the proposed residence. The grading will not result in a flat level pad surrounding the residence. The natural topography and slopes are maintained outside the immediate building pad and driveway. Now, TxEx~FORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of HEISTED for Building Site ApprovaUSite Development Plan, Variance, and Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • G ~fiusted staHrepott finaldoc ~~oOZQ File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~ ~-012; ~ DR-O1-021: Kittredge Road - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. _ 2. The entitlements contained in this resolution shall not become effective until the City Council has approved the Final Building Site Plan. 3. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 4. Roof covering shall be fire retazdant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. 5. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 16-60. 6. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 7. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage azeas which aze not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/azchitect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 8. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new 4,810 sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. 9. Driveways shall have a 14' minimum width plus 1' shoulders. Slopes from 11 %-15% shall be surfaced using ~" of PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. 10. Construct aturn-around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. 11. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. A 20' wide all C:~I-Iustcd staff report finaldoc 000019 File No. BSA-O1-002; ~ _ ~-012; ~t DTZ-O1-021: ICittrid~;eRoad- weathered road shall not be less than 14'. Gate shall be controlled by a remote digital transmitter. Details shall be shown on building plans. PUBLIC WORKS 12. The owner (applicant) shall submit a satisfactory evidence of a boundary survey of the subject property (the Record of Survey) to the Public Works Department as required per condition of the Certificate of Compliance CC-98-001, recorded September 16, 1998. 13. In connection with the previous condition, the owr.~er (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of the Record of Survey in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act, along with the additional documents as may be required, to the Public Works Department for examination, prior to Building Site approval. 14. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee„ as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Record of Survey for examination. 15. The owner (applicant) shall construct approximately 7501ineal feet of 6" water line per standards of the Saratoga Heights Mutual Water Company to connect two existing endpoints of the line. This connection will place the missing sc~ction of the upgraded water ;line. Improvement plans for this connection shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and to the Saratoga Heights Mutual Water Company For approval prior to Building Site Approval. 16. The owner (applicant) -shall grant an easement for the: proposed water line to the Saratoga Heights Mutual Water Company. A copy of the recorded Grant of Easement document shall be submitted to the City prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 17. Grading and Drainage .Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval and the Grading Permit shall be issued prior to the grading work commencement. 18. Prior to Building Site approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer-with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the site guazanteeing the completion of all required utility improvements'to serve the site. 19. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 20. All building and construction related activities shall a~3here to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. ' C:~FiustedstaHrepott final.dac 000020 i - File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~ ~-012; &x DR-O1-021: Kit[-iidge Road GEOTECIIIVICAL CONDITIONS 21. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, landslide mitigation, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. 22. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall identify geotechnically suitable drainage discharge locations and provide recommendations .to the Project Civil Engineer for incorporation into the plans. 23. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall confirm that a note describing the owner's responsibility in maintaining the debris catchment fence is included with the project notes and specifications on the final plans. 24. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 25. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of fill, steel and concrete. -- 26. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically inspect and monitor the construction of the chain link fence and rock anchors to confirm that potentially unstable rock wedges are appropriately mitigated. In addition, the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall confirm that the heights of walls are appropriate from a geotechnical standpoint (i.e., as per design, or modified due to field conditions observed during construction). 27. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the- City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. . " 28. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance. 29. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, c:~~5«aSmffR~ns~ia« 000021 File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~:,. i-012; ~ DR-O1-021: Kittrid~TeRoad`:__ slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related coriditions prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. ARBORIST 30. All recommendations in the City Arborist Report, date stamped and received by the Community Development Department on July 11, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 31. 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 1?ederal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 32. 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. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of tree State, County, City and Governmental entities must be met. will 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. PASSEn AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of this 27rd day of February 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • • • C:~lustedstaHreport final.doc ~ ~C~00022 File No. BSA-Ol-002; ~ , ~-012; list Dk-O1-021: Kittredge Road • Chair; Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING CONIlvIISSION This permit is hereby accepted i.~pon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and tuitil agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby aclrnowledges 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 • C:\Husced staff repoa &nataoc ~OOO~7i3 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFFr BLANK ~I ~- BARRIE D. C_ .TE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE RUSTED PROPERTY KITTRIDGE DRIVE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist June 12, 2001 Job # 04-97-146-01 Plan Received: 5/29 Plan Due: 6/29 JUL 1 1 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 000025 - i /~'•. ~ i TREE SURVEY AND PRESER`. 7N RECOMIvvIEENDATIONS AT THE HiISTID PROP, ~ l KIITRIDGEDRIVE, SARATOc,._ • Assignment - - At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report revLews the proposal to construct a new home on a vacant hillside lot in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes - recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant - decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary There are numerous trees on this hillside property. This proposal exposes at least eighteen trees to some le:vel of risk by construction. Nine trees would be removed by implementation of this design, and three trees would damaged, and they would noY be expected to survive. ~- total of twelve trees would be lost due to proposed construction. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 100% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with levels of the expected risks. Observations ~ There are at least two-hundred trees on this hillside site, but most of this site is located on a steep slope. The majority of the trees are inaccessible. At least eighteen trees on this site -are at risk of damage by proposed construction. These are located adjacent to the entry roadway, adjacent to the entry driveway, or adjacent to the building pad. The attached map shows the locations of these trees an~i their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The eighteen trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 big leaf maple (Ater macrophyll;um) Tree #2 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia~) Tree #3 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Trees #4-9 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree # 10 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees # 11-18 California bay (Umbellularia cal ifornica) PREPARED BY: MICHAEL. L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 12, 2W 1 D~~O~V r-. TREE SURVEY AND PRESER . ~N RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE RUSTED PROP 2 KITTRIDGE DRIVE, SARATO(in The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the four trees are converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional Fine Fair Margins! Poor S ecimens S imens S imens S imens S ecimens 10 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 1, 3, 4, 5 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Impacts of Construction Trees #6-1 1, 14 -16 are in conflict with proposed construction and their removal is planned. Tree # 10 is exceptional. Because of its location, it would be difficult to design a plan that would not significantly damage tree # 10. Since tree # 10 has a trunk diameter of 11 inches at 54 inches above grade, it is relatively young and could be easily replaced. Because of these circumstances, I suggest that tree # l0 be replaced. It appears that root damage to trees #2, 3 and 5 would be so severe that they could not be expected to survive. The retained trees (#1, 4, 12, 13, 17, and 18) would likely be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST JULY 12.2001 ~00~~ i Fw TREE SURVEY AND PRESER\ ~N RECONA~~NDATIONS AT THE HU;STID PROP: _ j KITTRIDC'E DRIVE, SARATOGA 4. The excavations for foundation or for other construction adjacent to trees. 5. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 6. _The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of con:~~truction equipment passing too close. 8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species;, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. 9.. Soil movement down slope during grading to cover- the root collars or to cover the root zones. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to rE.duce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. i 1. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on they attached map. Fencing must be of chainIink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the ~ arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing; must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees; (either before or after the construcrtion period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted 3. Trenches for arty utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan.i For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any Iee must be left exposed for inspections by our office. 4. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original glade and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment. , 5. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTDVG ARBORIST - NLY 12, 2W • certified 1 ~ ~~00028 (~'- T2EE SURVEY AND PRESEFc 7N RECOIvA~iDATIONS AT THE RUSTED PROI- Y KITTRIDGE DRIVE, SARATO~.. _ 4 6. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, .etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988. Trees #2, 3, 5-11, 14-16 have a total value of $20,384. An equivalent to this value is three 48-inch boxed native specimens, three 36-inch boxed native specimens, three 24- inch boxed native specimens, and one 15-gallon native specimen. An alternative equivalent is one 72-inch box and one 48-inch boxed native specimens. There are, of course, other possible equivalent combinations. Replacements equivalent to the total value of the lost trees are suggested. However, 36- inch boxed•and larger specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervirerrs Retained trees # 1, 4, 12, 13, 17 and 18 have a total of $8,227. I suggest a bond equal to 100% of their total value to assure protection. Respectfully subm' , ~..-,-+~ Mlchael L. Bench, A ocia~te 4.O'~ Ba oate, nncipa MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST J[JLY 12, 2W 1 000029 ,.~ -- BARRIE D. C~ .TE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the; crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Culhvar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Eacurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of phc~tosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches; or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are wi~kly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. DeSnition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that fonn the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf -The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. • 000030 - - _ ..: - - - • - - • .. A ~~ .- ~. -.. = BARRIE D. G~~.TEyAND -ASSOCIATES _.._: M _ l _ ~ .- --- Horticultural Consultants = _ -- _._:_- (408) 353-1052 .. -_ ----__ - -._: _.:_:.. _:_ ,- _ S Fax (408).353-1238 _ =- - _ _ _.. 23535 Summit R .Los Gatos, CA 95033 = .- _: _ - . TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CON. STRUCTION - These are general.recommendations ~~ And may be superseded by.site-specific instructions - -- - BEFORE _ . _ - - - Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible arts beneath tree canopies.llus includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. - Plan construction period fence locations which-will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneathtree-canopies...... ,_ _. - - - - Install fences before any construction related e~quipmeM is allowed on site. Tbis includes pickup trucks. _ Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. _Itequire return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. - Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between. August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions maybe used for his work. If limbs ar_e in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be recut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created: DURING _ _ ~ - - - Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition u~il all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone.. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave S-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot mornhs (June-October). Apply l 0 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 %') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripliae, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3"deep--layer is all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any _ organic material which is-non toxic may be used. _ _:- ~ ~ - - - - : i.. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just _ inside the dripline: Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation tremc}ies beneath tree canopies. - - Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will. destroy the small surFace roots which ` , rt ~ :` absorb water. ~~t_ Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. - _ - _ _ ~:~000031~ O. O c o ~ •~ U ~ C. o a~i ~ ~. a ~ .a ~. 7 O ~ Q O •C d d ~ n O_~ L ~ C ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ C V O O O ~ N pf ~ c ~ ~ a o ~ U ....o~ Tv O ~ ~ O .,~ •rl U ,~ ~ q > m ~ ~ N N m ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~" U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 t+ a V~ 0 O Q E~ ~ oc °~ ~ EVc y U U ~ c ~ ~ ~ .o AO ~~~ U~ W ~ ~~ _ ^Y' Q o N ..~ ~ ~ ~ ' x a = ~ U 7 r~ Q O O ~~~ ~~ z v a~ ~ c II ~ ~~ ~ a°~'~ ~~~~ Y t N :0 .r ~ C L ~ ~ :J «. N C i~ ~ •C~.yO ~eo;?a Q ~ ~ O oyia~ OC w <r H r ~~ ~ 2 0 .Su ~ .., t ro c~•;=~ V `O •tl 0 ~ i 7 H ~- 00 - _.~ ~= _- - ~~ ~ ~'i .. ~4~ ~ ~ ` O ~ •N L ~( i.7 (~ v c ~ u a w •.~ o c ,a u v ~• v 3 C c +~ .n w w O C C1 o ~. o v y o oc " '° CJ N 7 -+ ~ ~+ cot ~ t.Y O .•~ +-+ c0 3 c0 C (d L f9 OJ q G1 ^-~ 1+ 'p G1 r•1 4J ~ ~ u $ u .Qy ~+ 03 ti w v a .-: • 3 8 ~ ~ N a. ~ v •o o +~ a 3 F • G ~ • 3 N C~ ~+ t 0 ~ a; a; .•1 •p ~'• Cl C a ~+ w~ oL u ~: O oC 's ~~ a ~ ~ w u ,~ u - W cn d Cl C y F 'O +a ~ u ~+ v •~+ o u ce •~+ C Cw .~ n•w+ a dv w O ~ C ~ CSO C d . vl •~ •~ u v 4 o -+ u ,a w a u ~n o o ~ > - ai - r+ ~ -+ ro H w N ~D 6 ~ C7 Ts. O U `~~ i ~{ I )~ I` 1 4 I I o: v c u •~ C u 41 •~ (i. N T r 3 •v c~ o G- 1 • .~ , ~ ~ ~~ 1" ~ O ~~ e~ O O 7 •-w A GJ !~ 't1 ..a ~_ ~x ~i 4J it '~ Q O ---, .~ 0 i--~ / ~. +K ` It~N 1LLIMOItld 1VAOW3>:1 9 E 1VAOW3a aN3WWOO321 --- g ~ > ~ ~ > m ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ > > e -----______ ~ ~ ~ ~ m a3Zl~lla33 S433N y ~ y ~ y ~ y ~ y ~ y (S-L) a31VM SO33N u a a a n u (S-L) 3Sd3S10 aV11OO1OOa ~ m m m ~ n a m (S-L) O3a3A0~ aVIIOO lOOa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~_____~~_ X X x x X x m W m a (S-L) OOOM OV3O ~ v _~ n .n ~ ao ~ v ~ v a --------- -- N N N .- N a -(S-L) 3Stl3SIQ NMOaO 33x1 - y y y y y y - (S-L) S1O3SNI ~~ ~~ u u u u (S-L)1~1.laOlad ~JNINnad ° ° ° ~ ° ° ~ o rn m ~ o rn ~ # 43033N S318t/O _ . Z - ~ ~ 1H J13M ON3 3AOW3a ____w_______________ X X X X X X JNISIVa NMOaO U _~~_~_~ a c NOIlVaO1S3a NMOaO z _____________________M_____~_ ____~ m ~ 2 a `JNINNIHl NMOaO ~ n w ~ ~ ~ N y ~ `JNINt/3l0 NMOaO u u n u n n (e-£) `JNIlVa OaVZVH o o° ~ ~ o -----------------------•-----_____-___ __-- a c ° (OL-Z) `JNI1Va NOIIJONOO n • _M ~ ~ a ~ __~ ~ ~ ___ ~ ~!qq lK --------------- - t5 'a TS ~ _ ~ ~ ~__ ° U (s-L) 3anl~nals ~ ~ N v N N u, N N X X X X X X (S-L) H1lH3H '- ~ N ~ N av3ads c°o ~ N ~ v ~ N ~ ~ ~ 1H`JI3H - N y N y v y ~ y N p ~ y c 1333 Z® a313WMa N u ° n N u m n ~ u ~ u E -------------------------- c c c - c c c H8O m ~ HBO ____"-_'---"-----~--~~~~- N y X p ~ N y X N y X N y X p ~ N N X N y X W31S.lSillnW -----w_~°_~~~ x ~-- x H8Q o u7 °' c o rn `° o N '° o ~ ~ o ° o M c c c c c c 4 ~~ ~ V V 1 c CC ~ OC p q a ~ ~ ~ N ~ C .~ .- N C4 < V7 m O F OG 0 3 W Op tl r+ w O OdD a N 8 O ~ ~ yHf% > Y Y Y ~~,~~ ~~~ ~ o$~ ~~~~: ~~~~p~ N a0 000033 (___ !'~ eM ri .f~ 0 ~-, aJ r- .~ Q CJ bO b rYi ~. '~ 'C Q .G O --~, b v ~i it 0 IrN uY~orad ~vnowaa ~ ~ ~ ~vnow3a aNawwoaaa m W ~ o ~ o ~ m ~ ~ g ~ _ 2J3ZI111213j SO33N N ~ N ~ q a N ~ p p a N ~ w o< tS-t) a31VM SO33N u a a u u a (S-L) 3Sb'3SI0 av11OO1OO21 0 0 o w ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ m m m is-L) a3a3no~ arrno~ loon ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x x x x x x o a` __~_~ (s-L)~v~3O HNna1 m -------------- a r, O ° _ ""__"__ f~ y N N a (S-t) 3S!/3SI0 NMO21O 33211 N N N h h N tS'L) S1O3SNI ~~ a a n u u tS-t).WMORid`JNINnad g ~ ~ g ~ w e v ar # 03O33N S318VO ----------'---------- _ Z ~ ~ ~ r^ ~ ~ _~r ~ iHJV3M-ON3 3/~OW321 --_------_»~~___ _ __ X X X X X X e `JNISM21 NMO2)O 1M U _~_~w a 5 ' NOI1V2dO1S321 NMOaO c ° o y d ^ aa ~ a n e i ----'- m ~ `JNINNIHl NMO21O ~_ c~i N so h t •i h N ~ N M _ `JNINb'3l0 NMO21O ~~ u u _ u u n (e-£) °JNIlV2! O2IVZMH $ $ ~ ~ o o ~ ° (01-L) ~JNIlV21 NOILONOO ~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ _ i5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° v (S-L) 321n1On211S ~ ~ a+ a ~"~ w N a ___~ _ X X X X X X (S-l) H1N3H N N N• OM321dS N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ N m N N 1H°J13FI ~ H $ N m » ~ N ,°~ y ;~ N c m 133 L® 2l313Wb'1O ------------------ -- ~O -'- „ °i u N u N u rn -- .- u ~ u E c c c c -- c c • H9O »» ~ m ~ H9O N N N N N p N X »» X X X X °D X W31SAS'i1lnW ____»__»~~ x H8O 0 ~ ~ 0 ao N 0 ~ a o ~ a o~ ~ $ o ~ 0 eo c c c c c C W H ~ ~ 0~~~~ V ,. ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as ~ a oe ~S ~ 2S ~ ~ N ; $ ~ ~~QQ y ti ar ~ ~ ,~ g U ~ Ci E i?@k. Y ~ aD W C N [.i M a ~ a, W Oq u • N 88 "~ N ~~,,` h h h ~ Y Y Y ~i ~ ~ .$ . . r+ `e~ vNi o O V ~ Y Y X C X ~~ ~ oGJ,N°•~~: 000034 .. .. ~~ O .G O --~ 7 .~ Q GJ .nyy L r~ GJ "C1 'C Q .Q O ~-~, ~v a x -r..~ O r--~ (rLl uiaoiad,,rnow3a ~ m lvnowaa aNawwo~aa ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' °' ~ E M j ~ m > ~ ~ ~ ao E ggg a 213ZIlil2i33 SU33N N ~ N $ N ~ ~ F N N N a oc (S-L).2131VM S033N ~~ u u u u a (S-L) 3Sl~SI4 21VllOO lOOa ~ ~ m m m m m (S-L) 03213/00 x1/110010021 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ X X X X X X ________ _ a` (S-l).1V030 )1Nflxl - -- a ^ M --- »_»___"'»'^ b r N r 1~ a (S-t) 3S1/3SI0 NMOxO 33211 N N N N N N (S-l) S103SNI ~~ u a n n a (S-L) JWxOlxd °JNINf1xd n ° ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ° a rn ~ M 43033N S318V0 Z ~ - a 1H JI3M ON3 3AOW3x __ __»__ X X X X X X C _ ___»_"" e `JNISI`dx NMOxO v a ~ -----___~»~ NOI1VxOlS3x NMOxO ~ ~ o o ~ a w ao a JNINNIHl NMOxO ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N ~JNIN1fjl0 NMOxO ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (8-£) JNIlV2! 421HZVH o o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ (Ot-Z) JNIlVx N011JON00 ggg c ° V (S-t) 321f110f1211S ''~ y N c'~ m eo w c'~ a N X X X X X X (S-l) H1lM3H ae3xdS 47 e7 O ~ O t+f W n O N N ~ h a W ~ p N °l ~ O N N ~ _»~~»_____»~ Y O df °/ """ c+i of 1H`J13H O m ' N O m N O r° N O ~° ~ N O m N O •~ N 0 1333 Z~ x313WM0 r°~ u ~ u ~ u N a u ~ u -»--------'---'-- E c c c c c c H80 __________»__________»_ m ~ H80 N N N O N N O °i N m N X X X X X X W31SASillflW x x »'~ H9O o N ~ o r ~ ^ o r co ~ o ~_ A o ~ ~ o rf N c c c c c c H ~ ~ $ O~N~~ V g •~ V ,,, 0 ~ ~ ~~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ a ~ oe ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U ~ U U ch v ~ m r~ m F ~ a o O "' 3 A d p,~ EF a r. W N O O h h h n r ~ p~w~~~ Fr+e~ian 0 ~~at h U r r r ~~~~~ OG~c$°~~ 000035 A ~ i d > m e 'c a ~~ o ~ f Y `~ T 1 .-t ~ N ~ ~ i... N .-t o ~, U c ~ ~ £ ;; ~+ ;; v i ~ O 'n .~ ~ y m r~r1 z > O ~ N O ° ~ `. ` v O ++ o+ O ++ ,..t . _ ~ C ~p V u ''ry ~ U '^ E h 0 Z m O 6~i ~ O .~ 'd' r~. h O r+ OU Q d~ ~ 'a L ~ t!1 A to W 4 try ~ J V+ ~ z ~ C~ O ~ _ ~ ~ N J J `+ p \ " V 0 = ~ Q _- d_ ~~!~~~ ~ v p e ~ pa, ~ ~ ~0 7 ~ 7 . ~o• ~s ~ Q c`d o _ \ a ~S! i~~' /..` ~, a ~, F o °c o+ m v O _ ~ C ~ V A Q 3 to N r Ft •=i N Q N A Q t IH ~ ~ Q d ~ V ~ tW J C ~ , yt `try ~ F- ~. ti ~ C '" Q '_3' °D ~ ~ ~ ¢ .~.. ~ 0. W 2 to t ~ m Q ~ M t t ~ m N ~ t t t t t ~ r~ i dtst(.. 1 r try . at~s . R te- . r \ t r u ~-wo ..u ._ ,,~ ~ ~! ~I ~~ ; 1 R II` I~ as~t's +.., :,~ ~~ ' ` Z ', ESL _ _ ~~--- ' \~ • II, oooo3s JAN - 3-~ 2 T H U 2 3 0 5 1 C H E E S E M A N S~ E C O Attachment 3 20804 Kittridge Road Saratoga, CA 95070 January 3, 2002 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Manager Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvate Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Fax; 867-8555 Dear Mr. Sullivan and members of the Saratoga Planning Commission, Ra: DR-01-002 & V-01-012 (517.14-080) - Hosted, Kittridge Road Please include this letter in the record of public comment, as we will not be able to attend the hearing on January 9; 2002, Wa are strongly opposed to granting the variances to construct retaining wa11s in excess of five feet and to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill. The variance allowance is way out of control in this area. Ouring the last year hundreds and hundreds of loatls of dirt and concrete have been trucked up Kittridge Road fo dramatically change the landscape on very steep slopes to allow for gigantic homes that were issued variances. What is the sense of havingg standards for building when they can easily be ignored b issuing a variance? We have repeatedly called the Saratoga Building Dept. and been told that there is nothing they can do to stop the constant flow of gravel, dirt and cemgnt trucks up Kittridge Road, which is a private road. There is something the city can tlo and trial is to sto~pp issuing variances that allow people to build monster homes on steep hillsides. On top of the problem is the instability of the entire Bohlman, Quicken and Kittridge road hillside, which is well known. We hope there are enough people.on the Planning Commission who care for the building code; standards on steep h~lls~des and not Just for tax revenue from millionaire homes to. refuse the request for variances. It is imperatve to stop overhauling the terrain on this hillside, Sincerely yours, ~~~~~ Gail and Doug Che eman • 00003'7 t - ., - . THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT' BLANK •i • 00008 Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Attachment 2 Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are dangerous for birds and tr 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, I{ittrid~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 azea 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 cleazance. • Described the proposed structure as having cherry stained cedaz shake siding and stone veneer. There are three acres of private access easements. • Said that a fire truck turnazound 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 azea 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. 000039 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if there is any liability tc~ 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 offha~ad. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has never seen a 20-foot high retaining wall in previous proposals and asked staff why they support 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. Addf;d that the applicant's civil engineer can discuss this issue 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 tesun. • Said that he and his wife, Susan, are looking forward to joining the community. 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 thhe 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 aze prepazed to go with the deck or a retaining wall for the fire truck turnazound, although they prefer the wall to the deck. Chair Barry asked why. Page 8 C, • ~©~~~0 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. Mazk Helton, Civil Engineer: • Said he would answer any questions the Commission might have for him. Commissioner Gazakani 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 turnazound. Commissioner Gazakani asked if the walls would be visible. Mr. Mark Helton said it was possible but the he thought they would mostly be invisible. Commissioner Gazakani asked how the walls aze to be supported. Mr. Mark Helton replied that they would drill peers and tie them. into the hillside. This is a fairly common practice. While it is not difficult engineering, it is costly. Commissioner Gazakani asked if there are any neighbor concerns. Mr. Mazk 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 appeazance 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. Mazk 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 azea. 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. 000041 Sazatoga 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. Mazk 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 moved the gazage up to reduce tY~e height of the retaining wall. Commissioner Kurasch asked, if the house were smaller and mconfigured, 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 heazd that the pad on this property was cut into the mountains in the 1950s but also heazd 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 yeazs 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 neazest public street is Norton Drive in one direction and Bohlman in the other: Kittridge is private. Mr. Glenn Romig, Soils Engineer: • Said that he prepazed a Geotechnical Report. • Advised that the pad was cut prior to 1971 but no one is scare 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 azea for the fire truck turnazound. They can put in either a good deck or retaining wall. ®©0042 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 azound the retaining wall for the fire truck turnazound 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 the 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 out 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 turnazound 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. 000043 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 properly. • 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 may be 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 occumng 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 projf;ct 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 aprivate -mutual water company. 000044 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 13 .~ • Said that there are 10 connections pending in this azea. • Said that as faz 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 ICittridge 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. 000045 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. ,~shford 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 v~~ater 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 zit 9:30 p.m. 000046 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this is a very well design~d 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 akeady 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 a scenic 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. 00004'7 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 Conunission 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 what 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. 000048 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 appears 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 Garakani 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: ABSTAIN: The motion failed. Jackman and Zutshi Roupe 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 Garakani asked if Commissioner Kurasch is concerned about hillside stability or the appearance of the walls. Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants the project to adhere more closely to the City's standards. 000049 r Sazatoga 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 out 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 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 Gazakani questioned why the Commission should even go forwazd if it has found that this is not a buildable site. 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 environment 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 ooooso Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, X002 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 000051 • ?IN`d-I$ .L33"j ~I?I~NOI.L[~I3I.Nj • N33$ SHj~ 3J~d SIH,j • -~- 000052 _ ITEM 2 ! REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-049 DR &t V,18627 Ambleside Lane Applicant/Owner: Charles and Grace Bush Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner ;,~~// Date: Apri110, 2002 APN: - 397-06-069 Department Head: C7 • 18627 AMBLESIDE LANE 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 3/7/02 Application complete: 3/20/02 Notice published• 3/27/02 Mailing completed: 3/27/02 Posting completed: 4/4 /02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to reconstruct a 656 square foot garage in the same location and on the same concrete foundation as their garage that was destroyed by fire. The structure is to be located within the rear corner of their 1.03 acre lot, within ten feet of both the rear and side property lines. Locating a structure within these setbacks requires a variance to both the rear and side yard setback requirements. A variance is needed because the garage location fails to meet both the fifty foot rear yard setback and the twenty foot side yard setback for accessory structures which are twelve feet or greater in height, in the R-140,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the ro osed Desi Review and Variance be anted. P P ~ ~' ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 02-049 2. Plans, Exhibit 'A' dated 2/10/02 C~ 000002 • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD -Very Low Density Residential, 1.09 du/ac. MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 1.06 acres gross, 1.03 acres net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 12% GRADING REQUIRED: THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGE IN GRADING OF THE SITE. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of building a garage is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of building a detached garage. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of the garage is to be wood batt-n-board painted beige to match the existing house with dark brown slate the roof. r~ 000003 R-1- 40,000 LOT COVERAGE: Existing Proposed Code Requirements 7,525 sf 7,525 sf 35% or 15, 703 sf FLOOR ARFA: Residence: 2108 sf 2108 sf tiara e: 656 sf. 656 sf. Total: 2,764 sf. 2,764 sf. 5,922 sf. SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. Front: 50 ft. Front: 30 ft Side:10 ft. Side:10 ft. 20 ft. Rear:10 ft. Rear:10 ft. 50 ft. HEIGHT: tiara e -13 ft. 2 in. tiara e -13 ft 2 in. Accesso Structure/15 ft • • • 000004 PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant requests Design Review and a Variance to reconstruct a detached garage that was destroyed by fire in October 2001. The detached garage lies within the reaz and side yard setback, in the northeast corner of the lot. The replacement structure is to be built on the concrete pad that remains. The existing pad lies 10 feet from the rear and east side boundaries of the lot. Since the proposed gazage is to be 13 feet 2 inches in height, the standard setbacks for structures in the R-1 40,000 zoning district are applicable. The required setback for the reaz yard is 50 feet and the required setback for the side yard is 20 feet. Both setbacks are now nonconforming and have been so located since the property owner bought the house in 1983. NECESSARY FINDINGS -DESIGN REVIEW The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and _ minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in _ terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. NECESSARY FINDINGS -VARIANCE In addition, the Section 15-70.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires findings for granting a variance ~~00~5 (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. (c) That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ACTUAL FINDINGS -DESIGN REVIEW The following findings have been made regarding the proposed reconstruction of the garage. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privary. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Interference with views and privacy are avoided because the proposed garage location is at a lower elevation than the abutting two neighbors. There is a four-Foot drop in elevation from the two adjacent neighbors to the existing concrete pad. This drop in elevation makes the perceived height of the-garage lower than the actual height of thirteen feet Also plans for the new garage have no windows along the north (rear) and east (left side) elevations which face the adjacent homes. This minimizes the privacy impact of the garage location on adjacent neighbors. The impact on the neighbor to the east of the garage is greatest since this home is about 20 feet away from the side property line. The garage does not impact the neighbor to the rear since the home is located about 75 to 100 feet from the rear property line. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in beeping with the general appearance of neighboring' developed areas and undeveloped areas. Locating the garage on the existing concrete pad minimises the impact on the natural landscape since the location will not change the impervious coverage of the lot. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. ~~~0~6 ~~ ~ The nse in elevation from the abutting neighbors to the proposed garage location 1~nimi7eS the perception of height since the adjacent properties are higher lIl elevation than the Bush property. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same .zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. From a visual standpoint the proposed garage appears compatible in terms of bulk and height due to the rise in elevation of adjacent neighbors. The garage location should not impair the light and air of adjacent properties since it should rise about five or six feet above the ground elevation of the abutting eastern neighbors. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed garage is to be built on the existing concrete pad therefore no changes to grading are required. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The proposed addition complies with some design policies while compromising other design policies; therefore the findings needed for staff to recommend approval cannot be met without revisions to the plan and creation of a visual buffer. The proposed design conforms to design policies #1 through #4 mimm~e the perception of bulk, integrate structures with the environment, avoid interference with privacy and preserve views. The lower elevation of the subject lot and the lack of windows facing abutting properties ensures minimal perception of bulk, integration into the landscape, sufficient maintenance of privacy and views and adequate solar access for neighbors. Thus the above analysis concludes that the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. ACTUAL FINDINGS -VARIANCE (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 000007 The subject property has special circumstances applicable to the lot. The property owner's garage existed on the lot for more than 20 years, i.e. prior to their purchase of the property. The nonconforming structure was destroyed by fire last October and the applicant is requesting to build the garage on the same concrete pad that remains after the fire. Allowing the garage to remain in the same location is reasonable for the following reasons. Locating the garage in a totally conforming location on the lot would require considerable amounts of re-grading of the site which has a 23% slope along the entire western portion of the lot. Alternatively, locating the garage at the northern end of the property adjacent to or attached to the house would block the windows at that end of the house, would require some cut and fill due to the slope and would still be slightly non-conforming in the rear yard setback. Thus topography, location of existing structures and destruction by fire make this situation a special circumstance. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege since section 15- 65.110(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that "no such removal or conversion of a nonconforming structure shall be required within ten years from the date that the structure became nonconforming". Since the structure has been nonconforming for more than ten years, the property owner has a vested right to the nonconforming structure and is permitted to rebuild the structure in the same location as was previously constructed. Since all owners of nonconforming structures enjoy this privilege the granting of this variance is not a special privilege. (c) That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The re-constructed garage will be safer than the previous structure in terms of updated wiring and fire retardant roofing materials. In this respect public health, safety and welfare will be supported. In conclusion, granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the property owners and is consistent with the limitations imposed on surrounding property owners. Staff recommends that the variance be granted. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed this application. Their comments are included below. • ~000~8 r. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ 1. Th d v lan shall a r v _ e e elopment p be pp o ed as shown on Exhibit A, incorporated by reference. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed this application on March 26, 2002 and approved the plans as submitted. There were no fire department conditions or .. requirements. CONCLUSION The proposed re-construction of the garage is consistent with the findings required for granting both Design Review and Variance and should therefore be approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approved the Design Review and Variance application by adopting the following resolution. • • 000009 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000010 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION N0.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-049 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES AND GRACE BUSH/18627 AMBLESIDE LANE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and Variance approval to re-construct a 656 square foot detached garage which was destroyed by fire; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the re-construction of a nonconforming twenty year old garage; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The lower elevation of the subject lot relative to the adjacent neighbors at the northeast corner of the property minimises the perception of height of the garage structure. The four-foot rise in elevation to the east and north of the property will lower the perceived height of the thirteen-foot high garage by at least four feet. In this way the topography minimizes the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment Locating the garage on the existing concrete pad minimizes the impact on the natural landscape since the location will not change the impervious coverage of the lot. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The garage plans depict no windows to the north and east of the property. These are the views, which would impact the privacy of abutting neighbors. In this way ~~~~~ the design avoids interference with privacy. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The lower elevation of the subject lot minimises the perceived height of the structure. Since the garage will only project about six feet above the natural grade of the eastern neighbor the garage will not interfere significantly with views. Policy S, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The garage location should not impair the light and air of adjacent properties since it only projects about five or six feet above the ground elevation of the abutting eastern neighbors property. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, the following findings have been determined (a) The subject property has special circumstances applicable to the lot. The property owner's garage existed on the lot for more than 20 years (i.e. since they purchased the property). The nonconforming structure was destroyed by fire last October and the applicant is requesting to build the garage on the same concrete pad that remains after the fire. • Allowing the garage to remain in the same location is reasonable for the following reasons. Locating the garage in a totally conforming location on the lot would require considerable amounts of re-grading of the site which has a 23% slope along the entire western portion of the lot. Alternatively, locating the garage at the northern end of the property adjacent to or attached to the house would block the windows at that end of the house, would require some cut and fill due to the slope and would still be slightly non-conforming in the rear yard setback. Thus topography, location of existing structures and destruction by fire make this situation a special circumstance. (b) Granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege since section 15- 65.110(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that "no such removal or conversion of a nonconforming structure shall be required within ten years from the date that the structure became nonconforming". Since the structure has been nonconforming for more than ten years, the property owner has a vested right to the nonconforming structure and is permitted to rebuild the structure in the same location as was previously constructed. Since this right is enjoyed by all who own nonconforming structures that are greater than ten years old the granting of this variance is not a special privilege. (c) Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The re-constructed garage will be safer than the previous structure in terms of updated wiring and fire retardant roofing materials. In this respect public health, safety and welfare will be supported. • 000012 Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Charles and Grace Bush for Design Review is approved. The application for variance is also granted on the grounds that the variance not would be deemed a privilege and would not impair health safety and welfare. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" dated February 10, 2002 shall be deemed the approved plans. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution, as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance. CITY ATTORNEY 1. 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 Ciry 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. 2. 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. Construction must be commenced within 24 months 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. ~J ~0001~ ;r PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of Apri12002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: 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 • 000014 .~' '~ a a `~ ' ~ c eb c c ~p °~~~~~~ o~~> t/J ~e ~~~ ~~~1.. ~10XY c $ ~~ y~~9~ ~~ o a Y ~~~~~~~~ =~~3 ~~ ~ .ZZa€ Jw ~~+Z ~~' ~~~G ~y~Rc n a FF g~Z~=~Z~ ;~~~a <O .uF-< x` a .c l r ~~ ~`~ ~~ r~ =r ~ ~~ ~` ~ $ d ~~` 6 i i I~~ I' -, I~ SL. L. 5~ Z -'- lil .__-_ Q ~ ~ PPP _ __~ s -~!_~0 ~` ^~ ~./ ~~ o~ ~ ~~ ~` ~~ $~~ d T ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ Y ~ ~~ ~~~ ~- ~~g~ ? : '' ~ ~~~ i d d d i a d f -i ~~ a 0 z ~a~ ~~ ,~ ,r ~~ ~~. 0 `' ~~ ~'~ ~~ . ~;-~g~~ ~~~~ ~oo~~ r~ ~~ ~3~ u ~g~~ ~o ~~4 _i z~ OI~ #.. • • ~'~'~ ~ oaa.~-o~a"fBbM sacs ~, ~e~r~s ' _._,__. '~Q1VZ1~/S `r l# ~t1t , ~J M~}„~~1$NDJ-~b ~ X10! 'oAY~QO~. 1 ~ YY ^^ *~/p~ I~ © ~~ ~ LZ986 0 ~ O ' R \ ~Yf ^~ 3Jtlil11/~ ©3SO~dOZid o ,~ 1 - - --- - - --- • -~---- --- ~~' !~'iL1f'H~ 'aW ~ ~. o ~ - -- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ WW p p .y ~ y7 Qf y` {{yyy-~ ~~j J Q ~ g O V ~ pyj~ m q} j 41 ~ ygy 7i V ~ ~ y~ 6 ~ Q S : v ~ ~ ~ ~ ® a © ~ ~ a ~ N = ~ ~ o w ~ c~ ~. ~ ~<~jj y y ~ z ~ ~~ ~« 3 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ ° ~ D i li ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® . ~ • ~ J a , ~` t o _ Q' ~. $ c w a¢ ~ 8 ~`! ~i L ~ mI ~ ~ w nwre I ww .o- o~ I ;~ ~ ~3u~ „~a I u c~ I ~ - Q ~~ b i ~ ~ g~~3 r~ ~ L - - J - ._ F V • Q N ~ ~ ~~ /) N ~ ' ~ ~ _ - ....~_-~ -_ ~1~ ~ ~ Yj O ~ '~ ~ ~; ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~a3 : ~~~ ~~~~ -~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ H ~~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ,,t ~ x ~~ ~~ 39~ ~_ zr~ Q ~ ~ ~ .~ p~~~ I 4 f ~ ~~ P~ ~ ~ ~~ N I N 'o~~ ~~ ~~ u -~-u -~~ '~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ I ~a~ a a J ''IIi ~ ~ ~~~ ~. o z~~ '. ~~ -v) a r~ I; ~ 6 ~ 4 II t ~ ~ • m~ ; 4 o ~ ~ z 5 iI s i ~ @ C ~ ~ T v- '_ 1 V -- ~ r°-I N '~ i /- ~ i ~ ~~ • ~- ~ z '.J $ +~ ~ ~~~a ~ ! i 1 _ ~ -a ~ " ~ ~~~ .l' -~ ~ --- _ -e,- F ~ I ~i ` a ~ ~ '' \ \ $ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ i 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ n~ $ U jj ~ m~ 4 ~~ t~ '~~ .~~ ~ ~~ A S i iyF. •• ~ ~ 0 ~ Y E µ2 '~1 S` - f o_ L ~~~ ~ ~I \ ~~` ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ p K r ~; '~ ~s c ~ -i-------- ~ --- -_. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - fb- ~~ ~ *~ r _ ~ ~ 2 ~-~ ., - a' u LL.. ~ ~ u / ~ }~- - -O-yL ---------- -- -------~- V ~ -- _ _ -'"_ _ _ - a 1 "~ ~ ~~ i -- - 'f I ~ ~ i ~~ l ry II 1 I ~ ~ - ~ 9 ~ .o 1 ~ 9 z- i ~I = t ' I~ ~ ~ - 4 ~ ,d - • .~ `, ~ ' --- ~ il~~ d j I o i I ~ ~' I ~~ ~, d ~ ~~~~ - ~ - --- -- --- - a-~------- ---- ~ ' --- -- ---- - - -- - -------- a-- ~---- t~ --- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ,- •I ~ ~ 71 l l '~ Q ~ ~~ I; I z xZ i Z ~ ~ ~, ~, - ~; ~ ~ ,-~ ~-o r' o ~~ i_ I ~ ~~ f-- ~ `` rt ~ v d a ~ V• Xi - ~ 4 (~ :~ 'Q ~ I~ ~ ~ ~--- .-_ i - - -- '6' ~ t • .~ ~ - r ~~~ ~a ~ g ~a,~~c73 ~ ~9~~ egg ~QQ ~ ~ ~~~~~-~__~~ ~ ~~ ;~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ 3 g~~~8 ~~.~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~g~~~ ~ g~~~~ 9QO ~ F~he~~~~E B $,~yn X Y Yi p E $¢ a gggg #¢ $$B~- ~, k e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~' < , _ ~ ~ My $ ~ $ ~ U '~ e 9 ~' 6 `0 3 v~ ~ ` ~$ s fi + ~ ~ p y~ g o ~O ~ pp 0 • ~W @~@ u 3~ y .- r a fig{ ~ p 5$ . ~c8i y G ~ - I bgy$$~~~,5 e4 ~° ac>_E ''=~ ~ 'gam g~~~~~~~ ~..~4$ ~e~- ~~ ~ red s g3~~8 ~~,~Y <~ g~° assz~<~ u ' ~ ~6,~~K~ rd ~F ~s~^Y~.R' ~it 3l ~~~ E ~ ~ „~' ~~~~ ~ o s grv 3 n H ~~~ ~ ~ t$ t ° `~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~8~ ~~~~ -~$eg"$ ~~ ~~ e ~gg ~~~4~g 1N ~~u~a~~n~---err--'~-- ~-- a :g - - -~ -~- - -- jj -- L - -F, I ~ ° i .~ ~ V (~l~' ('l Z ~~$~ ~ _~~ ~ r = -_-..---- ~ - --- F r- / - ~~ - - - - ~ -.--_ - - - - ~ iI ~-~ ~I'~!I _ ~ =----- -- --- ~ ~ i ~--) (~ o -Z ~ , =- ------=- -- i ice--; --- -~ z,, 8~ q :o ° 0 ~ ~~ ---- ---- G r ~ ~ l_J :_..~ r--_~ --___ _T~ ~~ - ;I ~ ~~ - _~__.._:____~_--~ is i ~i~ ~ -_ --:.~____ ---_-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 'ice i pQ i4 a ~~ ~~ ~~ 2 ``~ \y -~-- - 1~---~ ~ ~) ~ _ __ ~, ,o L ~` ~~`1 ~/ W U -~-w ~; O I~ S ~Q I ~ }~- ~I. 0 T ~ ~' O` City of Saratoga Commtiuuty Development Department MEMORANDUM NEON BUSINESS TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Dire DATE: Apri110, 2002 RE: Post Card Poll of Brookview and Saratoga Woods Neighborhoods We have completed the tallying of the returned post cards from the Brookview and Saratoga Woods neighborhoods. The results are in the table below: BROOKVIEW SARATOGA WOODS [: • Support 116 Sl% of those 35% of total 178 66% of those 44% of total res ondin mailin res ondin mailin Oppose 105 46% of those 32% of total 82 30% of those 20% of total res ondin mailin res ondin mailin Total 221 67% of total 260 6S% of total Responding mailing mailing Returned 6 2% of total 11 3% of total MaiU mailing mailing Undecided Number of 328 401 Postcards . Sent Out Did Not 101 31% of total 130 32% of total Res and mailin mailin Discussion The Commission needs to determine if the results are sufficiently significant to move forward with a Public Hearing to consider establishing the single story limitation. Staff suggests the Commission discuss the two neighborhoods separately. If it is determined to move forward, Staff will develop a draft Ordinance and schedule Public Hearings. Whatever decision the Commission makes will be reported back to City Council. 000001 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000002 C~ • City of Saratoga Commuiuty Development Depamnent MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Thomas SuIlivan, AICP Community Development Director DATE: April 10, 2002 RE: Zoning Ordinance Review COMMISSION ITEM The subcommittee comprised of Chair Barry, Commissioner Jackman and I will be reviewing the following 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. • Zoning 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. ~~~01 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000002 ,4 • MIlVUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 6, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. to interview applicants for the Arts Commission and the Public Safety Commission. 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) • Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION- 7:00 p.m. 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 February 6, 2002 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 6, 2002 was properly posted on February 1, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Robert Lee, 13864 Yerba Santa, noted that he has lived in Saratoga since 1975 and has lived at his present address since 1999. Mr. Lee noted that he contacted Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) six months ago to inquire about the restrooms that are being constructed on the corner of Allendale and Fruitvale Avenue. Mr. Lee stated that he has yet to get a response from VTA. Mr. Lee noted that he also requested from the VTA a copy of the EIR and did not get a response. Mr. Lee asked that the City contact the VTA and request that they put this project on hold. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Vice Mayor Baker noted that on behalf of the Solid Waste Management Authority JPA he would like to present a commendation to Mayor Nick Streit for representing the City of Saratoga on the JPA since December 1998. City Clerk Boyer read the commendation from the JPA and presented it to Mayor Streit WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIItECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that staff contact the VTA and request project information. Mayor Streit responded that he recently sent a letter to VTA requesting them to put a hold on the construction project and respond to the City's concerns. City Manager Anderson noted that staffwould contact VTA and report back to Council and Mr. Lee. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None City Council Minutes 2 February 6, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 5, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item lA be pulled from the Consent Calendaz. Councilmember Bogosian pointed the following corrections: • Page 2, 3`d pazagraph, should read, "Ms. Hunter noted that if it's the height that is the problem she has an anonvmous donor who is willing to pay to have the tree lowered". • Page 16, 1~` paragraph, should read, "Councilmember Bogosian asked Ms. Mahrer if her neighbors would support a change in the zoning code to allow duplexes in her neighborhood". • Page 18, 2na pazagraph, should read, "Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to ask the state fora 3 month extension in order for the City to hold more public heazings and to do the required analysis of HCD's comments". BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH STREIT ABSTAINING. 1B. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -DECEMBER 12, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1 A be pulled from the Consent Calendaz Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would be recusing himself from the vote because he was absent for this meeting. Vice Mayor Baker noted that on page 3 should be "south" instead of "north" Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that Item 1B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. • City Council Minutes 3 February 6, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the following be added to her V comment "Councilmember Waltonsmith thanked her fellow colleagues for their continued support and noted that she was looking forward to supDOrting the Mayor's nroiects ". BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2002 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. 1 C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian referred to the line item on page 4, Cupertino Body Shop, and asked what type of bodywork was needed on the City's new car. Director Cherbone responded that the car had damage in the rear quarter panel. Director Cherbone explained that it was involved in an unavoidable accident at Congress Springs Park. Councilmember Bogosian requested a report on the details surrounding the accident. Councilmember Bogosian referred to the-line item on page 8, Husbands & Associates and questioned the cost of a drinking fountain Director Cherbone noted that three fountains were purchased for $5,380.20 for El Quito Park BOGOSIAN/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1D. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 4 February 6, 2002 ` lE SARATOGA LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT PHASE II -SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that Item lE be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey asked if this expenditure was in the original library budget. Assistant Manager Tinfow responded yes. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1F ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve policy. WALTONSMITHIBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 G. AMENDMENT TO THE NON-MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULES THAT REFLECT CORRECTIONS TO THE RECREATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR AND RECREATION SUPERVISOR POSITION RANGES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 85.9-134 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-008 MAKING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET AND RESOLUTION 85.9-132 AMENDING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION N0.85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WALTONSMITHBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-008. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 5 February 6, 2002 1 H. KSAR -EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT/RELEASE OF OBLIGATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Release obligation. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1H be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked how KSAR fulfilled their obligation. City Manager Anderson responded that KSAR bought a laptop computer, have emergency bulletin board capabilities, and purchased a 100-foot extension cord that can connect the controls in the Theater to the EOC. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO RELEASE OBLIGATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. lI. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF SHADOW OAKS WAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: MV- 235 RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SHADOW OAKS WAY WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT MOTOR VEHICLE RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SHADOW OAKS WAY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1J AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC. CONTINGENCY FUNDS AVAILABLE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to amend contract. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1J be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian noted the PG&E should be responsible for these additional charges. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that PG&E indicated that it was the City's responsibility to submit our application in a timely manner. City Council Minutes ( February 6, 2002 Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that she recently contacted the Government Affairs Director of PG&E and would report back to Council at a future date. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AMEND CONTRACT WITH - WII.LIAM SCOTSMAN INC. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1K. CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK IMPROVEMENTS -DONATION UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and accept proposal RESOLUTION: 02-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 2001-2002 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $30,000 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK Councilmember Mehaffey requested that Item 1K be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mehaffey asked what Youth Sports Fund purpose was used for. Director Cherbone responded that it was an account the City set up to collect funds from donations given to Congress Springs Park. MEHAFFEY/ WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING 2002-2002 BUDGET FOR CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1L LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1; RESOLUTIONS INITIATING RENEWAL OF THE DISTRICT FOR FY 2002-2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions. RESOLUTION: 02-006 A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002- 2003 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 RESOLUTION: 02-007 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002- 2003 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 City Council Minutes '7 February 6, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 1L be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked if there was any anticipated increase in fees Director Cherbone responded that he does not foresee any increase although he will know for sure after he receives the Engineer's Report. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENT AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE ENGINEERS' REPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 2 WEST VALLEY COLLEGE USE PERMIT STATUS REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION' Informational only. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor reported that at the City Council meeting of January 16, 2002 a member of the public requested an update on the history and status of West Valley College use permit and related litigation The City Council directed staff to prepare a report on those issues. City Attorney Taylor explained that the report first provides background on the issuance and administration of the West Valley College use permit and then a discussion of the ongoing litigation. City Attorney Taylor explained the West Valley College Use Permit was granted a Use Permit in 1967 one of the key issues that was controversially at that time was whether or not they could have a stadium. The 1967 Use permit prohibited the construction of a stadium at the campus. In the early 70's excavation began on campus and an investigation took place and it was determined there were two sets of construction plans -one included a stadium and the other set of plans did not. The City proceeded to revise the College's Use permit more explicitly and made clear that a stadium was prohibited on campus. There were further disputes over what constitutes a "stadium". In 1979 the Use Permit was amended again to say "The District will not develop any new outdoor intercollegiate sports facilities with permanent sound system or permanent seating or permanent lights on the Saratoga City Council Minutes g February 6, 2002 campus. No sports stadium will be built on the campus. No existing outdoor facility or azea of the campus will be modified to include lights, sound, seats or other accommodations for intercollegiate sports or other spectator events." City Attorney Taylor explained that in 1979 the District also agreed to be bound by this amendment regazdless of any further changes to the use permit. The permit stated: • Should any or all of the other provisions of this use permit (other than condition #7) be declazed null, void, or invalid, then this section (condition #7) shall remain as a separate binding agreement between the City of Sazatoga and West Valley Joint Community College District with regard to the use of the land on which the Sazatoga campus is located. City Attorney Taylor explained that the City adopted these provisions without objection by the District. In the 1990s, the College began hosting spectator- oriented events at the site of the proposed stadium. Between 1996 and 1998, the District formalized its stadium proposal by purporting to act pursuant to Government Code section 53094 to exempt the stadium and the remainder of the West Valley campus from the requirements of the Sazatoga City Code. City Attorney Taylor stated that in response to the District's attempt to exempt itself from the City's zoning ordinance and all permits issued pursuant to the zoning ordinance, the City filed suit against the District in 1996. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the District on both issues. The City has appealed and argument before the Court of Appeals is scheduled for Mazch 5, 2002. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is of the view that (1) the stadium is a "nonclassroom facility" and is therefore not eligible for the exemption and (2) the District may not adopt a single resolution exempting all uses on campus from the City's zoning ordinance because the statute requires a separate 2/3 vote of the Trustees for each use that the District seeks to exempt from City zoning. The District azgues that the stadium is a classroom facility and that it has the authority to adopt a single resolution exempting all classroom facilities from all City and County regulations. On a final note, City Attorney Taylor stated that the Court of Appeal would consider these legal issues. The City is schedule to appeaz before the Superior Court on Mazch 5, 2002. The City Council thanked City Attorney Taylor for his report. Mayor Streit requested to move to Item 6. Consensus of the Council to move to Item 6. Ciry Council Minutes 9 February 6, 2002 NEW BUSINESS 6 WEST VALLEY MISSION COLLEGE DISTRICT BOND MEASURE E STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he has been advised by the City Attorney to recuse himself from participating in this item. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at the City Council meeting of January 16, 2002 a member of the public requested that the City review the West Valley- Mission Community College District Bond Measure ("Measure E") that will be considered by the voters at the March 5, 2002 election. The City Council directed staff to obtain information on Measure E and to present that information to the City Council City Attorney Taylor explained that the measure would authorize issuance of up to $268,653,300 in bonds. Bond funds will be used for a number of specified projects at Mission College and at West Valley College in Saratoga. The bond measure notes that the timing of projects and the allocation of bond monies will depend on the receipt of state matching funds and other factors. The measure would direct the District to appoint a Citizen's Oversight Committee to perform annual audits and ensure that no bond money is used for salaries or administrative expenses. The measure does not specify the composition of the oversight committee. _ City Attorney Taylor noted that the District has estimated that the annual tax rate necessary to finance repayment of the bonds during fiscal year 2002-03 would be $14 07 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. The District has further noted that this figure is an estimate only and that the actual tax rate will depend on factors such as the timing and manner in which the bonds are issued, the bond market, and the assessed value of property within the District. City Attorney Taylor explained that the City Council has three options available with respect to Measure E: 1. Simply accept this report and take no further action. 2. Take a position in support or opposition to the measure. 3. Direct staff to conduct an additional investigation of the measure and prepare a detailed and objective analysis of the effects of the measure on the City. City Attorney Taylor reminded the City Council that although the City Council may take a position on the measure, the City may not make public expenditures to advocate a position in support of or opposition to the measure. Any information provided by the City to the public regarding the measure must be fair and objective. The courts and the Fair Political Practices Commission have made clear City Council Minutes 10 February 6, 2002 that public agencies may not use taxpayer funds to promote a particular position on a ballot measure. City Attorney Taylor noted that he su est the Council consider the matter listen gg , to public testimony and direct staff accordingly. Patty Browder, 13800 Yerba Santa Court, noted that she has lived here for 27 years and West Valley College has always been a good neighbor Ms. Brawder noted that she supports Measure E. Dr. Marchelle Fox, President/West Valley College, noted that she is speaking as a resident of Saratoga not as the President of West Valley College. Dr. Fox defended the education and enrollment at West Valley College indicating that West Valley College students are guaranteed admission to many private and public universities. Charles Butterfield, 1566 La Pradera Drive, stated that if a stadium were to be built at West Valley College property values would go down due to an increase in noise and traffic. Mr. Butterfield noted that a stadium would be a negative impact on the residents of Saratoga. Rick Rowe, 13615 Ronnie Way, noted that he and his family moved to Saratoga five years ago from Minnesota. Mr. Rowe noted that he agrees that West Valley needs upgrades, but the idea of a $5.5 million dollar allocation for a stadium troubles him. Mr. Rowe noted that he opposes Measure E Richard Wilson, 12500 Jolene Court, noted that he does not support a stadium at West Valley College. Mr. Wilson noted that the ballot measure was poorly written Mr. Wilson noted that if the stadium was truly beneficial to the community then it should have been presented in the open not hidden in the ballot measure. Mr. Wilson noted that he opposes Measure E. Ronald Schoengold, 19000 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that he is the President of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association representing over 400 families. Mr. Schoengold stated that the Saratoga Woods Association is opposed to any money being spent on a stadium and would vote no on Measure E. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, noted that she is the treasurer for the campaign opposed to Measure E. Mrs. Jensen noted that one out of every nine residents have given a donation to oppose Measure E. Mrs. Jensen noted that 40% of West Valley students are not even Saratoga residents. Mrs. Jensen urged the Council to take a position against measure E. Erna Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, noted that although she does not live near West Valley College, but a stadium would still affect her. Mrs. Jackman noted traffic would increase on Big Basin and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mrs. Jackman urged the Council to oppose Measure E. City Council Minutes 11 February 6, 2002 Dr. Cynthia Barry, 19281 San Marcos, noted that West Valley College has a long history of going against City policy and City code and then dening ever doing so Dr. Barry described such incidents: • Cutting down trees • Polluting the creek • Construction of bathrooms at the new VTA bus station located on the comer of Allendale/Fruitvale Avenue Betty Jo Stewart, 12517 Palmtag Drive, noted that she is opposed to Measure E. I.D. Allen, 14426 Black Walnut Court, noted that he is opposed to Measure E. Willys Peck, 14279 Saratoga Avenue, noted that he is the President of the West Valley Mission College Foundation and a Saratoga resident and taxpayer. Mr. Peck noted the real issues behind the measure is that the West Valley campus is in desperate need of facility improvements. Mr. Peck requested that the Council not lose site of the real issues, but look at the facts. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, noted that he has been fighting against the construction of a stadium for 30 years. Mr. Monia noted that every City Council in Saratoga has opposed a stadium at West Valley College. Mr. Monia requested that the City Council take a position opposing Measure E. Rachel Zierdt, 14345 Maclay Court, noted that she has been a public school teacher for 33 years and has always supported school bonds. Mrs. Zierdt noted that she would be voting no on Measure E. Gene Funari, 20460 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, noted that she was representing the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Funari noted that the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Directors support Measure E. Ms. Funari noted that West Valley College is a valuable asset to the community. Ms. Funari urged the Council to support facility improvements that are desperately needed at West Valley College. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Ms. Funari if the Chamber is officially supporting Measure E. Ms. Funari responded that the Board of Directors took a vote at their last board meeting to support the measure. Sharon Kelkenberg, 14014 Pierce Road, noted that she supports Measure E and stated that thousands of Saratoga residents have attended West Valley College. '~ Ms. Kelkenberg noted that the City should be proud to have a community college in Saratoga. Ms. Kelkenberg noted that in an open letter from the Chancellor of West Valley College, she talked about adding a few bleachers, never mentioning a stadium. Ms. Kelkkenberg informed the Council that the League of Women's Voters would be holding a community forum on all of the bond measures Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Saratoga Community Center. Crty Council Minutes 12 February 6, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith referred to a list of proposed projects at West Valley College and pointed out to Mrs. Kelkenberg that the bond measure has allocated $5.5 million dollars for bleachers. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View Drive, noted that she is a past member of the West Valley Board of Trustees. Ms. Duffin noted that she supports Measure E. Linda Lawson, 14090 Elvira Street, noted that she is an instructor at West Valley College and a Saratoga resident for the past 20 years. Ms. Lawson explained that the College is in need of facility repairs such as new carpet, a new HVAC system, bathroom renovations, and new roofs. Ms. Lawson noted that she supports Measure E. Jim Stallman, 19740 Braemar Drive, urged the Council to oppose Measure E. Mr. Stallman also suggested that the City and West Valley College somehow "bury the hatchet" and resolve the ongoing and past problems the two groups have had. Wendy Weisman, 14147 Squirrel Hollow Lane, noted that she supports Measure E Ms. Weisman noted that the College is not proposing a new stadium, but just improvements to the existing athletic fields. Jeffery Schwartz, San Marcos Road, noted that he is on the Board of Trustees at West Valley College, but tonight he was speaking as a resident of Saratoga Mr. Schwartz requested the City Council oppose Measure E. Mr. Schwartz pointed out the results of how West Valley College ranked on the study of education by the State Chancellors Office. Stan Bogosian, 20630 Lomita Avenue, noted that he was speaking as a private citizen and a Saratoga taxpayer. Mr. Bogosian noted that he has spent his whole career in education, teaching grade school to adult education. Mr. Bogosian urged the Council to vote no on Measure E. Mr. Bogosian noted that the City of Saratoga cannot afford more traffic congestion that a large stadium would bring. Kathy Dougherty, 19980 Herriman Avenue, stated that West Valley College needs facility improvements and noted that she supports Measure E. John Feemster, 18800 Ten Acres Road, noted that he is opposed to Measure E. Marcia Fariss, 18983 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that the West Valley College Board is fiscally irresponsible and have communication skills. Ms. Faris noted that the College should have had two separate bonds, one for a stadium and the other for facility improvements. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, noted that when West Valley was first built in Saratoga in the 70's, the Superintendent signed a contract that stated they would never build a stadium. Crty Council Minutes 13 February 6, 2002 Vice Mayor Baker thanked everyone for attending tonight's meeting. Vice Mayor Baker noted that West Valley College made a serious strategic mistake including the athletic stadium in the measure. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he thinks that the College does a good job academically and is an excellent member of the community. Vice Mayor Baker noted that for three years he was part of an Ad Hoc committee formed to work with the College and in that time no progress was made with the Board. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he opposes Measure E. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she has always voted in favor of all bond measures for education. Unfortunately, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she has several problems with Measure E such as: • How the list of projects was comprised Financing Amount of money allocated for West Valley College Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that when Saratoga High School wanted to build in Saratoga it had to come to the City and ask for the Use Permit. The District wanted to build an athletic facility with bleachers. The City allowed them to build including this field in their plans, as long as there were no night games. To this day their night games are played in Los Gatos. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she opposes Measure E. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that West Valley College is a tremendous asset to the community. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he was also a part of the Ad Hoc committee mentioned by Vice Mayor Baker. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he knows the College needs the money, but as he read the whole measure, there is no mention of a stadium, although there is $5.5 million dollars allocated for sports facility. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he does not trust the Board and requested staff draft a resolution opposing Measure E. Mayor Streit noted that West Valley College is in need of facility repairs, but in regards to Measure E the Council and the citizens of Saratoga have not been presented with all the facts. Mayor Streit stated that he concurres with his colleagues and opposes Measure E. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to draft a resolution opposing measure E and return to Council for approval on February 12, 2002. Mayor Streit declared a 10 minutes break at 9:15 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. • • City Council Minutes 14 February 6, 2002 OLD BUSINESS 3 SARATOGA LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT -PHASE II ALTERNATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize change orders to contract. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that at the meeting of January 8, 2002 Council awarded the construction contract for Phase II of the Saratoga Library Project to Thompson Pacific Construction for $8,898,000. At that meeting Council expressed interest in the three alternatives that would result in energy savings once the building is operating. Assistant City Manager noted that staffwas here tonight to request authorization to staff to initiate change orders in the amount of $99,000 for the addition of dual pane window alternatives and digital control system for HVAC equipment. Assistant City Manager explained that Gilbane and Field Paoli agree that the dual pane windows and the digital control system are good investments and neither one believe that substituting McQuay units in place of Trane is a good idea, because the initial payback for the initial investment is too long. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDERS IN THE AMOUNT__ OF $99,000 FOR CHANGE ORDERS MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Streit requested to move to Item 7. Consensus of the Council to move to Item 7. NEW BUSINESS 7 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FY 2001/02 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 02-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OTC SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 BUDGET Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca explained that the resolution before the City Council proposes adjustments to the mid year Budget for FY 2001-2002. The resolution primarily City Council Minutes 15 February 6, 2002 reflexes three types of changes 1) Fund Balance 2) Revenue Projections 3) Expenditure Estimates. Director Baloca stated that the City remains in a strong fund balance condition. Director Baloca stated that the year started offwith a surplus of $2,966,627, of which $1,649,542 was attributed to the General Fund. General fund operations continue favorably with total revenue at 50.5% and expenditures at 48.5%. Although the City has experienced decline in some tax revenues, such as transfer, construction, and transient occupancy, the City has been fortunate to have other revenues as refunds/reimbursements, fines, and donations that offset. Net revenue adjustments to the general fund, $101.771, reflect a reassessment of these revenues. Director Baloca noted that revenues most significant to the general fund's stability include property taxes, sales taxes, and motor vehicle license fees, which make up 58.4% of the budget. The projection for property taxes has increased by $20,605 reflecting a recent formula change on how TEA revenues are distributed to cities. Sales tax reflects an 11% decline in the first half of the year of activity that has been applied to the year-end projection. Motor vehicle license fees remain as projected. Director Baloca stated that adjustments to the Development Services Fund primarily reflect early revenue spikes in geology review and engineering fees resulting form the Sobrato Project. Community Development revenues such as planning fees and building permits have experienced significant decline in activity. Director Baloca stated that fortunately it's projected building permits and plan check fees from the Odd Fellow project will balance out the decline towards the end of the fiscal year. Director Baloca explained that a general fund adjustment of $71,925 reflects a shortfall in the amount budgeted for the two additional traffic officers approved in the prior mid-year budget. Director Baloca noted that the Streets and Roads fund reflects an expenditure reduction of $3 million reflecting anticipated delays with the Quito Road Bridge, Cox Avenue, El Camino Grande, and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Enhancement Projects. General fund support of $1.5 million will be retained in the general fund until fiscal year end. These projects will be re-appropriated in the CIP budget next fiscal year. Director Baloca noted that the General Fund June 30, 2002 should be $6.5 million and an undesignated Fund Balance of $2.8 million. Vice Mayor Baker noted that is no appropriate to say the whole $2.8 million is undesignated, when in fact $1.4 million of it has been committed to be spend on streets and roads and paving. City Council Minutes 16 February 6, 2002 City Manager Anderson stated that mechanically this was done because the City had three or four capital projects imbedded in the operating budget from last year. City Manager Anderson noted that the timing did not work out so the money could not be spent, so the funds were rolled over. City Manager Anderson explained that in order to prevent this form happening again, staffwould betaking those projects out of the operating budget and putting them in a CIP fund that is separate from the general operating budget. This will allow the funds to continue at the end of the year until spent or released. Director Baloca noted that this next budget process his goal is to pull all the CIP projects out of the operating budget even the ones that exist now. This will prevent re-appropriating funds at the end of the year. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked why there was an additional $71,00 for the Sheriff's Department. Director Baloca explained the money was allocated for the rest of the fiscal year for salaries and benefits that was originally only budgeted for half a year instead of the entire year. Mayor Streit asked Captain Bacon how the City's budget is doing overall for the year. Dennis Bacon, Captain/SCC Sheriff s Department, responded that the Department is within budget. The City Council thanked Director Baloca for his report. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4 AB 680 LEGISLATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to send letter to legislators opposing AB680. Dave Anderson, City Manager presented staffreport. City Manager Anderson explained that AB680 is legislation that affects local government in the territory served by the Sacramento Area Council of Regional government. It proposes to redistribute local government's Bradley Burns sales tax and use tax growth on a 1/3 situs, 1/3 per-capita, 1/3 contingent upon the local agency's general plan begin approved by the regional board as it relates to adherence to "smart growth" principals. • City Council Minutes 1'] February 6, 2002 City Manager Anderson explained that the League of California Cities and the City's legislative consultant, Gonsalves and Son, recommend opposition to this 8 9 legislation. -- BOGOSIAN/NIEHAFFEY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OPPOSING AB680. MOTION PASSED 5-0. INTRODUCTION GRASSROOTS REPRESENTATIVE REBECCA ELLIOT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Consensus of the City Council to continue Item 5 to February 20, 2002. FY 2001/02 CITY/COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG)CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report Analyst Reeve explained that Saratoga receives Community Development Block grant (CDBG) funds as a member of the County of Santa Clara Community Development Block grant Joint Powers Authority. As a result, the City is required to execute an annual contract with the County that outlines the obligations and fiscal responsibilities of each party. BAKER/MEHAFFF,Y MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. MOTION PASSED 5-0. APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCILMEMBER AS 2ND ALTERNATE ON THE EXPRESSWAY STUDY POLICY ADVISORY BOARD (PAB) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appoint alternate. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer reminded the Council that on December 19, 2002, the Saratoga City Council appointed Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith and Mayor Nick Streit to represent the City of Saratoga on the PAB. Crty Council Minutes 1 g February 6, 2002 • ~' City Clerk Boyer noted that occasionally situations arise when both the appointed Councilmember and the alternate aze not able to attend a meeting. To guazantee the City would be represented at all PAB meetings it would be the appropriate time to appoint a 2°d alternate. The first meeting the 2°d alternate is requested to - attend is scheduled for Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. MEHAFFEYBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER BAKER AS THE 2ND ALTERNATE TO THE PAB. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Streit reported the following information: Hakone Foundation -the Board of Director decided to hire a communications director. Vice Mayor Baker reported the following information: Emergency Planning Council -Continuing to work on integrated coordinated plans in the event of an emergency. West Valley Solid Waste JPA -The City of Saratoga was the only City to bring back recommendations in regazds to the renewal of the Curbside Recycling Program with Green Valley. The JPA approved the household batteries recycling program effective June 2002. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: Legislative Task Force -Requested direction from his colleagues. Councilmember Bogosian explained that the Legislative Task Force and the Silicon Manufacturing Group have formed a relationship. Councilmember Bogosian reminded the Council that the Manufacturing Group supported the Dunn bill. Councilmember Bogosian asked to what extent does the City want to participate in this Task Force and how he should represent the City. Councilmember Bogosian requested that this issue be agendized for the next City Council meeting. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he would support Councilmember Bogosian's request to agendize the issues surrounding the Legislative Task Force. Councilmember Bogosian continued his report: Silicon Valley Animal Control JPA -Announced that he was elected Chair and the Vice Chair is now Fred Fowler. The JPA is planning on building a shelter in the near future. According to the DMG study it is estimated to cost up to $6.5 million dollars. Sazatoga's share is estimated to be up to $520,000. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the JPA is looking at leasing some land in Santa Clara. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the JPA must have the shelter up and running by June 2003. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: SASCC -Voted to move their annual fundraiser to October. Annual luncheon is scheduled for February 13, 2002. Recently received aping-pong table to help reach out to the Chinese community. The Boazd also finalized the Executive Directors health benefit package. City Council Minutes 19 February 6, 2002 Sister Citv -July 26, 2002 the Japanese exchange students would be at City Hall for the tour and presentation by the Mayor. Councilmember Mehaffey re orted the following information: P County HCD Policy Advisory Board -noted that the HCD would meet in on February 7a' to go over all of the funding allocations and would hear from grant applications. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested that an agenda item be placed on the next City Council agenda to discuss terminating the Chamber of Commerce lease. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supported Councilmember Bogosian's request. Councilmember Bogosian requested a status report on the contract negations with the County Library. Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff investigate the recent masonry work done at the Madronia Cemetery. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she recently received a letter from the Safe Ride Program explaining that they will no longer be providing service because they cannot fulfill their insurance obligations. Waltonsmith requested staff to investigate this issue and report back to Council. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted that the City would be holding a Community Meeting in the Civic Theater on February 26, 2002. Mike Evanhoe/VTA, would be reporting on the Highway 85 Mitigation Report. City Manager Anderson stated that this meeting would be televised. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 20 February 6, 2002 ~~~ ~!~ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 6, 2002 The City Council of the City of Sazatoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5.00 p m Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (3 cases): (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Sazatoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of Case. City of Saratoga v. West Valley-Mission Community College District (California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District No. H022365) Name of case. Tsung-Chin Wu, Yuh-Ning Chen v. Pazker Ranch Homeowners Association (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-707015) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. In addition, Mayor Streit noted that there was no action taken after the continued Closed Session discussion on February 20, 2002. Ma or Streit called h R y t e e lu ar City Council meeting to order at 7:00 n.m and requested Richard Taylor, City Attorney, 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 Richazd Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 6.2002 S Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 6, 2002 was properly posted on March 1, 2002. City Council Minutes 1 March 6, 2002 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Don Zonic, 12480 Woodside Court, noted that he and his family are new to the Brookview neighborhood. Mr. Zonic noted that in September he received a newsletter from the Brookview Homeowners Association that discussed mail/identity theft incidents. In January he received a letter from the Post Office indicating that he and his family were victims of identity theft, the thieves were apprehended, but unfortunately skipped bail. Mr. Zonic pointed out that he thinks there are gaps between the Post Office, Sheriff's Office, and the City Council. He suggested one person be assigned to address this issue so other citizens would could avoid the long process that he experienced Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, discussed the parking provisions that were defended by Chief Kraule before the Planning Commission last fall. Chief Kraule told the Planning Commission that a new fire station would only need 15 parking spaces. Mr. Farrell noted that Chief Kraule was wrong and the station would need 25 parking spaces to accommodate four crew members, two medics, a management staff of five and the shift change crew that is on the property at 8:00 a.m. 7days a week. Mr. Farrell requested that the City designate 25 parking stalls only to be used by fire station employees during the time of shift changes, 8.00 a.m., the other 23 hours of the . day the fifteen spaces would be open to the public. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, noted that she recently found out that the Highway 85 grinding process would soon begin Mrs. Jensen noted that her concern is that there might not be any money left for an asphalt overlay if the grinding does not work Mrs. Jensen urged the Council to take a position on this issue and agendize it for a future discussion. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, thanked the City Council for taking a position and opposing Measure E. Mr. Monia thanked all the residents who voted no on Measure E and thanked everyone who helped campaign opposing Measure E. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None • City Council Minutes 2 March 6, 2002 4 COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF In regards to Mr. Zonic's comments regarding mail and identity theft, Vice Mayor Baker requested that staff contact the Sheriff's Office and the Postmaster to find out what is being done and what progress has been made on mail/identity theft. Vice Mayor Baker requested that staff report back to Council on a regular basis. - In regards to Mrs. Jensen's comments, Vice Mayor Baker requested that staff provide Council with afollow-up report in regards to the Community Meeting that was held on February 26, 2002 on the Highway 85-Noise Mitigation Report. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports Vice Mayor Baker's request for a report on mail and identify theft. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that staff contact other cities to see what measure they have taken. Councilmember Mehaffey noted he concurred with his colleagues that mail and identify theft is a problem. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that Mr. Zonic had to go through a long process to solve his problems and suggested that the City work with the Post Office and the Sheriff's Office to coordinate a single point of contact that citizens could go to help them with these kinds of problems. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports Vice Mayor Baker's request for a follow-up report on Highway 85. City Manager Anderson noted that the Post Office and the Sheriff's Office have recently formed a Joint Task Force and have been going to neighborhoods to talk to them about thefts that have occurred and options to make their mail more secure. City Manager noted that he would contact the Sheriff's Office and the Post Office and would return to Council with a full report. Mayor Streit requested that the Council move to Item 6. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 6. NEW BUSINESS 6. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT -SEMI ANNUAL UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Greg Zlotnick, Santa Clara County Water District, District 5 Director, thanked the City Council for allowing him to brief the Council on activities that the District has undertaken in the City of Saratoga. The West Valley Water Shed, in which Saratoga sits, has 90% of the improved channels have been restored to their design capacity for flood control. Mr. Zlotnick explained that the District has removed 56 thousand cubic yards of sediment from 2 miles of channel and 630 feet of stream bank has been repaired in the watershed. In Saratoga, the District recently completed an erosion repair project on Calabzas Creek at Quarry Road that cost City Council Minutes 3 March 6, 2002 about $45,000. In 2004 the District would start to plan a project at Calabzas Creek y from Miller Avenue to Wardell Road in which construction would start in 2007. Mr. Zlotnick noted that the District plan to continue to work with the City to construct trails along Saratoga Creek and continue to work on the water quality problems. Mr. Zlotnick noted that Saratoga receives water from District and San Jose Water Company. Mr. Zlotnick announced that the District would be holding the 2°d Annual Land Use Summit on Thursday, May 23, 2002. The primary focus would be how land use decisions effect water supply and demand and how land use planning can aid in protection to our ground resources in the County. Vice Mayor Baker asked why Lexington Reservoir was drained. Mr. Zlotnick explained that Lexington Reservoir is drained every year for providing capacity for in flow during the winter and also to do need maintenance work. Mr. Zlotnick noted that he would be happy to provide the Council with a brief summary of what exactly goes on while the reservoir is drained. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, reminded the Council that last year they passed a pesticide ordinance and urged the District to limit their use of pesticides and herbicides. Mr. Zlotnick noted that he would take her comments into consideration. 7 COMER DEBRIS BASIN MODIFICATION PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that attached to staff report Council received a copy of the Comer Debris Basin Engineering Feasibility Study and noted that the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff was here tonight to present a report to Council on the status of the Comer Debris Basin Modification Project. Director Cherbone noted that the Modification Project was a study to determine the impact of the basin on the creek and watershed, and the potential impacts of removing the basin. The study examined the following issues: hydraulic, hydrologic, sedimentation, basin removal options, adverse and beneficial environmental impact, and whether the removal of the debris basin benefits the watershed. Director Cherbone noted that the District held two public meetings to gather input and a notice of tonight's meeting was sent to the District list of interested parties. City Council Minutes 4 March 6, 2002 ` Director Cherbone noted that the District's report includes various alternative solutions such as: ' 1. Alternative 1 - Do Nothing. 2. Alternative 2 -remove entire headwall and wingwalls. Grade channel in " uniform slope 1,300 feet upstream of Comer Drive. 3. Alternative 3 -Remove entire headwall and wingwalls. Construct a stepped channel to create small falls and pools. Grade slope 500 feet upstream of Comer Drive. 4. Alternative 4 -Remove upper 3 feet of headway, leave wingwalls. Grade uniform slope 50 feet upstream of Comer Drive. Construct single step at upstream end to match existing channel bed. Director Cherbone briefly explained the history behind the Comer Debris basin stating that is was constructed in 1973 to assist the District in maintaining the Calabzas Creek Channel capacity for high winter flows. Although the basin worked effectively to irnpound sediment, there may have been downstream impacts. Director Cherbone noted that the current need of the debris basin is questionable because the upstream quarries, which contributed to most of the sedimentation. Jason Christie, Engineer/Santa Clara County Water District, explained that in addition to the alternatives Director Cherbone explained, the Districts engineers' hydraulic calculations show that 5 inches of water would flow over Comer Drive Bridge during the 100-year flood flow. Mr. Christie noted that he needed to find out how much it would cost to fix that problem. Raise the bridge and regrade the approaches to the bridge for approximately $300,000. Councilmember Bogosian asked if any of the mitigation efforts presented tonight would make it worse for the property owners downstream. Mr. Christie responded if the dam and the sediment were removed the flow of sediment would not be changed. Mr. Christie noted that they do not anticipate further erosion downstream. Councilmember Waltonsmith referred to a diagram in the Feasibility Study and asked if it described the District decision to try and even out the slope. . In response to Councilmember Waltonsmith, Mr. Christie explained that the District has not made a decision; the Feasibility Report was intended to look to several different scenarios. Mr Christie explained Alternative 3, stating that the District could remove the entire headwall and wingwalls, construct a stepped channel to create small falls and pools. Mayor Streit stated that Alternative 3 would have the least impact upstream. City Council Minutes $ March 6 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey asked what the District would do with the sediment they would be removing from the creek. Mr. Christie explained that it is good soil; the District could probably sell it to a contractor for a road project. Councilmember Mehaffey asked who would pay for the proposed project Director Zlotnick responded that it might come out of a zone account or from funds generated from Measure B. Robert Wallace, Foothill Lane, stated that he would like to see the creek restored back to the way it was in 1973. Mr. Wallace suggested that the dam and the walls on the west side be removed. Mr. Wallace noted that the other wall should stay in order to save an oak tree. In regards to all the sediment, Mr. Wallace suggested placing it all on the west side and any extra should be left to flow downstream naturally. Lawrence Clifford, 12985 Pierce Road, noted that he has followed this project from the beginning. Mr. Lawrence noted that the after reading the Comer Debris Basin Engineering Feasibility Study; he found that nowhere did it mention erosion control. Mr. Clifford noted that the property owners downstream have lost parts of their yards due to erosion. Mr. Clifford urged the Council not to support this project. Lawrence Ives, noted that he owns the property adjacent to the debris basin since 1994. Mr. Ives noted that he thinks that the creek should be left as is. Patty Ting, Wardell Road, noted that she representing her mother. Ms. Ting noted that she agrees with Mr. Clifford that erosion is their main concern. Mr Zlotnick noted that the Feasibility Report was not intended to address all of the concerns voiced tonight. Mr. Zlotnick noted that as the project moves forward a CEQA report would have to be done by the District. If the project moves forward, Councilmember Bogosian asked who would be responsible if erosion does occur. Mr. Zlotnick noted it is the District's project. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that he feels the less grading the better because of possible heavy metals and other toxic substances that could be in the soil. Mr. Zlotnick responded that the Regional Water Quality Control Board mandates soil testing. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports the District's efforts but noted that she does not want the creek to be damaged any more that it already has. City Council Minutes 6 March 6, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports Alternative 3. Vice Mayor Baker asked Mr Zlotnick what he would do to address his three concerns in regazds to the homeowners who live along the creek: 1) flood control 2) minimizing erosion 3) least impact. Mr. Zlotnick noted that he does not have enough information to make any suggestions. Mr. Zlotnick noted that he needs direction from the City Council to go forward with the project or were there enough questions on potential impact to where the project should not go forward. Mr Zlotnick noted that he would be willing to come back in a few months and give the Council another update. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he feels the City Council does not have enough information to make a recommendation on the project. Mr. Zlotnick noted that there is enough information to know that the District will be able to mitigate impact. Mayor Streit noted that he feels this project should go forwazd and perhaps come back to the Council after the District completes their process. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY COMMISSIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public heazing; close public hearing, waive the second reading; adopt ordinance. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: 203 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY COMMISSIONS Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor noted that at the City Council meeting of February 20, 2002 the City Council introduced an ordinance establishing vazious standazds for City commissions. The ordinance would establish (1) procedures for posting commission vacancies, (2) eligibility requirements, (3) attendance requirements, (4) procedures for removing Commissioners and filling vacancies, (5) meeting requirements, and (6) consistent rules of procedure. These rules would apply to Commissions as well as other City committees and boazds. Although a second _ reading would ordinazily be presented as a consent calendar item the City Council directed that this matter be set for an additional public heazing. City Council Minutes '7 March 6 2002 City Attorney Taylor noted that prior to introducing the ordinance on February 20, - 2002, the Council amended the draft prepazed by staff to (1) provide that no person can serve on more than one Commission at a time (this requirement does not apply to committees, boards, and other non-commission groups established by the Council), (2) change the attendance requirement to provide that a Commissioner's seat becomes vacant if the Commissioner has three consecutive unexcused absences, (3) direct Commission secretaries to mail attendance reminder notices to Commissioners who have missed two consecutive meetings, and (4) provide that no person can serve as a Commission chair for more than one term in any four yeaz period. These amendments have been incorporated into the attached copy of the ordinance. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if a commissioner could apply directly to another commission when their term is expired. City Attorney responded yes they could apply to another commission Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that the expiration dates for the commissioners be staggered so there is no more than two expired terms at a time. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he supports Councilmember Mehaffey's suggested that no more than two commissioners' terms ends in one year. City Attorney noted that he would bring an amendment back to Council at a future meeting. Mayor Streit opened the public heazing at 8:25 p.m. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVE TO ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY COMMISSIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVE TO DIItECT STAFF TO PREPARE PROCEDURE TO STAGGER TERM EXPII2ATION DATES ON THE CITY' S COMMISSIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. HOUSING ELEMENT/MIXED -USE PROJECT SITES ~ , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public heazing; close public hearing; provide direction to Staff regazding the locations of potential mixed-use projects to be included in the Housing Element. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan briefly explained that the Department of Housing and Community Development required that the City identify individual parcels of land that may convert to Mixed-Use within the next five yeazs. Since the Mixed-Use City Council Minutes g March 6, 2002 Housing program would be providing a portion of below market rate housing units, to comply with the State's request, the City needed to identify specific Commercially Zoned parcels. Director Sullivan noted that staff identified sites in the Housing Element in response to the State's mandate. At the January 22, 2002 joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting staff was directed to amend the identified mixed- use sites. The Commercial locations that were the result of previous Mixed-use or Multi-Family developments were deleted from consideration. Director Sullivan noted that there is at least one site identified for each of the commercially zoned areas of the City. Consistent with Council direction, Staff mailed individual letters to effected property owners and to the contiguous property owners. In the letter that was mailed to the effected property owners, Staff explained that the City was being forced to identify individual pieces of property. It was also explained that there was no absolute requirement for a Mixed-Use projects ever to be built. Staff also advertised in the Saratoga News, posted on KSAR, mailed notices to the League of Women Voters, the various schools that serve Saratoga, the Chamber of Commerce, and posted on the City's website. Director Sullivan noted that the remaining number of dwelling units that need to be planned is 42 Councilmember Waltonsmith asked how the properties identified as mixed-use were chosen. Director Sullivan explained that the City has a GIS system, which can link onto property information data. Director Sullivan stated that he arbitrarily picked the mid 80's as a reference point; if it was order than that there was some chance that the City could convince the state that it would indeed convert in some length of time. Director Sullivan noted that he looked at other properties such as the Quito Center who met the age criteria, but because of their character and the success of the property, probably would not convert in the near future. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if being on this list does not mean the property would be converted and not being on the list does not mean that some day the property could be converted to mixed-use. Director Sullivan noted that all of the commercial areas in the City would have the opportunity to convert under whatever design guidelines and rules that were put in place by the housing element. Director Sullivan noted that this list is to demonstrate to the state that the City has complied with their mandate to identify target sites. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Margo Ottenberg, 12881 Foothill Lane, questioned if the City has any force to mandate developers to build mixed use buildings on the sites identified. City Council Minutes 9 March 6, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey responded that this was the City's way to comply with the state mandate to identify parcels. Councilmember Mehaffey explained that these are places that might be redeveloped in the next five years and would allow a developer to build mixed use. Mayor Streit added that the City had to make the option available in order to comply with the mandate. Margaret Towns, 13035 Regan Lane, noted that her neighborhood has already been negatively impacted by the renovation of the Argonaut Shopping Center and the addition of Starbucks. Ms. Towns noted that the noise and crowds of kids that hang out at Starbucks have negatively affected her neighborhood. Ms. Towns noted that she does not support the mixed-use designation on Blauer Drive. Ms. Towns noted that amixed-use building would decrease the property values in her neighborhood. Lisa Trailer, 20390Blauer Drive, noted that she and her family moved to this neighborhood six years ago because of the park like backyard and great views Mrs. Trailer noted that if the property owner is permitted to build a two story mixed use building on the property located at Blauer and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road it would impact her privacy and her family's quality of life. Mrs. Trailer noted that she understand that the list presented tonight is one for political reason but who knows if the state will mandate it. Doug Sullivan, 20483 Tricia Way, noted that he does not have a problem with a mixed-use building, but does have a problem with atwo-story building. Mr Sullivan noted that the current use at the proposed mixed-use site looks like a residential property. Mr. Sullivan noted that City should put mixed-use properties in areas where they would not affect others. Vice Mayor Baker asked Mr. Sullivan where his property was located. Mr. Sullivan noted that his property is directly behind the proposed sites Thomas Hardy, 20486 Tricia Way, noted that he lives next to Mr Sullivan. Mr. Hardy noted that he is opposed to this designation. Mr. Hardy noted that his neighborhood has had no problems with the current property use; they are quiet and operate during the day Monday-Friday. Mr. Hardy noted that a two story mixed use building would lower property values, increase the noise and invade pnvacy. Edward Chu, 20475 Tricia Way, noted he lives next to the proposed mixed-use property. Mr. Chu noted that he does not support this designation. Mr. Chu noted his neighborhood does not need any more retail. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, noted that he is adjacent to the Gateway Area map parcels 5 & 6. Mr. Walker noted that he applauds the Council's effort to comply with the state. City Council Minutes ' 1 Q Mazch 6, 2002 Mr. Walker noted that in an increase in setbacks and additional landscaping to act as a buffer should be discussed if two-story mixed-use buildings aze allowed to be built. - -- Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, commended the Community Development Director's efforts. Mrs. Feldhym noted that she supports the City's efforts to comply with the state. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, noted that he has lived here since 1967. Mr Mallory noted he lives behind the proposed mixed-use properties #8 & #9 on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Mallory requested that the City not designate all of the mixed-use projects in this azea. Mr. Mallory commented that he feels that the major driving factors for housing shortage in California are the economic boom and the overwhelming increase in immigration illegal and legal. Mayor Streit closed the public heazing at 9~ 10 p m Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the neighbors on Blauer have spoken very cleaz tonight that they oppose the mixed-use designation for the two parcels on Blauer and Sazatoga-Sunnyvale Road. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he agrees that atwo-story building would invade their privacy. Councilmember Mehaffey suggested that properties that backup against residential areas should also be eliminated. Vice Mayot Baker noted that he agrees with the neighbors on Blauer that this parcel should be eliminated. Vice Mayor pointed out that the Council knows there aze problems at the Argonaut Shopping Center and requested staff investigate the issues brought up tonight and report back to Council. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he supports eliminating the property identified on Blauer. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports removing the pazcel on Blauer. - Mayor Streit stated that it is the intent of the Council to protect the character of the neighborhoods in Sazatoga. Consensus of the City Council to remove parcel #1 & 2 on Blauer and parcel #5 & #6 -Gateway Area Saratoga-Sunnyvale. OLD BUSINESS REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Continued to Mazch 20, 2002. City Council Minutes 11 March 6, 2002 NEW BUSINESS CITIES ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. - Continued to Apri13, 2002. Mayor Streit declared aten-minute break at 9:30. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 9. PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER -CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson reported that the City has been working with stakeholders to develop new Public Safety Center at the corner of Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue. The Public Safety Center would include a new fire station and a new Westside Substation for the Sheriff s Office. Cit Manager Anderson briefly reminded the City Council that an Ad Hoc Y committee was formed consisting of various stakeholders. The Committee was charged with exploring conceptual design options for a Public Safety Center. The City hired ATI Architects Engineers to facilitate the conceptual design process. The Committee developed conceptual plans containing three basic options 1. Includes the three existing agencies on the site; Sheriff, Fire and Post Office without using additional parking at the Federated Church 2. Includes all three agencies and utilizes additional parking from the adjacent Federated Church 3. Includes only the agencies, with the Post office or Sheriff s Office moving from the site. City Manager Anderson noted that the 50% conceptual design milestone is intended to show the City Council and the public a variety of plans for review and comment. The Ad hoc is seeking input to help refine and narrow the options. Frances Chan, Architect/ATI Architects and Engineers, noted that his objective this evening was to present master plan alternatives that represents the consensus of the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Chan noted that since the project started 12 weeks ago he has gained a great understanding of the individual issues that surround the proposed project. Mr. Chan presented the top issues as follows: • Anew fire station • Keep the Sheriff's department on site City Council Minutes 12 Mazch 6, 2002 • • Room for a Postal facility • Adequate parking Mr. Chen noted that their study pointed out they needed to mitigate the pazking problems, restore quality of life to the immediate neighborhood, improve pedestrian safety and the general public safety at large, and reduce the amount of vehiculaz movement. Mr. Chen explained the five different schemes as follows: • • • Option 2- Scheme 1-The Fire Department and Sheriffs or Postal Department is housed in a new two-story building with a sheazed common lobby facing the intersection. The "Back -up" fire station faces Saratoga Avenue..The Contempo property would be sold to the Church. Parking would be provided in the form of an underground parking gazage on site and under the Church pazking lot accessible form Saratoga Avenue, and has surface pazking accessible form Sazatoga Avenue and Highway 9. Additional underground pazking of SO spaces below the Contempo property and under the Church pazking lot would be dedicated for Church parking. This option would provide 34 surplus of pazking stalls. • Option 2-Scheme 2 -The Fire Department and the Sheriffs or Postal Department is housed in a new two-story building with a shazed lobby The "Drive-through" fire station is accessible from Saratoga Avenue. The Postal Department or the Sheriffs Department will move to a new location in the Village. Contempo property would be sold to the Church. Parking options would be the same as Scheme 1 except there would only be a surplus of 30 stalls. • Option 30- Scheme 1-The Fire Department and Sheriff's or Postal Department is housed in a new two-story building with a sheazed common lobby facing the intersection. The "Back Up" Fire Station is located at the intersection of Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue. The Postal Department of the Sheriff's Department will move to a new location in the Village The Contempo property would be sold to the Church. Surface parking is provided throughout the site accessible from Sazatoga Avenue and Highway 9. Minimal underground pazking is envisaged in the scheme - offsite pazking would be required. • Option 3-Scheme-2 -The Fire Department, Sheriff's Department or the Postal Department is housed in one two-story building. The "Drive Through" Fire Station is located at the intersection of Highway 9 and Sazatoga Avenue. The Postal Service or the Sheriff's Department will move to a new location in the Village. The Contempo property would be sold to the Church. Surface pazking is provided on site accessible directly from Highway 9. Underground pazking on site is required in this scheme. There would be a surplus of 16 stalls. • Option 3-Scheme 3 -The Fire Station with minimal impact to the site, by reconfiguration of property owned by the City, the Postal Services and the Fire Department. By swapping the property located across from Contempo, currently owned by the Fire Department, with the Postal Service and re- configuration that property with the City owned Alley and the monument City Council Minutes 13 March 6, 2002 park, it would become possible to build a new fire station without affecting the function of the Postal Service or the Sheriff s Office. No underground parking is necessary. Surface parking is dedicated to the Fire Department and is accessible from Highway 9 and the parking for the Postal Service/Sheriff's Department is accessible form Saratoga Avenue. Under this scheme 28 parking stalls off site would be needed. Mr. Chan reviewed the cost analysis as follows: O tion Cost of Building Construction Cost for Parkin 2-1 $4,730,000 $3,260,000 2-2 $4,730,000 $3,240,000 3-1 $4, 730,000 $1,100, 000 3-2 $4,730,000 $2,648,000 3-3 $3,200,000 $330,000 Mr. Chan noted that this cost analysis does not include any land transaction costs. Brian Styslinger, 20375 Park Avenue, noted that he lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the development site. Mr. Styslinger noted that he was a member of the Village Green Homeowners Association and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Styslinger pointed out that the neighborhood formed this Association because of this project. Mr Styslinger noted that the following issues have been identified as the main concerns of the Village Green Neighborhood Association: • Traffic • Design of facility • Safety • Parking Mr Styslinger noted the NTMP program has addressed their concerns in regards to cut through traffic. Mr. Styslinger encouraged the Council to move_forward with this process and direct the Ad Hoc committee to address traffic issues. Meg Caldwell, 20201 La Paloma Avenue, requested that the City Council continue to protect and preserve the neighborhoods in Saratoga and follow the City's General Plan. Ms. Caldwell noted that in her neighborhood cut through traffic and inadequate parking are their main concerns. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, noted that he is a member of the F.A C.T Committee in which their principal interest is safety of the firefighters and the citizens. The F.A.C.T Committee's two key issues that reflect on safety is the backing up of the fire trucks onto Saratoga Avenue and the loss of one bay Mr. Keenan explained he took ATI's Option 3 and reconfigured the parking bays, in which provided a safer ingress and egress of the trucks. ~, City Council Minutes 14 March 6, 2002 Bob Egan, SFD/Fire Commissioner, 14890 Montalvo Road, commended the City Manager and the Mayor for working so diligently on this Public Safety Center. Commissioner Egan reminded the Council that the 85% of the residents passed a bond to build a new fire station, which makes it imperative to move forwazd with this process. Commissioner Egan noted that he thinks that Option 3.3 design is the most practical and functional design. Commissioner Egan noted that under no circumstances would the District seek any more money from the public. Commissioner Eagan also noted that the District is requesting that the City grant them a temporary occupancy permit to move into the Contempo Building and an approval of the new station before they start any work or relocation. Commissioner Egan noted that the District looks forward to continue to work with the City to accomplish both of their goals which is to provide the citizens of Saratoga the best fire safety services possible. David Dolloff, 20385 Sigal Avenue, thanked the members of ATI and the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Dolloff thanked the ATI staff for their work. Mr. Dolloff noted that he supports the options that provide a drive through bay. Mary McGrath/RRM Design group, 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, noted that she has been working with the Sazatoga Fire District for three years on the design of the proposed new fire station. Ms. McGrath thanked ATI for allowing her to participate in the AD Hoc Committee. Ms. McGrath noted that all of the schemes presented by ATI could accommodate a fire station. Ms. McGrath noted that the Fire District has a set amount of funds to complete the new fire station and all of the schemes would go over the budget. Vic Monia, Granite Way, noted he has three issues he hopes that the Council would consider: 1 Neighborhood Protection 2. Public Property must go to bid -Contempo Building 3. City should purchase the Contempo building Reese Williams, 20119 Knollwood Drive, noted that he has been actively involved in the Ad Hoc Committee since October as an independent citizen. Mr Williams noted that the Ad Hoc Committee still has to discuss the following issues: • Post office property will become available • Optimizing the land between the Federated Church and the Fire District • ,Explore all options for the Sheriff's Department including alternate sites in Sazatoga • Costs • Creating financing options, precluding large public bond funding Mr. Williams expressed that that he feels the ideal location of the Fire Station is on Sazatoga Avenue. Ed Farrell, Kittridge Road, noted that he supported the engines exiting onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. City Council Minutes 15 March 6, 2002 Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Road, noted that he supports placing the fire station in the Contempo building. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Sea Gull Way, thanked the City Council for allowing the public to participate in this process and expressed a special thanks to the Mayor and the City Manager. Mr. Engelson noted that there is currently adequate pazking azound the sight except for Sunday. Mr. Engelson noted that he agrees that one agency has to move off site. Ernest Kraule, 14445 Springer Avenue, noted that he has enjoyed pazticipating in the Ad Hoc Committee. In regards to the Post Office property Chief Kraule stated that the Fire District has had discussions with the Post Master, but would never give them an affirmative answer on whether or not they would be interested in selling their land. Chief Kraule encouraged the City to work with the Post Office to determine if they would be willing to sell their property. Chief Kraule stated that he feels the fire engines should exit onto Saratoga Avenue. Rob Slump, 15961 Quail Hill Road, noted that he was the President of the Saratoga Federated Church. Mr. Slump noted that the Federated Church would be interested in purchasing the Contempo property in order to improve their campus and off street pazking. Mr. Slump noted that the he thinks the Sheriff s Department should be relocated. Gordon Duncan, Assistant Fire Chief/SFD, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, thanked the City Manager for his participation in the Ad Hoc Committee. Assistant Chief Duncan pointed out one issue in regards to the fire station design: a back in vs a drive through fire station. Assistant Chief Duncan noted he would prefer a drive through fire station. Assistant Chief Duncan noted he surveyed SCC Fire District on how many drive through fire stations they had the results were 50/50. Scott Sherwood, 6511 Deer Hallow Drive, stated that he is a member of the Federated Church and on their "Long Range Planning Committee". Mr. Sherwood noted that decisions on land use have long-term consequences for the Church and the community. Mr Sherwood informed the Council that Federated recently completed a $3 million dollaz upgrade on the campus. Jeff Miles, Commander/SCC Sheriff's Department, thanked the City Council for all of their efforts put into this proposed Public Safety Center. Commander Miles noted that the Sheriff s Department would like to stay in Saratoga. Hugh Hexamer, 20367 Glen Brae Drive, noted that the options presented to the Council by ATI provide awin-win situation for everyone involved. Mayor Streit thanked everyone for their comments. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he feels it is unacceptable that the vehicles go through the residential neighborhoods. His only concern is to provide the City with an adequate location for the Sheriff and the Fire District. Vice Mayor Baker City Council Minutes 16 March 6, 2002 noted that the Federated Church has always been good neighbors and realizes that the current safety complex has impacted their parking for years. Councilmember Bo osian noted that he wants a lan that into orates a safe fire g P rP station in which the trucks do not have to back up onto Saratoga Avenue. Councilmember Bogosian noted that his primary interest is public safety. Councilmember Waltonsmith thanked the Ad Hoc Committee and ATI for their efforts in this project. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that her concern is who would be paying for this project. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested a traffic study on Oak Street and suggested that perhaps a traffic light might help. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he does not support any option that includes a parking structure. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports moving the Sheriff's Department to another site. Councilmember Mehaffey noted he agrees with Councilmember Waltonsmith's suggestion for a traffic signal on Oak Street. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City should contact our local legislators and the Post Office to get answers on whether or not they would be interested in selling their property. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that the City should consider a bond. Councilmember Mehaffey thanked all parties that have been involved in the Ad Hoc Committee. Mayor Streit stated that he agrees with Councilmember Bogosian and Vice Mayor Baker that their primary goal was to build a Public Safety Center that gave the City afire station that would be safe and give the City a good working Center. Mayor Streit noted that realistically Option 2 Scheme 1 and 2 are not feasible and noted he thinks the City needs to stick to some variations of Option 3 in order to afford , it. Councilmember Waltonsmith reminded everyone not to forget that the Memorial Arch needs to be moved. Consensus of the City Council to eliminate Option 2, bring a fourth variation of Option 3 that would put the fire station on the Contempo property, and do a traffic study on the ingress and egress on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. CEREMONIAL ITEMS IA. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 10-16, 2002 "SCIENCE FAIIt WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. Mayor Streit read the proclamation and directed the City Clerk to forward it to the appropriate person. City Council Minutes 17 March 6, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 16, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 16, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -FEBRUARY 20, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2002. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH MEHAFFEY AND STREIT ABSTAINING. 2C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. _ 2D. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE ACTION MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD & SEAGULL TRAFFIC SIGNAL - AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept bid and award construction contract. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVE TO AWARD CONTRACT TO REPUBLIC ELECTRIC OF NOVATO- FOR THE SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD & SEAGULL TRAFFIC SIGNAL. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes j g March 6, 2002 • 2F. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING AND LITTER CLEANUP PROJECTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-014 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING WEST VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO REQUEST FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION'S DIVISION OF RECYCLING BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE JPA TO REQUEST FUNDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TIME AND PLACE FOR REGULAR MEETINGS FOR THE SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution ~J TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-013 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A TIME AND PLACE FOR REGULAR MEETINGS FOR THE SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION BAKER MEHAFFEY MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0 2H CLAIM OF KRIS GAI]ERO; CLAIM NO. GL-0535487 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize settlement. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVE TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT ON CLAIM NO. GL-0535487. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 19 Mazch 6, 2002 2I BUDGET CALENDAR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Calendar. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET CALENDAR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 10. SARATOGA LIBRARY ROOM-NAMING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Continued to Apri13; 2002. 11. RESOLUTION REQUESTING A STUDY AND REPORT ON PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE STAFF RECOMMEI`TDATION: Adopt resolution. Continued to March 20, 2002. 12 ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS AND SILICON VALLEY INTER-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider the City of Saratoga's participation in the Association. Continued to March 20, 2002. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Continued to March 20, 2002. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that staff send a copy of the tape from the Community Meeting on February 26, 2002 regarding Highway 85, to Byron Sher and Liz Kniss OTHER None r C City Council Minutes 20 March 6, 2002 CITY MANAGER' S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 12.15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • City Council Minutes 21 Mazch 6, 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE. Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE. Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE Regular Meeting ROLL CALL' Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT' Commissioners Zutshi and Kurash STAFF. Director Sullivan, Planner Welsh, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES. Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 27, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member o f the Public will be allowed to address the Plamm~g Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Plamm~g 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 Staf f REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on Apnl 4, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish 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 Mumcipal 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. DR-O1-021, BSA-Ol-002 &t V-O1-012 (517-14-080) - HUSTED, Kittridge 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 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) (APPROVED 4-1, HUNTER OPPOSED) 2. Application #02-049 (397-06-069) -BUSH, 18627 Ambleside Lane; -Request for Design Review and Variance Approval to replace a detached garage, which was destroyed by fire A setback variance is requested to replace the 13 foot high, 693 square foot garage within the rear and side yard setbacks. The garage is to be located within 10 feet of the rear and side yard boundaries, which is nonconforming since the required setbacks are 20 feet for the side yard and 50 feet for the rear yard. The property is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS NEW BUSINESS Discussion and direction regarding the polling results for single-story overlay in the SaratogaWoods and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN) (MOVE FORWARD WITH SARATOGA WOODS FIRST, AND RE-POLL NON- RESPONDENTS) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • Ordinance Review -Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAN) (Continued from April 10, 2002) COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of February 6, 2002 and March 6, 2002. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:10 PMTO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, Apri124, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA _ ~ Tv :~ / =, ~ ~ ~ iCA~-9zs-xvj IL Il /1.81 ~I~f71S9 ~ g ~ _ I ,~e~~~„\d,.~d dII~I2I03I'Id~ dOO,Ld2IdS o _-=-' a~ni~a.tzx~xd y ~ d11I2IQ ~OQI2I,L,LI?I _~~~-' SI'IOd02IS.d ~ ~~N~QIS32I QH.LSf1H c rl ~ n '~ o ~ o ~ ~ N m ( m ~ ~~ - Z ~9 q<; a; h ry ~OQ ~ C;1 __ ry F o , ~ M ~ m a N W N 0 z a U 1 ~I ,I i ~N~ ~NO n w O N oWi w W ~ QQQ Z Q g~~ Fay ~, u = mm~n ~m O f~ N N F N ~ N~~ Z J ~ a N~ o~ g~Q m U1 NQ QWQ~ W N~UI ~`~~w l(1 ~pi t9~Z g¢~joc __ P t~ _-._ O C~ ~ =-~ CV ~ a _.., ,-d .n -, O _- ;~ ~- p Z O 111 V b p _ ==' ~ ~-+ J ~z o ~ - - Y Q Q~ ~ \ / /' Q Q p ~ W z> ~ ~ ~~ / / / • ' W ; / ~ ,, i ,oat ~~ , _ ° - ' - '~ , / •~ ~a° ~azQ ~ O_ / - ~ ,-~~i wwR ._ A3 i / / ~ ~p ~uWigg^O \ ~ l -5fo`'g~'15 r ',~~ /, ~ i j //~ ~ /~ C'1 ug ~ ~ Z fz --~--5853205' 14128 I -~ / /~ ~ /,/ ~/~~~ / / I ~ ~ I - _ '--__ __-__-_--.•W'"1140.51' % / _~^~/ ~. ~ _ ~_,~--~-- - - ----'''-- - - -- ~_ - -- -- ~~s '-'; // ~ / ti-_ / ~ ~ -~ -'_ _- ~ _ _ __ I, 301 -~~ SS~ , I 1 1 `1 ~ .66 OOL M ;6L££19 NN+ -_~__ __, ___ _ I ~ - _ _ - '' -f- _ -~~-_'-\-,__ _- ~ I i 11(-[~ / _I-~ ,%/ 'I_/ ~~%~I % i / , /~ V t -7 I m ~ - ~ '- 1 ''1 _ -_ _ ~~ '~ ~~ t ~~ i ~ ~ - _ - -~~ \~ ~ ~ ( r • ' -- _ _ - -------- ~\ ~. ~~ ter. ~e ` , ,__ ~ - ~ ~ // --~ ~~ ~ \ ~ --- `_ _ - - _~~--~ ~~ ` ,8pt ~- ~ ~\\ pp 'fir:, o00 " D' ~ _ / \` q~~~ m\ -.I I I I I~ 1111 --_ ~ -_ \~_` ~`\~~ _ ~ - `` _ - ','~ O ~~ d ~ z o ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~V ~. ~ v ~, v, A ' vv a,~ , ~ Q ~ / ' / L W N N Wp~l( p, ~ 11 ~ ~ V ~i ~p~ p // W ~~ ~p~ a_{~{}yy~oR er oo I r~,__-~` ` ~ ,~\'~ ~ - 1 a ~~ w _ _- ~ W qa ~~~ W ~ W \ ~ I ~ I If I \\ .\\ -~ I \ Q ~ QNQ Q W / ~ ~ pQp / a Q N ~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ p A ~~ \ vv, d Yo -- ~ / d Q ' 4~~ i ry ~ ~\ \ i \ 1 ,~-' 1 \ I ~ ~ , ~ -~~~` Jam( ~ -= ~ - ' I ~' I \ •`~~` ~ yy` \ ~ \ ~ ` ~ - •/ ' ~~~ ~ ~~~V~ ,~~, v 1,1, D~ ~~~~1~ - .- ~.~-- _~ ~ A 3 \ - ~61 u, ~ ~. A \ ~ ,' , _~ d~) A ,v\v~ ~\ ,_ '~ ~ Z `,:~ -~- - ` ~ - g - ~ _~ ~ ` - ~- '1 ~ '~ d \, ~~~ ' ~ ,~ , • a ~°~ ~ N nCaJ lO . • • • I~ ZL8i9ZE-XVd L.Lf31 9Z£ 04y I()E7( vJ °ilv nlad I 7~.vtS 4~~H f106 ' I ~ 3Nf1.L~3.LIH~~It~ SI'IOd02I,L3 I dII~I2IO3I'Id~ `d~JO.Ld2IdS ~11I2IQ a~QI2I.LS.ix 3~I~I~QIS~2I Qd.LSfIH E N (~ s2 Z ~ m 9 ~ >; o~o~~ NNN~ ~ N ,N NNw U1 b: ~ n~r n~~ 0 Q O~' ~ a'j ~~F ~ Qa p ZIc 00 fl 19 N Ul 61 Y1 w O w O W a Q ~ O U > v v N O ~ w ~ ~ w ~g n m Q ~p u pO ` i 55 N Q 9 °S O ~ wn o~~ a~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~~19 i° ~ 0tr9n ~ ~ Ul a n E ~Q w~~ FS3 r°9m t0 Z ~ , OQY-Ia VNddp ~~~~ n ~ z ~~ne rg pp~3a ZNFw 'o~0u5~ oQ~u~ u~ r l'wm Oil ~r SN Y W 4/ l9 Z Z ~~ on mp_ z ~~ 3 ~~ r~ ~~F u~u~ who m°? z~ 0 7 ~Q ZQmZQ°t7 w U° Z~ O w ~m~ am, Or =~o W~ o~cm5 ~aU '[d~` uoi ~Qa ~ ~ rr 0 m a 0 i Z a w -- N °Iw U)U1 ul U'iI1NU1NU1 ih U1 N K h ~ H ~ naval 4 ha°~~~ ~n1n`~nt60~vmo~ p ~I~m arv~e ~v" OV' p~ ~ u~ '~n~ utw X041mu1 ry61r ulm _ F~~d1.=~ o~~0a ~~ d Z x a x~ x x x~ Y x ,q il)NhviwO °mniv °Ml9 ia/ ~Npui ~ nnh „ ut ry N~ f N p 9 i LL v ~ u~Q mUOww 'UI _ ~Y ~1 F ~ ggNNNNNNN~ N GtI~m~Su~ipmpF~tt "~ Q ~61~0~0V~p n [V ZiO~ ~°~ob~ C w~p~xOx~ax w x x~ X x _Lba °irthOinn ~p ri of 19 '" o h ~0~ LL ~LZOaCf ocmr ~ VI Z O g U QU u~ a Q O O 0 VI Z L_O 1 u1 o[ oC O O .~ .~~ ~ i ~ ~ I w I ~ ~ -----~ m ~ C • • • TlBIYLE•XVj ~oE~ ~ZO~ ~ U~ug y9iH 006 H 2I I1.L ~ ~ .L I H ~ 2I V SI'IOd02IS.d `v'Ild2i03I'Id~ `d00.L~2IdS ~l1I2IQ ~OQI2I.I. LI?I 3~l~IdQIS32i Qd,LSf1H ~ o ~ Z ~ L ~ ~ ~ ,i_/M'J, N ~i .u-,~ u O j _ ~ - I - - - - - - - - - - --------'----------- ---- ---- --- - - - ___ - -- - O I I - V , ~e Z ~ ry ~ { ~, ~m J ~w I ~ ~ I o ~~ ~~ 3~ I , ,", I , --- --- -J , ~~ „ . , , O ~ ~~ , ,,,, ,.,, .,,, ------- _ 3 - ~? ~~ n a ~ ~ O~ ~ I g ~' I I c ~ . I _- _ / ' ~ i ~ saooe I / s ~ ~I ,~ i r ~ ~ O ~' ~ S i a n ~ w ~ ~ 4 ~~ ---I .o-s I / ® a ~~ ~ _5 ~ ~J ~ 44 I I ~~ Z 0 x ~ ~ F V V pp 2 ~W ':U o {i ll~ ~ I I O m \ ~ ~ - \ J N ` I '? U ~ 53n'13H5 ~~ g I ~m 1 _Z ~ s ~ Zb ~~- I ~ ~ o~ --- - I ~ Q~ ~ I ~ ~ al ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ `. , ~ o, -~ ~~ ~ _ ~ I I / oo z ~~ I I ~ O b ~ W z• I ~ . ~ ~, X~ ~ --- _ I , \ o - - - - _ ---- ~\ Z-- ~ g m 3 I ~ / - - \ / I Y69 \ ~\ ,/ v I ~m ~ I Q 3 0 ZV I .- Q ~ i W n m~ ~ V Qw I KN I a I I ~ _ I O - - - - - - - - - - - ~ N ac w a O o~ a ZL.BT-9Z£-Xtld TOE4~G T ~Z~+iv~ra f/I1~I2IO3TI~1~ `~'OOZ~'2I~S ~aaUS 48~H 006 3xni~3yIH~xd ~l1I2IQ ~rJQI2I.L.LI?I SI1OdO2I.I.d ~~I~IdQISd2I Qd.LSf1H L ~ d- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m d n a a z g a 0 0 J LL Z O U w D w O a O a • s • ' ZL8I~9ZE-XYd I ~I9~E~y ~ l0£Y6 tlJ'mitl pled ~ 715 49{H 00C. axn.~~aiix~xd ~ SIZOd02I.Ld~ dII~I2I03I'Id~ `dOO.Ld2IdS dAI2IQ d~JQI2I~LLDI d~1~IdQISd2i Qd.LSfIH ~ _ ~ ,,/u(J~, i o N ~ ~ ~ Q z ~', m ~ - a w ~ ~ ~ a n 0 1H°.713H l-Y1WDcHW O-9Z yy } 1 - , ~~,,; , Ju~rn'i i i ~1~EJ. ',;I ~~ I - - --- LLI I I _ _ - ~- 1H9~H Wf1WIkVW - LL - =~ ~ I- _ _=~--I~ f I -~ - 1Fi~J131 31b1d 1FK>I3H 31b'ld I ~- ~~ - O ~ h -- - - -~ ~ I _ _ LL -~ ~ I _ / ~ - - _-_~-- -=~ _ ;_-- --- I - - _- _ _ __ i -- - ~ A0 L _ ~_ - ---_--_ -- - ng oN°~ - - -- - "o - -! ~ ~ 9 u{ r '~ I II I z n ~ ~--_ n / - ---- __-- - - -_-- w w~ ~~ `~~ ~~ I I PSmZ ~W l~ QQ w N= '~~ ~_~~ ~LU nw --- ~ - - - z~ ZV ~ - I ~ ~ ~ ~ -- --- -i- a u~ o~°, i~3 ~3 ~~ ( ~' OOO ink a ra I=' ~ ~~ i -- -- I I - - - ~ t-, i III =-=_-i = _ I -- i ~- -!_- - -~_~ j _~ -~--,,- , f,~- ~ - - ~ - I I ,-= i~ - { -__ __- -_ - ~ ~ __~! ~ z -_ - - -- __ ~ - z r_ - - - Z -- ii i-~ -~ -- ~l ,_~ - - - I n~~ ~ - . - - t- i { 1 -____ _- o _= _-_ _ o _-_;_- - ~_ ___-__~ ~ _- aoac~ 0 0 _ __ _ ~ _ _ Q Q W ~ m o i~ ~ i i i o ~~ o ~~N a LL ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~. I I ZG8I9ZE-Xtld I! LLSI.9Z£-oS9 [oEb6 Y~'olltl oled nv1S 4g~FI 006 i ~2If1.L~H.LIH~~IV j SI'IOd02I,L~ dI1~I2I03I'Id~ `dOO,Ld2IdS dl1I2IQ ~`JQRI.L.LI?I ~~I~I3QIS32I Q3~I.SfIH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ IV O .-~ 2 I- Z O O ~ ~~ W ~ w u~ ~ ~ w o w ^ ~ O a O oc a a • -• Z181-9ZE-Xtld ~~~E~ [oso6 v~ ~a,iv waa wnS 4891 006 3~If1,L~8.LIH~2IV ~ SI'IOdO2i.I.3 dIl~I2IO3I'Id~ `dOO1.d2I~'S ~t1I2Ia ~OaRIS„LI?I ~~uaals~x a~isnx ~ ~ € ~ ~ i o~~~~ Z cv te ` r I W (V Z _O U w. ~' w N 0 a 0 ~. ~~ 0 i • ~ • Nw A8 ~~~ cloP~loO • acop uos • wngny N•w yooy-s}9 (sob) xo~ oooy-S~g (goy) ae ~a BZlSB Y~ '~f uoS SOZ a}!n$ pn~ ~ea~ Buena}S OBB6 A8 NNrtlO ---- © • •auI `IInH '8 tasRn~~ _ J 0310N SV nrx sNOSwae 7iva w ~"' N ~' a Wy~~pp 2~+~zo W q~a~~ ~~~ap 2_ ~i~020J m~~~2 a ~OYZi °zac,~~~ ~¢22We W~Qa`£ ~°z~~s8~ Q ° °z J Q j QO WO 34 ~Q UQ 2 2° WOO O ~'¢UOI U ~W'2~ e 24 O~~W 2 U 00~ ~?O ~ O~ ~ U U W ~ 7 7 J O y ~ Q;~~ 2 2y a~n? y1.,~ F, O~ W o~C Z m ~~ ~~p0 ~ ir~ aa~e ~~ a~x U m~'_z~6 m0} ~O ~j~oW?K O~O W1ao ~ ,~ ~a~z~ J mcri~¢ ypyjW~¢~W¢ q O~W R~~K2~2 y ~ ~O~ Q~°~¢Utei1 2 R WJm 32=W~~F z a 'msy aka°~~~ ~ p a V ~~_ ~~QW~~a U c~~ ~ p~~ oizp¢z~ ° ¢ z a ~~~ W 0 ~U O `~y j3pk1~~2~ ¢ H ~s~ a8Uey~ ~ 11~~ O ~- 22 mm p0 ~ Qae QQ20.U~~0 2 ki ~ 11'n 2 -- N viNaoand~ ~dooldavs OS-til-LL5 Nd11 3~N3aIS3a a31Sf1H 133HS a3/10~ a ~ N ~~ ~ } ~ a i ~ ~ w1y 3~~ z ~ ¢ W m ~ i qqUq ~ o ~ '~ y ~ o ~ 3 ` LZ`i ~ z J ~ a ~ e ~ W ~ < ~ .7 0: j ~ ~ 2 ` 4+ ; ¢~ W Q2 O m (~ a~a g 9 (~~ W Q ~" W {~ ~" ~ ~, a ~ ((~~~ ~ 2 2 2 ~ 2 U O ci z ¢ ~ ~ a 2 ~ a 2 z y W~ ~ ~ C~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ti W 4 qq~ 21 a¢a m W ~~ 3 3 0 ~ u~ H vei cpi W~ h Pi o e y c z W ~ Z~ 2 ~ W y W 44!! ~~ ~ o W o os~~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ Z w ° O Q ~ ° y ! ~ a o c ~ s ~ I - ~ -i- - ~ I ~ - F- w w 6 O `~ 2 W ~' N M w H N V W ~. a ~ ~~~ ~~ ~2~ ~Q~~ ~~~ o~~ aV Q~ p2>2 Q~C o W ~~ 1W. ~~op~ ~~ z8~o ~~°~. c¢i~~9 Wp ~~~~~iOZ z] ~ ~O~ ~W~ ~e aW~ ~c3°y~1~u ~w 2g~~o ~~'~ z£~~ W a` y ~ ~. ¢ ~y- 2 ~-. ~8 m °~ m8w p~~ ?~~°~ $~ X32°~~ ~WS WO~,N~ ~°f Y+~1$~W ¢ ~{ ~~ _ ~ 1p ]~ a~~m$U ~mjmF ~1e-Z~~ ~~~ zz~Q~~ ~a ~~~n2~ ~N~ p~~"~ ~QU jQWW~ ~Z ~~y~p~$~ ma~ omo~~ p~~ ~~~Zm ~QyO~ ~~~(~~`d'a~ ~e~ ~'~~pv.~ ~gp~ ~2wpe~ . m~' ~~j 'S"U ~ ?y~ ~~tFilO qpz W~(ZIZ~O aoo~y~~ ~~u ~~'~mu a~$ ay`~~8~ ~~ ~Q~m~~~ Q£o avoic°.i3o ~~`m ~a2~e~ •f ~ K 1e ~ m "' Q m q Lti~o~'~((YY ep~` ~a~iNWW ~O o°~'~'$bWi ~~ KZ F~mW ~O U <}}~~Qgyo ~W ~fa5Cj~;l~iH U~ p~Q2Qe~~U ~m 'gqYq~qy~~2~~ m~ LLWW~z~p~ ''~ QW~Vm1NNWWy (~]2O2 y~ 2QCSo W~ y~~u of tZn~p~< m£ ~¢°~ y~ p 8z<Zg¢~o ~~ ~W2pU~Z°Z~ hW¢~ ~'<O AWN ox~°~aQ~~ ~p~ 3~ ? ~ a%~ ~~~~~~$g Qom' QaOWOW~Oj~ VQa ~ ~ z pp W ~ N jz~y~ gSQ~U za ~~W~~ W ~~~~~ y~~3W epZ2~ ~~QQ~ UC~~y U F 2 F~ ~ ~ W~ati z¢ }," e UWU yq ?a~~ W ~~ W O~~Wt1,, <~~ ~Fj ~~ ~ OO~W qKW a~a <~ 'C ~ F~Um Qa2 ~p W,U ¢ ¢e q zW a o°aa dip e~y ea g 22?~ CpYF r02 qKq ¢U'p `~ ~ZZ ~j3Q qUW W6UU KW OW O 4VW 2 W ~~p 2 zm F ~'~mZW ~o ~y~ ,~Wz 1,~ mm c3 N¢ OS tWW=i~yya~ W'Y 40~ O~ W~ Q~ eW~~U ?U~ ~~N O$ 1.J~~~ 2U~¢ l~1~~W L;U WO OW 2~1ei2¢ O¢~ O~~ ~t~ C e 0° 0 2 U ~ e~ ~~o~} ~~mQ ~~a ~~ ¢ O ~tiyW¢ ti O O>Q Ztn ~~~ az UW~y4 U~¢ ¢W£ __ ~yC`U e0 ~~GF~ eeln ~j t~ 1~`$w vi,m WN~Q~ ~g~ QQ? ~~ ~u~ ~~ ~~~=a ~~~ ~i1y"o ~~ ¢ww ¢e zakUrc e~~ ~~i z~w ~~~ zm Yz>~q i°~ z3~" wr~ ~~~ die ePieii ~$o w~~ FI°~ .~ N M Y h m U ti U 3 0 J U a n r m N M o~ ~~ g ~ ~, J a Q ~O U 0 ~~GiN66Q#r ~~o °~~ ~a w ~ . w ~ cPS e ~~ ~ Z' ~ ~b R PB~e~sr~aa~~e ti ~ ~ U X ~ W w~ ~ 4 U w ~ ~ o a 4 U d Y ~' ~ ~ U 0 ~ h 3 ~ S H 0: w t~ " 2Q -~ ~~ ~U N W z WWS ~ ~ e p W yW 3pp3 F-h~oOO~ 0~~622QLLWay~F" `_O a W r ~W Y Q ~g W~ ~ 2~~ ~W ~.. 2D°WO~~~Wy242i~0 ~2 aF-~K2=°US~~h m °~~~a2~Q~~~a~~ ry~ G'U =Z»f20adC2~ Q ~ ~~=z_'~~gi$aa4~~ eono ~~ ~U¢Q2W J4~ ¢p~ W7°m~2e~~~Z~~'Q ~v~z~w$~~o~~~ia ¢¢¢mmUUOOWWWWIUi 112~~1?1 eeQU ~O~wy0.j~W1~1~1~ i ~~ n ~. 'H'W .e ~~ awp~o0 • asap ucs • wngny ~dlNliOdllb~J '11~O1b~lJdS r+~w b00b-S19 804) zu~ 0004-SL9 (80b) '031753° swiss roa'~r ~s sow ins rows ~ ~a~s oae- N a , OS-'b'L-L~5 Ndb~ W N r '~a ~ SlIHl34 ~ 00 a ~~ ~oN sr H ~ ins~nt~ I It J 3~N3aIS3a a31Sf1H ~ 3h ~S SNDISN3tl 31V0 . ~ O V o s ~ ~ ~ n j u I ~ _ $^ ~ g $ m m 1 m W U ~° ~' ~ w J ~ Z .. a ~ =OQ ~aOw ~~F r 6 ~v~ m~ _ ~ CR W $ gy Q ¢ LL N G i f li 3 r U ~ ~ ~ ~5 ~~ ~ w W ~ F U ;. z v w g t~i~ Z E Q U ~a w p ~ ~ ao ~ a` o - U ~. -~_ j ~LJ ~ ~ ^ A lB7 k ° : ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i OM ~K a ~ \N m m : ~ ~ N a \ Q ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ¢ m p u M~ ~` ~ z I W ~ W ~. i .. S ST w a Zw ' 8 p a Q S a 3 e sm m - ~ Z O F z U as W m ~ ~ m C 4 ~ ~~ 4 n ~ F F „' n u mw Q ~ ~= ~ ' i i c a ' ~ C7 " ~ pm o a m s t R ~ ~ o = N e e n n ~ ° ~ « x ~ n acs ~ x ~ ~ - = [ ~ o °z ~ ~° N ~ + ~~ l b °b ~ g s a N o ~ a a~ 2S ~ u~ A ~ ~ X ~E a A a zd ~ o ;o~~ < °1D ~ ~ ~a~ W ~w Mm p > ~ ~ R y a& R R R 3 A ~ d ~ o ~i °w _ mZ z m = \\~ j~ \ pp j~ a D O W ~ Q ° : S aT C Ta C C ~ t O Y i a w ~ ~ ,~ ,~ ~ o a ~° 4 W o_ ~ ~ ° _ _ ~ ~ w O J a 3~ WYO au s a ~ ~yJ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ N Q ~ a n o ~ o f<< iJO I ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ a~ ggv :xi q '~ i ii ~ m a ~ a $ u z Q IL ~ a a i aw ~ - ^a\ ~ 7 i \ 1 1 o a n io n d d ~~ Z O a o .~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ¢ F w m n ~-- c'$ Qo ~ i y f ~ - _ ~nA : --' ~ 5 - ~ 1 ` 1 ~ 1 n n .~. n.e ~ , W ~ Zu $ 9 ~ N o g ~ . ~ 1 ~ •~ ~ = O .- N VI W V p~ Q ~ J _ Z a 0 ~ ~ o _ m ~ ~ O N O N N _ N N In in N N YI U z .' + .n ur n m m f ~ O M O + N + O m O 10 ~ n ~ n + O~ + O . m N ~ N Oi N m 3 N m m N N ~ H H ~~ pp Mf mm Y qq V pp ~~ + 3 O ~ N ~ O O b O Y 0 + m a ~ M + + s m n m m m m 'v N m m m N N o M1 N ~~pp M N mm 17 m Y' d O 5 yy W J~[[ m ~~[[ U Y N yy MI VYf J ~' %I ~ ~ ° ~ W O = ~ a C a .o ~ a j ZS wu °~ $ °_ +~9 as rc ~.' ~ '°'~rc o° !a u w °- Q rc 3 wa ~~ o~ f- o uviJQ Ana ~n w ] LL pp a~ dz OLL? ~? UO~°jN Wyk I~ F~ d NJ$~ O °~ ° W Z uWO~Za m~Owa°Z ~ ¢ii y ~ F w raozm ~o ~fraS~G~ ~ ~~ < ~ QI ~ W NU~• U J ao _ OQp f/1T ~ I ...I ~- -1 Q ~xr ~< a~ V W J O> 70 N ( ~$$ V _ V W . W5C'J z°Z o3a p UN ~ < ~ u d d d < a~~=~ffm Ln psi a zd ~1 ~ p F' ~ WW KO lWJ W~ ~ 60JU1 Zct >Fl w$a ~ ~^ ~ ~- aalnoaa sv 1H913H .s O G ~ N . ~V W ti ~° ~' V U N ~~ ~~b &~g h~~~~b4 ~ ~qj tZ4 Ri~~ hs~ ~ <~~ ~~~ S5 ~~W A~ u 4W~~ J ~& ~ 30~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ a~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~~m ~a~ ~~ ~ z W ~ff eta s~~ ~~ ff ~~ o Q ~ ~ ~~~~~a~~ ~> ~ ~~ ~ ~~ c.i .~ ~ 8 W 4 ~~ ~a~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ a ~ Z ~ b .e 0 ' cV U p I ~ n . ~ _ ~ ~~ ~; d J W ~ W ~ U m ~ E:' w ~ w 0 0 U N O N N P N Oi D A % ~ T A IJ J w . ~. i~ •