Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2002 Planning Commission Packet -fl t ~~~~ ~~ ' - ~ITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ', ,: ~-Y` _ ~ ' -~CTI~i~y' viINLJ i ES DATE. Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruiwale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE' Regular Meeting ROLL CALL °Cc+mmissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, and Zutshi ABSENT ~ Chair ~1~arry ', ~ ~~~,_ - -r-~ . STAFF Planner Welsh, Director Sullivan, anil Minutes Clerk Sh,nn ~ ~ 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE _ '~ - MINUTES Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Apri110, 2002 and April 24, 2002. on motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter the minutes of April 10, 2002 were approved as corrected, Commissioner Kurasch abstained. On motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani the minutes of April 24, 2002 were approved, Commissioner Roupe abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublicwill be allowed to address thePlanning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibus the Plamm~g Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Plamm~g Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 2, 2002. Director Sullivan gave the report. 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). Acting Chair Jackman gave the report CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. Application #02-025 (386-O1-008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road; -Continuation of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutlonal Use ~ ~ r u 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 and the property has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. Application #02-073 (517-09-069) POLLACK, 14500-14550 Big Basin Way; Conditional Use Permit application to allow an existing real estate office to expand into the adjacent 1400 square foot storefront along Big Basin Way. The building is located in the CH-1 Commercial District. The lot size is .30 acre, the building contains 9051 square feet and the property has 17 parking spaces. (WELSH) (DENIED 4-2-0, JACKMAN ABSTAINED) 3. Application #02-058 (CITYWIDE) - SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION; - Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding development standards for basements. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will include a revised definition of "basement"; provide a definition of "lightwell"; specify setback and size requirements; and specify planning review requirements for proposed basements. (VASUDEVAN) (CONTINUED FROM 4/24/02) (APPROVED 6-0) 4. Application #02-080 (386-26-080) -CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect Avenue; -General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Quasi Public Facilities to Public Facilities. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow the City to own and utilize the property in a manner consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that properties designated Quasi Public Facility can not be controlled by a publicly elected governing board. (APPROVED 6-0, CHAIR BARRY ABSENT) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports -COMMISSIONER HUNTER GAVE A REPORT ON THE DESIGN REVIEW STREAMLINING COMMITTEE Election of new Chair and Vice-Chair -COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ELECTED CHAIR AND COMMISIONER KURASCH WAS ELECTED VICE-CHAIR COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of Apri13, 2002 ADJOURNMENT AT 8:56 PM TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION - LAND USE AGENDA DATE Tuesday, May 7, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. PLACE City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR ~~VEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-073 - POLLACK 14500-14550 Big Basin Way 2. Application #02-025 - YEH 20444 Prospect Road ~- 6365 Janary Way, San Jose (Pickup and drop off location) Item 2 Item 1 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~oin the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 iiunutes) 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, May 8, 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 April 10, 2002 and Apri124, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission forup to three minutes on matters not on this agenda I'he law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from ducusstng or taking action on such items. However;~the Plannialg 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 May 2, 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 appeaz and be heazd 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 Sazatoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. Application #02-025 (386-O1-008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road; -Continuation of a 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 squaze feet and the property has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH) 2. Application #02-073 (517-09-069) POLLACK, 14500-14550 Big Basin Way; Conditional Use Permit application to allow an existing real estate office to expand into the adjacent 1400 square foot storefront along Big Basin Way. The building is located in the CH-1 Commercial District. The lot size is .30 acre, the building~contains 9051 square feet and the property has 17 parking spaces. (WELSH) 3. Application #02-058 (CITYWIDE) - SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION; - Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding development standards for basements. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will include: a revised definition of "basement"; provide a definition of "lightwell"; specify setback and size requirements; and specify planning review requirements for proposed basements. (VASUDEVAN) (CONTINUED FROM 4/24/02) NON -PUBLIC HEARING 4. Application #02-080 (386-26-080) -CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect Avenue; -General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Quasi Public Facilities to Public Facilities. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow the City to own and utilize the property in a manner consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that properties designated Quasi Public Facility can not be controlled-by a publicly elected governing board. __ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports Election of new Chair and Vice-Chair COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of April 3, 2002 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sazatoga, CA If you would like to receive this Agendavia a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Kurasch and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of March 27, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the regular Planning Commission minutes of March 27, 2002, were approved as submitted with one correction to page 11. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on Apri14, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan 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 April 10, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR- There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-O1-021, BSA-Ol-002 & V-O1-012 (517-14-080) - HUSTED, Kittrid~e Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area 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) • Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that he has distributed an email from the Samsels and a Kittridge area map, which demonstrates where the Samsel property is located and identifies where Variances for retaining wall heights have been granted in the immediate area. • Stated that the applicants seek Design Review for a new residence, Building Site Approval for constructing on a vacant lot older that 15 years and a Variance required for retaining walls exceeding five feet in height. __ • Reminded that this is the second hearing of the Planning Commission for this project. Additionally, the Commission held a workshop last week with the applicants and their design team. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the retaining walls in depth. An alternative design was proposed, a double wall with five-foot separations for planting screening landscaping. Also, an option for three walls was raised and the applicant will be presenting exhibits with this concept this evening. • Added that the overall height of the structure has been reduced by two feet, from the previous 26 feet to 24 feet. • Said that discussions are underway to consider eliminating the need for the fire turnaround with its necessary tall retaining wall by utilizing the turnaround on the adjacent property that could serve both sites. • Asked the Commission for the latitude to work with Fire and the neighbors, the Martin-Roses. • Stated that with the area and its topography, staff is able to make the necessary three findings of support for this application, Special Conditions, Special Privilege and Health & Safety. The topography represents a Special Condition. The fact that other Variances for retaining wall heights have been granted demonstrates that this approval would not be a Special Privilege. As for Heath & Safety, the geotechnical report and Fire requirements support this necessary finding. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe asked if it is possible to leave open as a Condition, the requirement to have staff work with the applicant, the Martin-Roses and Fire on the possibility of doing away with the on-site fire truck turnaround altogether with the understanding that the turnaround on the adjacent Martin-Rose property would serve both properties in order to not require the very tall retaining wall at the fire turnaround. Page 2 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page_3_ Director Sullivan replied yes. -He suggested that the requirement be left as proposed and that the Commission gives direction to staff. _ Commissioner Garakani expressed support to have staff work with Fire and the other property owner. He added that another possibility is to work out another alternative in case it does not work out. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that one of the other retaining walls in the area at 19 feet high was approved only after appeal to Council. Director Sullivan advised that the biggest issue was drainage and that the Martin-Roses and Samsels have worked out the drainage issues. He added that another retaining wall is 18 feet tall and the remainder he was not sure of the heights other than above five feet in height. Chair Barry asked if these were for road retention. Director Sullivan replied that the 19-foot high wall is located behind the house. Commissioner Hunter advised that she drove up Bohhnan and Tollgate Roads and found the story poles on this project site to be very evident. Inquired whether staff went beyond the immediate area to assess the impact of these proposed walls from a distance. Director Sullivan replied yes. _ Commissioner Hunter stated that these walls would impact the neighbors below, particularly the fire turnaround wall. Chair Barry questioned how the fire trucks would maneuver, whether they would go up Kittridge Road. Director Sullivan said that they would go to the Martin-Rose property and turn around, depending on the size of the vehicle the Fire Department sends. Chair Barry suggested an alternative of approving this project with the Condition that the Fire turnaround is eliminated. If Fire does not approve this, there would be no approval of this project. Director Sullivan said that he couldn't recall such a situation in past experience. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Chuck Husted, Applicant: • Stated that they have done a quality job and brought in professionals with relevant experience. • Said that it is not unusual to need retaining walls in excess of five feet when constructed within a Hillside district. • Assured that the walls will blend into the hillside and appear like natural rock formations. • Said that they have addressed all Planning Commission conditions and are willing to split the walls into two or three, whichever the Commission prefers. • Stated that they have agreed to a Conservation Easement and reduced the height of their new home by two feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 4 usted if he is a eeable to recordin a Hold Harmless A eement. Chair Barry asked Mr. H gr g gr Mr. Chuck Husted replied yes. Mr. Larry Kahle, Project Architect: • Distributed two drawings. One demonstrates the reduction in roof pitch to lower the house height and the other demonstrates the retaining wall as split into three. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround is not depicted in this new drawing. Mr. Larry Kahle said that was correct. Chair Barry asked who would plant the trees on the property owned by the Martin-Roses. Mr. Chuck Husted replied that there is enough ofhis-property available to plant a row of screening trees near the fire turnaround. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Discussed splitting retaining walls from one long wall to two shorter walls. Doing so would reduce the maximum height from 20 feet to two 10-foot walls. • Added that it is also feasible to split the wall into three walls. This would result in a maximum height of approximately seven feet, each section separated by five feet for planting. • Said that drainage has been dealt with in a way that protects the Samsel's driveway. Said that it is possible to put in a catch basin and get that drainage fora 100-year flood into an adjacent swale. • Said that the original submittal included a Fire Department turnaround with a retaining wall. A deck turnaround was also discussed earlier in the project. With a deck, one would not see walls but rather columns. Chair Barry pointed out that the exhibit distributed this evening of the retaining walls depicts manicured cement finish. Additionally, it does not give an example of a contour wall and is therefore not very accurate of what was described. Mr. Mark Helton said that they are proposing short vertical walls. Vertical walls minimize the height required. Sloped walls increase the necessary height. Chair Barry sought assurance that the two or three wall configuration would also incorporate shot-crete formation. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. Commissioner Jackman asked if the material will match the soil. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Garakani asked if the contour wall would be used if the wall were constructed in one piece. Mr. Mark Helton said that they could slope back the wall if the Commission so desires. However, this will increase the necessary height of the wall. Commissioner Roupe said that he is assuming that the retaining walls would be vertical since the walls would need to be taller if they follow the contours of the hill. Commissioner Garakani said that it would look more natural if it follows the contours. Mr. Mark Helton again said that if that is what the Commission wants, they can do it. Commissioner Garakani said that pockets could be used for planting, which is an advantage of a contour wall. Commissioner Hunter reminded that cut can be placed behind the wall if it is slanted. Mr. Mark Helton agreed but cautioned that it would be a negligible amount. Commissioner Garakani asked whether with the deck fire turnaround the necessary retaining wall could be cut into two pieces. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. It would represent two 14-foot high walls. Commissioner Garakani suggested a pocket of dirt to plant screening landscaping. Mr. Mark Helton said that they are trying to follow staff's direction to make the retaining walls as low as possible. Commissioner Roupe said that there is not much distance between the turnaround area and the adjacent property line. Said that this might encroach into the planting area if two walls are utilized. Asked if it is feasible to stay on this property with the screening landscaping with the retaining wall split into two. Commissioner Hunter inquired whether tru-ee seven-foot walls are as strong as one big wall. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Planning Commission could be held liable if something were to go wrong as a result of retaining wall failure. Chair Barry reminded that one Condition of Approval is the processing of a Hold Harmless Agreement. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that in her experience on the School Board, they are sued personally. Ms. Heather Rose, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto: • Advised that $40,00 is the bond amount for residential road bonds. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 - Page 6 • Stated that she spoke with Jerry Quilici at the County Planning Office, (408) 299-5731, regarding extending Subdivision requirements to allow road bonds. _ _ Commissioner Roupe advised Ms. Rose that an alternative to having a fire turnaround on this project site eliminated and having shared use of her property turnaround has been discussed as a means of eliminating the need for one particularly tall retaining wall. Said that coming to any kind of an agreement would be between her, the applicant and the Fire Department. Ms. Heather Rose questioned when her fire turnaround would have to be completed since the Husted project might actually get built before hers is built. She has to address a landslide area on her property prior to installation of her fire turnaround. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Rose for the heights of her retaining walls Ms. Heather Rose replied between five feet and 11 feet. The tallest wall is located behind her house and will not be visible. Added that she plans to plant more trees on her property including around the location where the Husted turnaround would be located. Mr. Chuck Husted: • Said that the walls will be as limited as possible and will be natural in appearance and not visible from a distance. • Said that he will do everything possible to mitigate the retaining walls from the surrounding area. Chair B closed the Public Hearin for A enda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m. ~'Y g g Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed appreciation for the applicant's congeniality. • Said that she has no problem with using three seven-foot walls. • Cautioned that the 23-foot high wall for the fire turnaround would be visible across the valley. • Stated that the design of this home is very handsome. • Reminded that she was not on the Commission when the other Variances for retaining walls were approved. • Said that in the event that she supports this project, she will also support the road bond. • Said that she could not support the fire turnaround retaining wall. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that the wall in the area is now visible from the neighbor below. , • Expressed support for a contour wall. • Supported the deck style fire turnaround. • Said that he would also support putting vegetation within pockets on the wall. • Stated that he would support a Condition that staff works with Fire to eliminate the need for a fire turnaround on this site. However, if Fire does not agree and the turnaround must be installed, he could support either the retaining walls or the deck design fire turnaround. Commissioner Jackman: • Supported the use of either two or three part retaining walls around the house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 20U2 -- - Page 7 • Said that the Fire Department would not likely change their requirement for this turnaround. • Said that she does not like the turnaround but if this project is approved it is likely to be necessary. • Said that this building site was pre-graded long ago and is a building site. • Expressed support for the Conservation Easement. - • Stated that the proposed house looks good and she appreciates that the house has been lowered in height by two feet. • Said that everyone is doing the best they can to make this as invisible as possible. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he supports this project. • Added he is comfortable with the design of the home, particularly with the reduction in height by two feet. • Said that he could support the retaining wall in any configuration, be it one large wall, two ten-foot walls or three seven-foot walls. Any option is acceptable. • Said that the retaining wall causing the most concern in the fire turnaround retaining wall. • Suggested that a pier and beam deck is one option. • Supported giving staff the option to work out this best option for the fire turnaround with the applicant, the neighbor and the Fire Department. • Reiterated that he is fully supportive of this project. Chair Barry: • Said that she has struggled with this proposal and its retaining walls. • Stated that an historic drainage problem in this area will be improved by this-project which weighs heavily for her. • Expressed appreciation for the work that has gone into developing this proposal. • Supported the lowering of the roof height by two feet. • Stated that the back retaining wall would be located behind the house and drive and would not be seen by anyone. • Suggested that a contour wall would look natural and supported the use of three walls with two separations for screening -vegetation. - • Said that she would not like to see this project fail simply due to the requirement for the fire turnaround. • Cautioned that the 23 foot high retaining wall for the fire turnaround would take years, if ever, to be screened by landscaping. • Expressed hope that the Fire Chief would agree to the alternative plan to share the turnaround on the Martin-Rose property and would leave this issue to be worked out by staff with Fire. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that a maximum for the turnaround wall should be called out. The wall should be a split rock simulated wall with screening planting. Additionally, the pier alternative can be investigated so that the best alternative can be worked out. Chair Barry agreed. Commissioner Hunter asked for more information on the trees that would be lost with the installation of these retaining walls. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe pointed out on the plans that three or four redwood trees with a diameter of 12 inches would be lost. Chair Barry said that while these trees are not that large in diameter they are 30 feet high and effectively screen a third to half of where the turnaround is going to be. Commissioner Roupe said that either solution results in those trees being removed. Commissioner Hunter said that she could not support the removal of those trees or a deck turnaround out of consideration for the neighbor. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that someone else is looking at the neighbor's 23-foot high home. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the project cannot be approved without some accommodation for Fire Department access. Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission needs to hear from the Fire Chief. She said that she is happy with everything except the turnaround. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved the project on Kittridge Road (APN 517-1.4_-080) as proposed with the following changes and/or additions: 1. A two-foot reduction in the height of the residence; 2. Use of a three-part retaining wall on the uphill side with intermittent planting for screening; 3. Staff to look into an alternative to the fire truck turnaround, including the use a deck pier or the total elimination of the turnaround on this property with the proposed turnaround on the adjacent Martin-Rose property to also serve this site; 4. Issuance of a road maintenance bond, at an amount to be determined by staff, as part of the Building Site Approval; 5. Include vegetation to screen the retaining walls; 6. 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; 7. Process an Open Space Scenic Easement; and 8. Enter into a lower road drainage agreement. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Roupe NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that if Director Sullivan is not satisfied with the resolution of the turnaround issue, he would bring the matter back to the Commission. Director Sullivan added that as much significant planting as possible will be used to provide screening. Sazatoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page :' Commissioner Garakani said that one can see slide activity in the turnaround azea. This project will improve that situation. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 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 squaze foot garage within the reaz and side yazd setbacks. The gazage is to be located within 10 feet of the reaz and side yard boundaries, which is nonconforming since the required setbacks aze 20 feet for the side yazd and 50 feet for the rear yazd. The property is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants seek Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the reconstruction of a 693 square foot gazage that was destroyed by fire in October 2001. The project site is a 1.3- acre property located on Ambleside Lane. The zoning is R-1-40,000. • Said that this Variance is required due to non-conforming setbacks at 10 feet from the rear and side property lines. The proposed height of the reconstructed garage would be 13 feet, 2 inches, which is the same as before. This height is required to accommodate a workshop azea. There_ are no view or privacy impacts. • Described the findings to support this Variance request as being a Special Circumstance due to the destruction by fire of the former garage. Additionally the slope of the lot and the location of existing structures further support this request. Therefore, this Variance would not represent a Special Privilege. • Recommended approval as the necessary findings of support can be met. Mr. Charles Bush, Applicant and Owner, 18627 Ambleside Lane, Saratoga: • Said that he has been a resident of Saratoga for 19 years. • Declared his surprise at having to appeaz before the Commission in order to secure approval to simply rebuild his garage, which was originally constructed in 1957. • Advised that his adjacent side neighbor, whose property is closest to this proposed rebuilt garage, does not object to its reconstruction. • Stated that he just wants to rebuild his gazage and workshop. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:43 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Dan Banerje, 18594 Vessing Road, Saratoga: • Said that their home is located just behind this site. • Expressed opposition for this Variance for four reasons. - • The hillside location and the fact that the fire that destroyed this garage also set trees in their yazd on fire. Only because there was no wind that day prevented the fire from spreading to their home. • Stated that the location of this gazage offers poor fire truck access. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 10 • Electrical poles run close to the garage location, which adds to the fire hazard. • There is 30 feet of space between the house and detached garage. The one-acre plus lot offers alternatives to this non-conforming placement of the rebuilt garage. • Proposed that an alternative placement of the rebuilt garage be found so that it is not so close to the shared property line. • Pointed out that most household fires start in garages. • Advised that when the Fire Department amved, they accessed this fire from their home, located behind the subject site. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification as to the location of the Banerje home. Mr. Dan Benerje replied directly behind the garage. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that the Fire Deparhnent accessed through their property. He added that since there were trees engulfed on their property, the Fire Department had to access from their property in order to put out the fire in their trees and prevent the spread to their home. Commissioner Garakani asked the Benerjes if they understand why a Variance is required in this situation. Mrs. Benerje replied due to insufficient setbacks. Planner Ann Welsh: • Clarified that the Variance is required to allow a garage height greater that is allowed with the available setback. A nine-foot high garage is permitted at 10 feet from the property line. A garage greater than 12 feet in height requires a 50-foot rear setback and 20-foot side setback. Any accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height must meet setbacks. • Added that an eight foot high structure is permitted at six feet from the property line and an additional three feet in setbacks is required for every additional foot in height. Mr. Benerje sought clarification that the applicant could have anine-foot high garage at a nine-foot setback. Planner Ann Welsh: --- • Said that this would be permitted without a Variance. The only reason this Variance is required is because of the proposed 13-foot height of the structure. Chair Barry added that a 12-foot setback would be required fora 10-foot high garage while the applicants are seeking approval fora 13-foot, two-inch high garage with a 10-foot setback. The alternative would be to bring the garage forward on the property by two feet. Planner Ann Welsh said that there is room to do so but the pad from the previous garage is already in position. Commissioner Hunter asked how this fire started. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 1"0, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Charles Bush said that the cause was undetermined. He added that the only reason the Fire Department first responded at the Benerje's home was because they had poor maps. Afire truck was easily driven down his driveway when they finally arrived on his street. Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission avoids Variances when it can. Asked Mr. Bush if he is willing to consider a flat roofed nine to 10 foot tall garage. Mr. Charles Bush stated that he is not trying to change what the property was before. He just wants to rebuild what was originally built on the property in 1957. Commissioner Hunter said that she believes that a garage should match a home's architecture. Mrs. Bush, 18627 Ambleside Lane, Saratoga: • Said that she too would love not to have electrical poles in her yard. • Stated that they should be allowed to have back what they previously had. Commissioner Roupe stated his support for the project as proposed due to historical and architectural compatibility. This is the right thing to do. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Fire Department is now aware of this property's location and that a new garage will not burn as readily. Chair Barry asked whether-this new garage would need to have fire sprinklers. Planner Ann Welsh replied that there were no such requirements from Fire. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a requirement for sprinklers is based upon the size of the structure. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:00 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review and Variance approval to allow the reconstruction of a garage on property located at 18627 Ambleside Lane, as presented. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi - ABSTAIN: None *** NEW BUSINESS Discussion and direction regarding the polling results for single-story overlay in the Saratoga Woods and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 12 • Advised that Council adopted a Resolution that directed staff to conduct polls of two neighborhoods, Saratoga Woods and Brookview, to consider the adoption of a zoning overlay to restrict homes to one story. • Described the results of the polls as follows: • Brookview Neighborhood: The poll was sent to 328 homes in the Brookview Neighborhood. Of that, 221 responses were received. From the responses, 116 (51 percent) were supportive of the overlay zoning and 105 (46 percent) were in opposition. Of the total polls sent out to the Brookview Neighborhood property owners, the rate of return was 35 percent in support and 32 percent in opposition for a total response rate of 67 percent. • Saratoga Woods Neighborhood: The poll was sent to 401 homes in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. Of that, 176 (66 percent) were in support of an overlay zone and 82 (30 percent) were in opposition of the overlay zone. This represents a 65 percent response rate. • Stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether it feels this response is significant enough to move forward with the drafting of the Ordinance to create the single-story overlay zone and conduct public hearings. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that Council took action to conduct this poll of the neighborhoods to determine the level of interest in having the single-story overlay zoning. Director Tom Sullivan added that Council also directed the Planning Commission to review the results of this poll and make the determination as to whether the results warrant the preparation of a draft Ordinance and the conducting of public hearings. Commissioner Hunter inquired whether ~an option was included on the poll response card for "Don't care." Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Hunter suggested that perhaps a second mailing should be done to those in the Brookview Neighborhood that did not respond to the poll. Director Tom Sullivan advised that some polls came back with no vote marked while others had both support and opposed boxes marked therefore nullifying that response. Commissioner Roupe advised that public hearings will allow all interested parties to have their say. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if they can identify which property owners did not respond. She , added that public hearings like this can get ugly and turn neighbor against neighbor. , Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff does know which households did not respond. Commissioner Garakani said that he does not feel that public hearings are an evil thing. In fact, he sees the public hearing as a positive event. Commissioner Roupe said there is no reason not to go forward with the process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 -- ~ Page 13 Chair Barry asked staff if it would be a big expense to have another poll sent to those property owners who did not respond to the first poll. _ Director Tom Sullivan said that staff could send a second request to those who did not respond. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if there is any reason not to go ahead with the process. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the only downside is the large crowd drawn to a public hearing. Chair Barry pointed out that there have been many very contentious projects in the Brookview Neighborhood in the past. Commissioner Jackman added that people do not always bother to come to public hearings. Commissioner Roupe said that this depends on how sensitive the issue. Chair Barry said that she supports a second mailing although she does not feel that a 66 to 67 percent rate of poll return is bad at all. Commissioner Hunter said it is important to solicit input from the impacted residents since the overlay zoning will affect what can be done with these properties. Commissioner Roupe said that going forward is not a definitive vote on the final outcome. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for the New Business Item on single-story overlay zone at 9:16 p.m. Mr. Ronald Schoengold, 19000 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a representative of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, which has roughly 390 homes. • Stated support for the process for implementing asingle-story overlay restriction. • Said that their Association did a lot of advance publicity on this issue, which may be a reason for such a good response to the City's survey. • Added that even with asingle-story overlay zone, should a credible plan be brought forward with compelling reasons to allow a second story, the Planning Commission would still have the option of granting a Variance. • Urged the Commission to move forward with this process. Commissioner Garakani asked what the advantage is to having Variances. Mr. Ronald Schoengold replied that the Variance process is more deliberate and requires more justification and puts the burden on the homeowner to substantiate the second story. Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Variance is a higher hurdle as there are legally required findings necessary to grant a Variance. He added that second stories are typically not additions to existing homes but rather represent tear down and rebuild projects. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Jackman stated that she thought imposing asingle-story overlay zone would outright prohibit second stories. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City is required to have a process to allow exceptions. Chair Barry asked if the process would be for an Exception or Variance. Director Tom Sullivan replied Variance. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Schoengold to identify the boundaries for Saratoga Woods. Mr. Ronald Schoengold said that the neighborhood is closer to Prospect Avenue and is bounded by Cox to Saratoga Avenue. The Saratoga Woods Neighborhood includes more than 300 houses. Mr. Steve Blanton, 345 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos: • Identified himself as a representative of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors. • Said that they have seen such overlay districts and typically a supermajority has been required. • Stated that the City should be proud of the response rate it received to its poll. That is an achievement in and of itself. • Agreed that a Variance is a different category of review. • Suggested that this maybe more of a two-story Variance area than asingle-story overly zone. • Added that this overlay may create more issues than it resolves. - Commissioner Rou e asked Mr. Blanton if he has seen a situation where overly s have faced P Y opposition in court. ' Mr. Steve Blanton said not to his knowledge. He added that sometimes opinions change and the overlay zone maybe less desirable. Commissioner Roupe agreed that such an overlay would greatly change the potential use of a property. Suggested that staff obtain the written legal opinion of the City Attorney. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Blanton which communities he is aware of that have single-story overlay zones. Mr. Steve Blanton replied that their organization encompasses 15 cities. Of those, Los Altos, Mountain View and Palo Alto have such single-story overlay districts. Commissioner Roupe asked whether in those cities the decision was reached by a vote of the people or through the actions of the respective City Councils. Mr. Steve Blanton advised that they utilized a similar process as is being considered here with mail ballots and public hearings to allow public participation. Director Tom Sullivan advised that two cities for which he was previously affiliated use overlays extensively to control heights in order to preserve views. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 15_ Commissioner Roupe asked how long these overlays were in effect ad how well they worked. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they worked very well. Chair Barry asked if there has been court challenge. Director Tom Sullivan said there has been none. Commissioner Jackman asked if there is an impact on home sales as the result of the imposition of an overlay zone. Mr. Steve Blanton replied that it is difficult to determine. Commissioner Jackman asked how new buyers are advised of such an overlay zone during the purchase of a home. Mr. Steve Blanton advised that there are disclosure forms prepared by agents at the time of the home sale. - Councilmember Evan Baker, 12324 Obrad Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he is present to speak as a private citizen regarding Saratoga Woods, where he has resided for 25 years including having served in the past as President of its Homeowners Association. • Said that the response to this poll is high, second highest only to the library bond poll, to his recollection. • Said that most of the parcels in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood are about 10,000 square feet and mostly square. Every home would look down on a minimum of four backyards if a second story were to be constructed. • Said that there have been fewer than nine second-story additions to homes in the entire neighborhood and every one of those intrudes on the privacy of their adjacent neighbors' homes. On the other hand, approximately 12 two-story homes were built by Lohr in such a manner that there was no privacy intrusion. • Stated that he would be recused from voting on this issue when it comes before the Council. • Encouraged the Commission to move forward with hearings. • Declared that the majority of homeowners in Saratoga Woods opposes two-story homes. • Thanked the Commission and made himself available for questions. Chair Barry asked Councilmember Baker for more information on the overlay process. Councilmember Baker advised that few neighborhoods are applicable for asingle-story overlay district. Homes have to be on rather small lots to require single-story overlay zones. Larger lots with a second __ story offer less intrusion on adjacent properties due to greater distances between structures. i Commissioner Roupe pointed out that CC&Rs are fairly restrictive and run with the land. ~'" Councilmember Baker cautioned that while the Plannin Commission ma take into advisement the g Y requirements from CC&Rs, they are not required to follow them. The CC&Rs are only as good as their t Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 - Page 16 s~ enforcement by the Homeowners' Association. Added that the last two-story addition in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood occurred about 15 to 16 years ago. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for the New Business Item on single-story overlay zone at 9:40 p.m. Chair Barry suggested moving forward to public hearings and going back to those property owners who did not respond to the first polls. Commissioner Roupe: • Supported both actions and stated that the 65 percent return was pretty good. It would only take postage and a little effort to conduct a second mailing. • Stated that there is already a good enough showing to warrant the drafting of the Ordinance and going forward with public hearings. • Said he feels most strongly about the community support from the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood and less strongly for the support of the Brookview Neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the neighborhoods be handled separately. Commissioner Roupe concurred and suggested started with Saratoga Woods, see how it goes and then go forward with Brookview. Chair Barry wondered if the criteria for Variances should also be reviewed. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Variance criteria, with its three mandatory findings, are set by law. Commissioner Garakani asked if it is_possible not to allow Variances in an overlay zone. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City must have a process in place to allow someone to ask for a Variance. Chair Barry pointed out that the process for Variances is much clearer than it used to be. She added that in the future, should the overlay zone be less desirable, citizens can come back to request public hearings to consider the removal of the overlay zone. Commissioner Roupe supported the use of Variance over Exceptions since they are more restrictive and uniform. Commissioner Garakani said that this would be a good example for other areas. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that some public hearings get ugly. Commissioner Roupe said that the focus should first be on Saratoga Woods and sending second post cards to the Brookview Neighborhood. _ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 17 Chair Barry disagreed, saying that the second mailing for Brookview should be delayed until the processing of the overlay for Saratoga Woods is further along. She thanked people for their attendance and input on this matter. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he would have this item scheduled as soon as time allows. COMMISSION ITEMS Ordinance Review -Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that he has distributed a memo with four bullet points: • Building Site Approval Process: Said that this process should be brought out of the Subdivision Ordinance and put into Zoning. Added that this item is number one on the City Attorney's list. • Variation from Standards: Said that this allows variation of standards without being a Variance, which is an unusual provision. Suggested either establishing limits or doing away with this. • Administrative Hearing Process: Said this is currently done by staff with noticing only to 10 closest neighbors. Suggested setting this up as an actual hearing with the Community Development Director serving as the Hearing Officer. Staff would make reports and neighbors are allowed an opportunity to be a part of a formal hearing process. This action will move the bar up a bit. • Establish a Notification Process for Tree Removal Permit Process: Advised that currently a 10- day appear period is in place but there is no provision for the notif cation of neighbors of the decision to allow a tree removal permit that might generate an appeal. Commissioner Roupe said that it is a good idea to look for situations where current practices are not based upon written policies. Chair Barry said that she likes the idea of Administrative Hearings. Commissioner Garakani suggested the participation of one Planning Commissioner. Director Tom Sullivan said that with the_involvement of a Commissioner, the hearing would no longer be considered an Administrative Hearing. Commissioner Hunter asked what the reasoning is for an Administrative Hearing process. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they offer better participation by the neighborhood and formalizes that participation. Commissioner Roupe stated that neighbors will be more at ease with the results following an Administrative Hearing. Director Tom Sullivan said that he wants his staff to include the same level of Conditions of Approval for Administrative Hearing Items as are currently included in Planning Commission Resolutions. .i Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan what percentage of all applications come to the Planning Commission for action. Director Tom Sullivan replied approximately 20 percent. About 80 percent of all residential applications are dealt with by planners and/or the Building Department. Commercial and Multi-Family projects go straight to the Building Department or to the Planning Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Barry asked staff to follow up on the letter from Mr. Robert Chin regarding a Condition of Approval that has not been satisfied. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he had not seen this letter and would direct his staff to follow up. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, April 24, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, Apri124, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Ann Welsh and Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of April_10, 2002. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Commissioners present this evening do not represent a quorum of those who were present at the April 10, 2002, meeting. Therefore, the adoption of the minutes for that meeting would need to be continued to the next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tom Walker, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Advised the Commission that he is trying to build a home on his property. • Asked the Commission to review his application, which has been under review- for the last two years, since the project is at an impasse with staff. Acting Chair Jackman informed Mr. Walker that the method to process his application is through the Planning Department in order to get onto a Planning Commission Agenda. Mr. Tom Walker: , ' • Advised that he was told he would be called and that staff had advised him that an Ordinance ' change was underway that might help him. • Declared that he has done everything possible, finding that the former and current Directors' interpretations to be different. -- Acting Chair Jackman advised Mr. Walker to work with staff. Director Tom Sullivan invited Mr. Walker to call him directly Saratoga P1arTning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 -- Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 18, 2002. _ REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS ---- Director Tom Sullivan 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** Acting Chair Jackman proposed hearing Item No. 3 first since it is the only item on this evening's agenda for which there are actual applicants. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Application #02-042 (397-25-060) - SANQUINI, 14087 Loma Rio Drive: Request for Design Review and Variance approval to add 294 square feet to the existing first floor-of the house and 501 square feet for a new second floor. The addition would add 795 square feet to the existing 1,504 square foot residence with an existing attached 440 square foot garage. The total proposed house size with garage would be 2,739 square feet. The maximum allowed floor area for this parcel is 2,444 square feet; therefore, the applicant is applying fora 295 square foot Variance. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants are seeking Design Review and Variance approval to add 294 square feet to the first floor and 501 square feet for a new second floor for a total of 2,739 square feet. • Added that the maximum floor area allowed for this parcel is 2,444, which requires a Variance for the additiona1295 square feet being sought. • Said that this project will meet the Residential Design Guidelines. • Stated that the second floor has increased setbacks and a minimum use of windows on the sides. The applicants also removed a balcony feature from the second floor due to concerns expressed by, neighbors. ,' • Said that this project meets the findings necessary to support a Variance including unique topography and an existing Water District easement. Additionally, the parcel is smaller than the typical parcel in this neighborhood, which is 12,500 square feet. This parcel includes 7,000 square feet gross with 5,400 square feet net. Therefore, this parcel is restricted in the maximum floor area allowed when compared to others on the same side of the street. • Added that another home in the immediate area received a similar Variance. • Concluded that with the previous approval of a Variance and the surrounding neighbors' similar home sizes to what is proposed here, this approval would not represent a special privilege and staff recommended approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 ' Page 3 Commissioner Garakani asked about the Water District easement, unclear if it was pending or existing. Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that this Water District easement is already in place. He added that the Water District will have to review this proposal also but has already preliminarily approved the project in concept and supported the applicant's pursuit of a Variance this evening. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:17 p.m. Mr. Dick Sanquini, Applicant/Owner, 1408 Loma Rio Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that his property borders on Saratoga Creek and the Santa Clara Valley Water District has an easement through his backyard as they do for every house along his Drive that backs onto this creek. • Pointed out that the existing house is presently 1,944 square feet with a 440 square foot garage. Houses in the neighborhood range from between 2,700 to 3,700 square feet, with an average of approximately 3,000 square feet. With their proposed 294 square foot first floor addition and 501 square foot new second floor, they will take their 1,944 square foot home to 2,739 square feet, which is right at the bottom of the range for the neighborhood. • Stated that the height will go from 17 feet to 21 feet. The neighboring residence to the west is 24 feet high and the east the home is 20 feet high. The range of heights for homes in this neighborhood is from 23 to 25 feet. This new home will fit nicely into the neighborhood in both size and height. • Said that the garage is currently a dominant feature. With their plan to use Craftsman-style architecture, this will minimize the garage's impact. • Pointed out that their new second story will be pulled in on all four sides and that the second story is enclosed within the roof. • Added that they have done work to fit this house better with the neighborhood. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Sanquini how the size of his parcel compares with the neighborhood. Mr. Dick Sanquini replied that the parcel is 7,039 square feet but with the easement the net square footage is 5,483 square feet. He said t?iat some parcels in the neighborhood are larger and some are smaller. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Sanquini that the paperwork he has provided was marvelous and that it is clear he has done a lot of work in preparing his design proposal. Acting Chair Jackman stated her appreciation for the fact that this house will fit into this neighborhood as well as for the efforts made by Mr. Sanquini to work out any issues with his neighbors. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch said that this is a slam dunk project and that applicant has made every effort. This is an appropriate request and a nice addition to this neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani concurred. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Hunter stated that it was nice that Mr. Sanquini spoke with all of his neighbors and eliminated the balcony. Added that this project is a nice example of how things should be done. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Variance (Application #02- 042) to allow an addition to a residence at 14087 Loma Rio Drive. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 Application #02-021 (CITYWIDE) - SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create standards to permit small wind energy conversion systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Resolution 02-021 amends the Zoning Ordinance. This action is in response to State Bill 1207. The Bill requires municipalities to adopt a Wind Energy Ordinance_by July 1, 2002. If no local Ordinance is adopted, windmills would be a permitted use by July 1, 2002, without requirement for public hearing. • Added that City regulations cannot be more restrictive than State law allows. • Said that the proposed City Ordinance would require a Conditional Use Permit, with a Public Hearing and Public Notice. • Offered some comparisons between the State guidelines and the proposed City Ordinance: • Maximum Height: The State's default guidelines would permit a windmill height of up to 80 feet for one to five acre parcels and no height limits for windmills on parcels greater than five acres. The City Ordinance would limit the height of windmills to 65 feet on parcels from one to five acres and a maximum height of 80 feet for parcels greater than five acres. • Setbacks: The State's default guidelines would have maximum setback requirements of 30 feet. The City Ordinance would require a setback distance that is equal to the height of the windmill. • Noise: The State default guidelines would permit a noise level of 60 decibels day and evening or consistent with a jurisdiction's General Plan. The City's Ordinance would permit 60 decibels during the day with a reduction to 50 decibels in the evening. • Clarified that it is in the City's best interest to adopt its own Windmill Ordinance. Without a City Ordinance, there would be fewer restrictions. Commissioner Zutshi asked about whether the maximum height includes the blades of the windmill. -- Planner Ann Welsh replied that the blade size must meet wind resistance standards. Said that the intent is to have the height include the blades, which may need to be added to the definition in the Ordinance. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are currently any such windmills in the area and whether there have been any inquiries for such installations. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 -- ~ Page 5 Planner Ann Welsh replied no. Commissioner Kurasch expressed confusion. It appears that the City cannot adopt more stringent rules than the State but the proposed City Ordinance has more restrictions. Planner Ann Welsh clarified that the State has established default guidelines that would apply if a municipality does not adopt its owri Ordinance. There is also a second more restrictive set of State guidelines, which apply for cities with their own adopted Windmill Ordinance. _ Commissioner Hunter inquired whether there are design review controls. Planner Ann Welsh replied not. The proposal must simply meet all Ordinance guidelines. Director Tom Sullivan added that the review that would be done by the Commission is for a Conditional Use Permit and not a Design Review application. Planner Ann Welsh added that the Commission would be asked to find that an application meets the conditions of the Windmill Ordinance only. Commissioner Garakani asked how many windmills would be permitted per parcel. Director Tom Sullivan replied one. He added that the purpose of this State law is to allow people to generate power for themselves. Planner Ann Welsh stated that this limit to one could be clarified in the Resolution for this Ordinance. Acting Chair Jackman stated that the purpose is for an owner's own use and not to sell power back. Planner Ann Welsh clarified that the owner of a windmill can indeed connect to the grid and sell back any excess power generated. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the number of windmills allowed is based on the number of parcels and not the total acreage. Commissioner Kurasch asked if setbacks would be discretionary under the Conditional Use Permit review. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the requirement would be that the setback is equal to the height of the windmill or more. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether a lower windmill height might generate less noise. She asked where the noise level is measured. Planner Ann Welsh replied that noise levels would be measured at the property line. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the noise from a windmill is continuous. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 6 Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Acting Chair Jackman asked if the windmill is running at all times. Director Tom Sullivan replied as long as there is wind blowing. Acting Chair Jackman asked if the windmills store energy. Commissioner Kurasch replied that this would depend whether it is connected to the grid and/or whether there is a capacity to store energy. Acting Chair Jackman asked if the intent of a windmill is for home use only. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. She added that the windmill could generate more energy than needed by the owner. Director Tom Sullivan offered a clarification upon further review. Per the State regulations, the maximum height is measured as the tower height and not the blades. The City's Ordinance cannot be more restrictive than the State in this respect. He added that the minimum parcel size is one acre and one windmill would be permitted per parcel no matter how large the parcel. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 02-021 recommending amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create standards to permit small wind energy conversion systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207, as presented. 'AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.- 2 Application #02-058 (CITYWIDE) - SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION: Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding development standards for basements. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will include a revised definition of "basement," provide a definition of "lightwell," specify setback and size requirements and specify planning review requirements for proposed basements. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the purpose of this hearing is to review the draft Resolution. • Stated that per CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was prepared for this Ordinance Amendment. The Initial Study found that there would not be a negative impact on the environment. A 20 day review period ends on Apri129, 2002. • Stated that the Commission will need to adopt a Resolution supporting a Negative Declaration. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 7 • Recommended that the Commission review this proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment and continues this item to the May 8, 2002, meeting when both Resolutions can be adopted. • Stated that this amendment changes the definition of basements and provides separate requirements for Hillside lots. A property with an average slope greater than 10 percent is considered a Hillside lot. Abasement 42 inches or greater above grade would be counted as floor area and counted as a story. • Clarified the definition of a light well, Planning review requirements, the addition of a basement to existing structures, public notification and review, development requirements for basements and lightwells. • Asked the Commission to carefully review the wording of the text of this draft Ordinance. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the notification of 10 closest property owners and asked how that is determined. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the ten closest are located within a radius of the project site. Additionally, the noticing area is typically extended to more than just ten. Commissioner Garakani questioned the need to notify for a basement. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are neighborhood impacts when constructing a basement including trucks, noise, dust, etc. Acting Chair Jackman asked if everyone understands this draft Ordinance. Commissioner Zutshi stated that the figures provided are very good. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the revised Ordinance is more or less restrictive. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied more. Director Tom Sullivan added that a better place to take measurement has been established. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that most cities go from floor level above to the grade. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the current 36-inch lightwell standards. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Uniform Building Code has a minimum requirement fora 36-inch lightwell for egress purposes. Former Director Walgren had previously established a-policy to allow a maximum 36-inch lightwell. Added that he finds an additional foot makes for a more functional lightwell both for provision of light and egress. Commissioner Kurasch expressed some confusion for the excavation goal. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that some basements have to be over excavated and later filled due to geotechnical considerations and to get the right sort of compaction. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a way to define net excavation area. V Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 -- Page 8 Director Tom Sullivan replied that the total would be from the bottom of the footings for the wall of the basement. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is the most realistic way. Director Tom Sullivan replied that he believes so. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the net effect would be. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied a floor area penalty above nine feet. Commissioner Kurasch said that she believes that nine feet should be the maximum allowed. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that it is too expensive to go to 12 feet with a basement. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any changes to the Planning Commission review. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, they stay the same. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this amendment has solved a lot of problems and made it much clearer. Commissioner Garakani recommended requiring a staircase versus a ladder for egress from a basement lightwell. Acting Chair Jackman asked staff for clarification on what action should take place this evening. Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff is proposing that the Commission continue this item to the meeting of May 8, 2002. Acting Chair Jackman asked what would happen next following the Commission's action. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Council will have a Public Hearing at one meeting and take a second reading at a subsequent meeting prior to final adoption. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02-058) regarding development standards for basements to its meeting of May 8, 2002, to allow the completion of a 20-day Initial Study review period and the adoption of a Negative Declaration with this Resolution. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Page 9 Clarification of the Planning Commission's direction regarding the re-polling of property owners in the Saratoga Woods and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan clarified that at the last Council meeting, the action Planning Commission minutes were pulled off Consent by Council and will be agendized for discussion at its next meeting. At that time, Council will give direction regarding the re-polling of property owners in these two neighborhoods regarding single-story overlay districts. NEW BUSINESS There were no New Business Items. COMMISSION ITEMS County Reparian Workshop Commissioner Kurasch advised the Commission of a Riparian Renaissance County Workshop that would be held on June 5, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Stated that this program might be interesting for the Commission. ___ Planting within an Easement Acting Chair Jackman asked staff if property owners are able to plant within easements. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes but that no permanent structures are permitted. Silicon Valley Manufacturing Workshop on Affordable Housing Commissioner Hunter advised of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's Affordable Housing program on May 8, 2002, and asked if anyone would be attending. Acting Chair Jackman said that she would like to go. COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of February 12, 2002, and March 12, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, May 8, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ~~ ~~ C • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: 02-073, Use Permit, 14500 Big Basin Way Applicant/Owner: Miles Rankin, applicant/ Robert Pollack, owner Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner Date: May 8, 2002 APN: 517-09-069 Department Head: /~~/ j ~ ,/ %~~ / N / / / \v \ /\ (/~` v \ ~~ $'~ Tf \~~ / ~~\~ / T ~ 14506 Big Basin Way • oeuoo~ _ -, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/11/02 Application complete: 4/15/02 Notice published: 4/24/02 Mailing completed: 4/24/02 Posting completed: 5/2/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks a Conditional Use permit in order to expand the 700 square foot first floor frontage, Caldwell Banker real estate office that is presently located at 14508 Big Basin Way in a 9,051 square foot two story building known as Pollack Plaza. The proposed expansion would encompass the adjacent 1,440 square foot storefront retail use, which currently houses the "Exclusively Yours Boutique". The expansion would result in a combined office, 2,140 square feet in size. The proposed change would render the Pollack Plaza building street level frontage entirely non-retail in character. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -- Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use permit on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the intent of both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and would not promote the retail vitality of the Saratoga Village. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit "A" ~....J 00(10Q2 y% • • • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1, Commercial District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RC -Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE:.30 acres / 13, 060 sc{. ft. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed conditional use application 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 small structures. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of changing the use of a commercial structure from retail to office classification. CH-1 District Bldg. Existing Coverage: 80% Floor Area: Total - 9,051 sf. Retail -1,400 sf. Office - 7.651 sf. Height: Two story structure Parking 17 spaces Code Requirements 80% Total - 9,051 sf. Retail - 2,100 sf. Office 6,951 sf. Two story structure 1 space per 200 sf/45 spaces ®OE1003 PROJECT DISCUSSION- The applicant seeks a Conditional Use permit in order to expand the 700 square foot first floor frontage, Caldwell Banker real estate office located at 14508 Big Basin Way. The proposed expansion would encompass the adjacent 1,440 square foot storefront retail use, which currently houses the "Exclusively Yours Boutique". The expansion would result in a combined office azea of 2,140 squaze feet or the entire first floor of the 9,051 square foot two story building known as Pollack Plaza. The proposed change would render the Pollack Plaza building street level frontage entirely non-retail in character. This outcome is inconsistent with the intent of the CH-1 zoning district, - which is designed to maintain the retail vitality of Saratoga Village. The zoning ordinance in section 15-19.050 requires a Conditional Use permit in order to expand a professional office use when located at street level and having street frontage. The applicant intends to close another Caldwell Banker real estate office located at 14440 Big Basin Way and consolidate the two real estate offices at one location. Although the net result of this consolidation of offices would yield an equivalent number of non-retail storefronts, the vacated real estate storefront is smaller and less prominent in terms of location. The corner storefront at 14500 Big Basin Way with easy access to parking and excellent visibility is one of the most viable retail locations in Saratoga Village. Removuig this storefront from retail use duninishes the vitality of the Big Basin Streetscape while also eliminating a source of retail sales tax. GENERAL PLAN The General Plan for the Village identifies guidelines for development. Among these is the directive to encourage commercial uses that generate sales tax revenue ui the Village. Since the property at issue is a prominent retail location along Big Basin Way vinth frontage along both Big Basin and Third Street, allowing an office use in this location is in conflict with the General Flan policy to encourage uses that generate sales tax revenue. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The City's Economic Development-office has commented on this application and their analysis is provided as follows. This current site has been utilized as frontage retail for many years in accordance with the Saratoga Village Plan. As pazt of the City of Sazatoga's Economic Development efforts, the Ciry would like to enforce the CH-1 zoning of this area to preserve retail _ frontage. This site in particular is one of Saratoga Village's premiere retail spaces due to the fact it is centrally located, has sufficient parking to meet expansion needs, and is highly visible. To date, the Village has lost a significant amount of retail space to office, real estate, and other non-retail uses. 0'0004 ~_ • • CONCLUSION Staff recommends denial of the proposed application since it would not enhance the long=term commercial vitality of Saratoga Village and since it is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use application to permit a real estate office _ in the CH-1 district by adopting the following resolution. ~Qa0~5 1 ' v __ _ 1 ~. • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • 000006 Attachment 1 t __ RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION NO.02-073 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA POLIACK/ 14500 BIG BASIN WAY WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to permit a retail frontage office use in the CH-1 District; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of permitting a retail use 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); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code cannot be made in the affirmative in that: _- 1. The proposed location of the real estate office is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance since this ordinance promotes retail and service uses along the Big Basin Way streetscape. 2 That the proposed location of the real estate office and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would be detrimental to the public welfare in that it would lessen the long term commercial vitality of the Big Basin Way streetscape. That the proposed conditional use will not comply with the provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code since the Code discourages office and professional uses along the Big Basin Way streetscape. 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 other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Conditional Use Permit is hereby denied due to failure of the proposed use to meet the findings necessary for granting approval. • OO000'7 :• {, CITY ATTORNEY _- 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. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED-AND ADOPTED by the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of May 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and , ; Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. --- Pro e Owner or Authorized A ent Date P rtY g ~~~dd~ ' ITEM 1 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: 02-019; Conditional Use Permit/ 20444 Prospect Road Applicant/Owner: James Yeh Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner I Date: May 8, 2002 I APN: 386-O1-008 Department Head: i Prospect Road _--~ ,~M- ER1 C -- H ~ I ~ C1 --- b i I ~4 i i ~ .O _~ -- i ~ ~ ~ ~ S i 400 ~ 0 ~ '~' 400 -'~ \ 800 '-3 O 20444 Prospect Road • 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: U3U02 Application complete: 2/5/02 Notice published: 3/13/02 Mailing completed: 3/13/02 Posting completed: 3/8/02 Continuation Notice 4/24/02 Continuation Mailing - 4/24/02 Continuation Posting 5/2/02 Project Description This report addresses a continuation of the hearing, which began on March 27, 2002 at which time the applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Institutional Use on a portion of a property located at 20444 Prospect Road. As was noted at that time, the 18,590 square foot parcel contains 2,500 square feet of office space. The proposed Institutional Use would occupy 1,500 square feet of space while a Medical Use presently occupies 1,000 square feet of the building. The applicant proposes to conduct the following activities on the site: teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and conducting other enrichment programs for students. These activities are to be conducted between the hours of 9:00 am and 8.30 pm Monday through Friday and a Saturday tutoring program with hours from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.'The total number of students enrolled in the weekday program would be 30. The Saturday tutoring program would be one on one instruction with a maximum of 30 students over the course of the day. A maximum of four persons are to be employed at the site. Parking for 12 cars presently exists on the property. In response to concerns raised at the previous meeting, the applicant has provided an alternative means of transporting students, which they maintain would elim~.nate the traffic and circulation problems, which have been identified by the Commission. Staff Recommendation Approve the Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. _ Attachments 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit 'A' ©(jQ~~i~r - STAFF ANALYSIS - ZONING: Commercial - CV District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDM -Planned Development Mixed MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 18,590 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of conversion - of an existing office use into a teaching facility use 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). _ MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant proposes no exterior changes to the structure. 000003 PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant Gin Jen Teng Ju wishes to purchase the property at 20444 Prospect Road from the current owner James Yeh in order to operate a teaching facility at this location. As was discussed at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission had concerns with the lack of parking and the ingress, and egress at the site. The Planning Commission -- instructed the applicant to provide a traffic study, which would indicate the number of students that could safely attend the school without impacting the surrounding circulation. In response to this directive the applicant proposed an alternative solution to the potential circulation problem. Their proposal is to transport each class of students to a church parking lot 1.5 miles away from the site. They have provided a letter of authorization from the Pastor at the "Home of Christ Church" which allows drop off and pick up use of the church pazking lot during weekday afternoons. This alternative would eliminate the need for pazents to line up along Prospect Road in order to pickup their children. It would also eliminate the need for parents to park at the school when they wish to pickup their children. The location of the drop off and pick up is "Home of Christ Church" 6365 Janary Way in San Jose. The Church pazking lot contains 61 parking spaces and does not have any weekday programs, which would require use of the pazking lot. The applicant has enclosed a letter from the Pastor of the Church, which authorizes this use. INSTITUTIONAL FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE An "Institutional Facility" is defined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 15-06.380 as a place, structure or area operated by a public or private organization or agency, used for providing educational, residential or health Gaze services for the community at lazge. The applicant proposes to conduct the following activities on the site: teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and conducting other enrichment programs for students. These uses fall into-the category of Institutional Facility In conducting the use, no exterior changes to the 2,500 square foot building are proposed. The existing structure presently houses a dental practice in the eastern 1,000 square feet of the building. The teaching facility is proposed in the remaining 1,500 square feet. The applicant intends to hold a maximum of three classes simultaneously with 10 students per class. SURROUNDING LAND USE Land uses surrounding the site aze commerciaUofficeuses to the north across Prospect Avenue, in San Jose, residential uses to the east and south and office uses to the west of the site. Atrium Drive surrounds the parcel on the south, east and west and Prospect Road on the north. The proposed teaching facility maybe compatible with the 000004 surrounding land uses if solutions to parking and circulation problems can be addressed. PARKING REQUIREMENTS Article 15-35.030 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies Off-Street Parking requirements for various use classifications. Parking for an institutional facility is required at the rate of "one parking space for each employee and such additional number of spaces as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission". In terms of off-street parking, the existing dental office occupying 1,000 square feet of space is identified as a medical facility, which requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area or a total of five parking spaces. The remaining seven spaces would be allocated to the proposed teaching facility. The applicant has indicated that four persons are to be employed on the site; the remaining three spaces are insufficient to address the remaining parking needs. The applicant could undertake three different means of minimizing the parking shortage. First, since the rear of the lot contains two areas that are not striped for parking the parking potential in these areas could be maxirrLZed. Also, each of these areas has a portable shed, which could be relocated behind the privacy fence outside of the paved area in order to create additional parking spaces. With striping of these two rear paved areas and relocation of the sheds about four or five additional parking spaces could be created. A second means of minimizin the arkin shorta e is to sta er the hours of the g P g g ~ students beginning and ending each class. In order to address a potential lack of parking, it is recommended that these class times be staggered at half hour intervals and class size be limited to a maximum of ten students per class. Varied starting times and limited class size minim~es the potential for parents queuing up along Prospect Road while waiting to pickup their child. The third means of minimizing the parking shortage on the site is to provide off site pick up and drop off. The applicant has proposed this solution by arranging with the above noted church a pick up and drop off service that would remove the traffic from the site during the afternoon pick and drop off of students. In order to formalize this arrangement the zoning ordinance requires that a contract between the Church and the school be drawn up which sets forth the agreement for joint use of the parking facility. This parking facility joint use must be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy must be filed with the City. ACCESS AND CIRCUTATION The ten parking spaces in the front of the building take access from Prospect Road. The site presently has two curb cuts, which provide ingress and egress from the site along Prospect Road. The circulation should be controlled by means of entrance and exit signs and painted arrows, which channel traffic in only one direction. ovaaas The intensification of use proposed by the applicant may result in a circulation problem if the hours of operation or trip generation are not managed to control the numbers of students picked up and dropped off at a given time. A condition of approval should be that the class schedules be organized to stagger class hours to limit vehicular congestion in the parking lot. HOURS OF OPERATION The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday: Saturday: Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CLOSED Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated above to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of operation. SIGNAGE The applicant has not yet proposed any signage. A condition of approval has been included in the attached draft Resolution which requires that the applicant submit a Sign Permit application for review and approval by Staff. -- CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. CONCLUSION Staff finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the Ciry Code can be made in the affirmative if the above noted conditions on number of students, staggered class hours and parking lot marking and off-site pick up and drop off can be met. (a) The proposed location of the teaching facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance including minim;7ing traffic congestion and providing for adequate , off-street parking. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Commercial District in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed location of the teaching facility and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. • • • 000006 (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with the provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. - • l~_J ©(jUO~'7 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000008 .7 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION NO.02-019 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA JAMES YEx/ 20444 PROSPECT ROAn WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 1, 500 (gross) square foot teaching facility in an existing office building; and WHEREAS, the_ Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of conversion of an existing office use into a teaching facility use 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); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: (a) The proposed location of the teaching facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance including minimising traffic congestion and providing for adequate off-street parking. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Commercial District in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed location of the teaching facility and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with the provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. - Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: • ®00009 PLANNING The teaching facility shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit A. With the revision that the maximum number of additional parking spaces be created on the paved area to the rear of the building and the portable sheds in the rear of the property be relocated inside the privacy fence. In addition the ingress and egress shall be controlled with one entrance sign and ,one exit sign and arrows painted on the paved areas indicating the direction of travel. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and :nay, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The Planning Staff shall review this Conditional Use Permit in six months and twelve months from the date of this approval, and upon receipt of any complaints. Any non-compliance issues shall be reported to the Planning Commission. • 4. The applicant shall limit the class size to ten students per class. No more than three classes are to run simultaneously. Class hours shall be staggered to ensure that classes do not start or finish at the same time. A one half hour interval must be maintained between the start and finish of each of the three classes, so that no two classes end or begin at the same time. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for internal tenant improvements, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the approved Exhibit A plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy of this Resolution as a separate plan page. 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, any proposed exterior modifications shall be submitted for review arnd approval by the Planning Director. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use , pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality , issues. 9. A Sign Permit Application shall be submitted to the Planning Division for any proposed signage for the new business establishment. 10. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga prior to opening the teaching facility. ~~DO~~ 11. The applicant must formalize the off site pick up and drop off solution with the Home of Christ Church. In order to formalize this arrangement a contract _ between the Church and the school should be drawn up which sets forth the agreement for joint use of the parking facility. This parking facility joint use must be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy must be filed with the City. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Claza County Fire District reviewed this application on February 14, 2002. They identified the use as a learnuig center and made the following comments: 12. The proposed use appears to constitute a change of occupancy classification from group B to group E division 3. As such, prior to occupancy the applicant shall submit appropriate azchitectural drawings to the building department for review that reflects compliance with criteria outlined in the 1998 California Building Code i.e., exiting, fire alarms, occupancy separation, fire extinguisher placements as maybe necessary. CITY ATTORNEY 13. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any - State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 14. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or ap removal 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. • Ot~0011 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8~' day of May 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: --_-___..~,, _ _..~.~....b ~.,.....u~~..,.. 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 ti~ r Od0012 .. 300 • t - I ~ I i r I ~- ~ I - - r r ~7 \ ~1I11~2~---------------•-- ------------- r ----------=o,- 30l ----------I !Soo z3 N 87' 52' 00" u 1 t 0.00' ~ - - - - - - ---- -- o. I --- J - - - p -~ ~ ~ ED ~ 1 - ~SOO es-• I I 1 e<ro r 3D° ~ _ ~ 1 300 0o yr I I t 300 62 1 ~ I 1 ~ , I I _ d I I' 'P~Z• I I I I I /'G t I `~_/ I 300 66 1 I I 300 07 I 1300 e3 CRASS l CONC. I 300 2 5¢SOt 2t I PAVE I t W _ 1 - .300 93 ~ 1 I .300 St _ t I I i I I 3a _1 ~ ;~ 1 I ~ W , ry~ I j I ~ ~ 8 1 ~ I ~ i \ 300 32 I ~i'------- --- -__ I I I I `~ I ~ CONC I I I ~` 1AC1 1 4-- ----1 1 1299 62 I I 1 I ~~ PL. ~ O 1 l - l I C I -rJdt-- ---,300 07 O I _ ------------~ I I 1 _ 1 M I I - - I I I I I w I i 3DO - -"~ I 1/ w I O i I O 299 96 I t] 79 ~ 1 I \V I ~i ~ EXIST BLDG 1 o m 1 I o O o I I ~ I ~02~ 31l 79 I m I O I I (V 1 I I h I 7 "r ~ J LU I I ~ ~ O I - - - - ? - 1 gOOf 1 I w3Qo 3e _ t z99 ez 1 ~ -----------,3otrvl ~r------- I CONC I \ I ~ I I° ~ 1 I I CONC ~ Pere,) I o 1 I ~'----- ~ ---------- I I 1 I i - I ~ I i I--~ I ~ 16 I I I I----------------- 1299 Se I I I W 1 I I I I I PL ~~++ I I I b Pl 1~ I t ~ I i I I < ~ 1 ~ j" I PL t I I ~ -~ 299 ZO I 1 ~ I s i' 99 06 X09 103 I I - 299 06 I l 299 )0 ~9 ZI ~~1 9 // t I 1 29 t I A ~ i 1 ~ / - 01 ~ _ I i ~ r L I rCS, I I S '~ ' ' t 6129 ~ i ~ t ~ I 1 ~ ~ f PAVE y^ 7 ~ , 29e 63 qe I ~ I I I t o ry~ I j I ~p~ I Q ~ 1 t 1 ~ I ~ 1 •~'+ I 1 b I ,296 e~ o I 1 e ~9 I 290 ]3 ~ ryq I ??~~ ~~.------ °------~,_._~ _. 29e 2 4- I ~ ~'L__ __ __' ___ --~ --- ~r 'I ,T 87' S2' 00" U 1 10 GO ' ~- ~ Z97.9z "'~ ------E-3 ~ L.zs t ~ ~, ~ I 1 1 OUT 1 ~~ ~ I DuT ~ f l I - - - - - - 129Y2L - - - 129D .20- - - - - - - - - - -1294 Q'2- - - - - - - - - - - - - •- - - - - - - - - - rACCrCUAe - - -1297 1 L - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 7 _613,9 t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NTi EII ----------------------------- _-6r- ~.~, sp.~~ ,aw~.d~. }~ ..., i. ,.,,na„ ~"x„~' v'; ~o ~s ~ ~ ..... • THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON November 28, 2001 Students of Chinese Christian Righteousness School 1112 Bernardo Avenue Sunnyvale, California 94087-2056 Dear Students: i-'~,,,~J u.i~`-~~ L~ L'am' All of us were shocked by the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001. As our Nation watched the news, we saw many upsetting sights caused by the acts of terrorism. These unspeakable cowardly acts have caused many Americans to be fearful, angry and sad. The destruction and devastation are overwhelming. Communication is essential during this time of crisis. I hope that you are sharing your thoughts and feelings with your parents, teachers and friends. Join me in remembering the many firefighters, rescue workers and police officers who risked their lives in the line of duty. My heart goes out to those selfless workers who died trying to save others. In addition, I extend my thanks to the many friends and neighbors who offered help. In the days ahead, I hope that you, too, will show care and concern for others. One way to help is to donate a dollar to America's Fund for Afghan Children in care of the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20509-1600. America and its allies stand together. We will win the war against terrorism. None of us will ever forget these recent events. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world. God bless you and God bless America. Si ~„~_ W. Bush • `~V RCH O , L~ W ._~ ~Z ~` A ~ _ ~ ~t~ ~ ~+ S O 9~ • ~ ~ W W lyEy M AY P~~~ GENAVIEVE HEYWOOD PASTOR 1112 BERNARDO AVENUE SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087 (408)739-3285 April 9, 2002 Dear Members of the Saratoga Council, It is a pleasure to write you on behalf of the Christian Righteousness Education Center which is under the direction of Gin - Jen Teng Ju. This all year program encourages children to continue in their after school studies even as it teaches them about language, dance, and self defense from a Chinese cultural perspective. Many of the children are of Chinese ancestry and many are not. Parents enroll their children because of the positive development they see. If you have any questions about the School that I as Pastor of the Congregational Community Church can answer, please, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, . -~ . ~ ~ ~- • /~ CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Ingrid Fuh '~~~ ei HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ESSA Y CONTEST ON CHINESE HISTORY AND CULTURE UNDER THE HAI-HWA SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ASSOCIATIONS OF CHINESE LANGUAGE SCHOOLS ~ ~.1 ~ THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST IN THE YEAR 2000 ~' -~ ~'~. ~~ ~ ~~i~~C~"~ ~. ~~ • C•I~:E•C• Christian Righteousness Education Center I. Parking Besides the parking spaces around the building at 20444 Prospect Road where we can use, the issue of parking can be dealt in this way: The children can be taken to a parking lot at the Home of Christ in West San Jose by school van. II. Class Programs 1) Preschool Program 9:00 am N 12:00 noon. 2) Adult Program 9:00 am N 12:00 noon. 3) Kindergarten Program After 12:00 noon 4) After School Program 3:00 pm N 8:30 pm . 5) Saturday Tutoring Program 8:00 am N 5:00 pm The Total student admissions for the different programs are 30. Our planned admissions for students are 6 for the pre-school programs, 6 for the kindergarten program and 18 for the three classes of after-school program. If the number of our pre-school kids is less than 6, then more admission can be available for the kindergarten kids. So, for example, if only 4pre-school kids enroll, the number of admission for the kindergarten kids will be 8. Or, if the total enrolled pre-school and kindergarten kids are 10, then the admissions for the afterschool program will be 20 students in four classes. III. During the past nine years, the work at the Christian Righteousness Education Center in Sunnyvale has been established on faith and prayer. Without sending out any flyers or ads. We have been well accepted by our neighborhood and sought by many parents in which more than a thousand children have joined our programs. We have a goal of bringing children a sound education. By giving them teaching in the Christian faith, we also help them build a moral and upright character. As our name Christian Righteousness Education Center reveals our work is based on Christ, with the purpose of bringing benefits to the neighborhood and glory to God. We trust that the city of Saratoga will be proud of us as well. CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS EDUCATION CENTER I 96iHillsboroAve.,sunnyvale,CA94o87 I 40$•749.8422 •_ y - ~~~Z.~~ 4 ~ THE HOME OF CHRIST Date: April 9, 2002 To: Christian Righteousness Education Center Ms. Gin Jen Ju /Principal From: The Home of Christ Church Dear Ms. Ju Our church is more than happy to participate in community services. After knowing your vision and your program of helping young children in a meaningful way, we admire your effort. Our church is glad to provide our parking lot for your school's drop off /pick up purpose during late afternoon • weekdays. There is no conflict on the parking lot usage with respect to our church meetings. You can start using it whenever your center is ready to operate and you can use this for an indefinite period of time. However, we do expect you to tell us in writing when exactly your center will start operating. May God bless your program abundantly. Sincerely, Robert S. Kou (Senior Pastor) The Home of Christ Church • 6345 CANARY WAY ,SAN !0$E, CA 95 (29 + TEL: (408) 725-8755 w FAX: (408) 255-4765 w EMAII.: hoc@4th.hoc.org ,~ ~~, ,~ ,, ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ I 1 1 '~~ ,C* •L I Tabu L7~ s ~ r OrJY ---~' i3• r O n• ,~, ,_ ,7 ~ .... `` ~X:s.F:-; ~w~;~, 6/ Gr Ter'str.,~ ,~ ..: - `L ~ ,, ~~ 1 I~ . '~ ~ 1 I I ~`~ ' ~ i ~ -~ : ~ i _<<; _ .. ~--- -- --•- ._ f_. ioao .~ ~ . _ J .- ~ // ~% % ; - / / ~ 1E j l / ~~ ' i i-i i ~ / ~ / /" ~-r_6fa ~ i i i ~ ~ ` ~ ~-- ?~ .r ---- I ~~~~ ~Yo n'~ ~avc~ r l ~ - f ~ ~' ~ ~~ r • ~~ Vw~ ~ _ ~ ~'"~ ~ ~ t~Y '~ g Y Yahoo: maps ana lir>.ving liirections r r~ s - P rage 1 of l Yahoo! -Yellow Pages - M Relax In The Caribbean Islands.., • :7 Welcome, albergu _ Yahoot Maps -Driving Directions Starting from: 6365 janary way, San Jose, CA 95129-3967 Arriving at: * 20444 prospect rd., Saratoga, CA 95070-3141 Distance: 1.5 miles Approximate Travel Time: 3 mins _'. ©2QOZ Yahoo! Inc 02092 NavigationTednobgies Full Route Edit/Create My Locations -Sign Email Directions Get Reverse Direct!ons • Text Only Driving Directu - - -r.-' ~~ N --__- V' 1 P~dBPd`, ~ - ~±7e '-~ ~~ l l 'I ~ 4~~~ • I~ad~w Qak I ~`~_ ~,.- 1= fit; --°r ~ ., _ -- - 'r i ~ La ~ ~`l ~ 5,, ~ y. 1 ~ L~ ~ ~t{fe~f ~ - ~ ~ 1000 ar , ft 02002 Yahoo! be ©2902 Navigation Technologies Destination Directions Miles 1. Start on JANARY WAY going towards LARKIN AVE 0.1 2. Turn Left on LARKIN AVE 0.2 3. Turn Right on PROSPECT RD 1.2 4. Arrive at destination r~ -- n When using any driving directions or map, it's a good idea to do a reality check and make sure the road s exists, watch out for construction, and follow all traffic safety precautions. This is only to be used as an a in planning. http://maps.yahoo.com/py/ddResults.py?Pyt=Tmap&tarname=&tardesc=&osd=fin... 419/2002 ~ Yahoo! Maps and llriving llirections rage ~ of ~ r. -- - - i Driving Directions New Locati~ Enter a starting address Enter a destination address •-- - - ~ or select-from My-Location ~ or select from My Locations _ My Locations - My Locations - -._ Ede My Locations - MY Locations - - ,, e ( Address, Intersection or Purport Code) (Address, Intersection or Avpon Code ) Address 6365 janary way Address 20444 prospect rd. City, State or Zip San Jose, CA 95129-3967 City, State or Zip Saratoga, CA 95070-3141 Country United States , .5, Country United States •„ ~t Directions ®2002 Yahool Ine. All rights reserved. Pnvacy Policy -Terms of Service - Yahoos Maps Terms of Use -Help • • http:l/maps.yahoo.com/pyiddResults.py?Pyt=Tmap&tarname=&tardesc=&osd=&n... 4/9/2002 ',=-. U s n'e `r', ' N~ , , ~ ~ , a ~~~: I i u •' N'~ L• r. ~ ~ _ ~ ;~JY'S!!~ 1 S? : ~ ' ~ ~r{y' GFR1C! P'T~SiT~ ~ • • • f ,~.. ~- ~- P ; ~ ~ - iJ~V ~ ~,x~r 11 -,~ :'' , ' ' , . 1 ~ i"ill t, '~;5 ~I { ~~{a/ r 3 +~ ~ 1 i~i'~~/"~'il f, ri~, •r~'~f1i ?,ire;, Vii: ~,A'~`~: f ~^ ,. .~y ~~~,~` . 4' ~'~ I •~ I I ~ I ~ ' e+~lt~r ~r~~':i: fr.~i ~',' ~ /:+i3~~ ~`<`'~~~~,~~ 1 -,z~ ~.a~`' ~ , ~, 'i fir;:, r r.. ,~I,.~r :~ „ '~ - ~:~,~. ~, };~ -4 I 'y, ~~ T'.~LI~~iJ% ~ 1~,1~~i,;'~ ,r~ ', , ~r"~'%1.:'r."; / ~ '~~h+N,L~°yJii ~..+ ' ~ - •~ ~ :1:-r- ', .~G b'" ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ,'r' f ~, ~• L `?i ~`, ;,t,~ ~~~~,f ,,,fl/,.,1~1~~ 4: r~al~~ '•I; ~ I '~ f I i ~~ ~~"r .`t"'~Y ~,. L~~~' [~ ~~t„r~W", .~ tia .~:--~~. .. ;( ''itl ',Lr~ 'r rl~~`il;: I', , '""~~ - gyp, ,VJ , yr~{;::. ''ig, },S: ~~.~ ,r ~~I ~ •r 7 , • r:" . r `:}fit, i ` ~~~ v~~' ~~~ -~ e ~ ~~~f~~!y(•^y~y'~~'~~ ti. ~~;Y ~'~,, :Y `l•j~d'+I~ ~C'fr~~ yp•s~ ,•~~• •';~ ~ ~ ~~ I 1 `.y, {..y'~I'f, , y dsPZ7(?, 't%,;J~,~i .i i! ~~ _. II ~. -, ~ ' ~ ~sa}=' ~ ~ Vii;: r,'.,a: ~.:: .t ~ .~t .<~i ~. ,r ,~I.~ - :?iRc'~- ~ '-''~`,1~1~~-~ ,;.r,s`,~.:'~:';:',•' .;~,~,: ,'~f,I,~ ~ Q' + ~ ,>. ~ u.;,' ''~~ ~~~; ~ , ~h. •; ~, , - '. ~ : i:::,~:.,I. I it .~ '5,~ t v ~~ I.4'.' ~ , i _ .~ •1. . ~ t~~.~ ~ti', ( 'iI .I~.~~', ,~,~•dl,~ ~ ~ I~ r I~" i ,x=, ; .~ ~~ a '~ '1' ~A t 1 ' .I !' . ~- 't', .ri'r`,` ~'r'~,/'~' i.,\'.,,~~,,'. '''•'•~`' t' - ~J~~~?F~ yl~ii'r ~'niu `'~, ~~~ L'~. ~; "'~'- ~.~ 'C_~`;=', I';~ ~ ~'~.-I- !],i ,I.,r~,~~~' r.~~~~•r.. .Si., ,a'1 ,~~r': ,, ~`,~ i li ~r.~/ ~~yT 7' 'S5 ' '•~,L. Ill. ~ Fiif ~.~J.. N •.':.'.'.' ~ I 'l 1 ~° " ~ GJII36b}1a 1,IL' 1y i ~ r ;' __~ . ~ ` ~.-] ~ , ~'~,~. ~~C?r(,a'"l,r^:. h'~.•,t,, ..+ ~ i . ` ' - ..,.a.,.,„-~ ~'7""` ~.~~ ..~„~..,» i A•F1ta:t'-v ;~ i%~ P-FI° ~"'~) -~' ,~'q„d` .~ ,1~ ' - I~~a-I IV+JLI!.4"` Rp~~G . I ~ ____.=____~----______._- ~. ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,~, ~ ,____- ~ _t.~-~...:~ ~,_.~.-~~~. ~ .~. Ids--- ~ ~ ~-~~~ ,~~-~~~. ~ ~-~.. -~ . --- , -. .. ~- ~- ply y;:.-~~ ~ , I _-~ - ~ - ~. _ .,_ ~,,i~ G' s?c,. ~. A': ~ , .~ 'Min ~:C +~,~',t', } °'~~.~ „ <. % Y x',.:. ~~ ~+ r N.~~~-. -1 ~ ~~~~ --_._'.-- /„c;~+. ~.~ ~''K .f _~~ :%°v 3~K~ ,.,},.vF' _ ,`~~=^,. fir. ~.~ ,4.a~. ' ~•~y.r ~ .S°~,'.I'~~'` f-~ :'~4"i: x1,' ~4bf~''. M ' ~ !~: pal ~ ~,.4 n, .+ - . ____... _. ____ +,.1.eI ~ is _c.. .'i.: s`~~° 5,x j"~ ;,'SY~e ~'w;=D` r*,A • ?~~x'r.~t?';c A' 3~~~'~,fz rN ''~y„ `/ ;~ti~ .w~ 1rF r"~'fi` ;7~ ~ ~ ~'~' y '~~i 1 ,a=' ~_~~ 3~;`a;~' y'~"it3~~i •."C`.~r~.' ~`~a°'.y':J~w~~fiµ~?`+~~'r'~`i?~l"~*'~~~* 'ia ~i~ ' o'~~„.,,.,~t• ~ ` , -- - _- "°~'"-'S'' ' i :?r'"~or~ °'>' 3~ "G;; Rb,.v~~ > .~lpd =E-~.~;y~~P~' ;~;~' ; ~.>`_'s,'/ ~ I-~ ~ ; '-~~~ lJi ~ tr-I~?;p"~`e;: i.. =a~: ,~xa:~s:.;..~4::' c-~n~t,,'d:'', 'i*^u'^~ • °¢. }tti``, ' -. - a}Ary~`r ~ ~. r- wy„ Wit: ., sy, ^^,"v+`, ~.~l~'., ,~)~_ ~ {t•' n'> :' ~~ ~. ' us-_,..e~ _~ ~^ ,,~;' "r ~± : ~~'` cog; w~F~iv~.~~~ .Tw? ~ '~%.-l~,"~,'':~.~,.r' ,i,~ '?=t: c ~~C~, ~~^ , ~.. ; x~'». ~ ,~ y •~. ~~ +h - a'~`rs~~5,+`s Ham. ,-,xG£~n`M "i:s;F a~ L;, Y..; :~5,, yl ~;,~'.:,, 1 ITEM 3 i • City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO TO: Planning Commissioners - FROM: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner „~~ DATE: May 8, 2002 RE: Application #02-058: Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Basement Standards At the April 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, Application #02-058 proposmg to amend the Zoning Ordinance requirements for basements, was continued to the May 8, 2002 Planning Comrrussion meeting. The required 20 day public review period for the Initial Study prepared for the proposed amendment ended on April 29, 2002. Staff did not receive any comments on the Initial Study. At the May 8, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission may adopt both Resolutions attached to the Staff Report which would grant a Negative Declaration of Negative Impact and recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to basement standards. -- • • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: N/A Department Head: Discussion The Planning Commission is proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance requirements for basements. The proposed amendment will include: a revised definition of basement; a definition of lightwell; size and setback requirements; and planning review requirements for proposed baserr_ents. As described below, the purpose of the amendment is to provide clarification and specify planning review requirements to address issues raised by Staff and the Planning Commission with regard to proposed basements. Defuution of "Basement" The current Zoning Ordinance Section 15-06.090 provides a definition of basement. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not take into account sloping lots where there are limitations in complying ~~~th the current definition of basement. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 15-06.420, a "Hillside lot means a lot having an average slope of 10 percent or greater." The proposed definition of basement will include a separate requirement for basements on hillside lots. Section 15-06.090 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to read: 15-06.090 Basement. . "Basement" means a space in a structure that is partly or wholly below grade and where the vertical distance from grade to a finished floor directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. If the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. (See Figure 1 below.) #02-058 -Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements for Basements Citywide Saratoga Planning Commiecion Lata Vasudevan ~~ Assistant Planner _ Apri124, 2002 000001 This requirement applies to all lots, with the exception of hillside lots. fimshed floor 42" ~~ t basement t i ~ Butlding Section Figure 1: Maximum vertical height from finished floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter shall be counted as floor area and considered a story. The number of stones measured vertically at any given point shall not exceed the maximum number of stories allowed in each zoning district. (See Figure 2 below.) -• 2 stones 2 stones ~~ i i Floor Basement Area • ~ Area (not a story) Portion when Butldtng Section vertical height from floor above to grade exceeds 42" Basement Floor Area (no floor area) Floor Plan of Basement Figure 2: Determining floor area for basements on hillside lots. • As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The Community Development Director ____ shall make the determination for sites where it is unclear as to which is the natural and which is the finishedgrade. All basements are subject to the requirements of Section 15-80.xxx 000002 Definition of "Lightwell" Pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, basements used as living space must have natural light and ventilation open to the outside. All basements that are beneath a dwelling unit must have emergency egress to the outside. Lightwells aze often proposed to meet the light, ventilation and egress requirements for basements. The current Zoning Ordinance neither includes a definition nor specifies any requirements for lightwells. The proposed definition of "Lightwell" specifies a maximum width of 4 feet. The purpose of this requirement is to restrict wide lightwells so that the basement level does not become daylighted Article IS-06 Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to include a definition of "Lightwell" that reads: 15.06.xxx Iightwell. "Lightwell" means an excavated azea adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4') measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have guardrails and gates in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. - Planning Review Requirements for Basements Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the addition of a basement level to an existing structure does not trigger any form of public noticing. However, the construction of a basement may have impacts on surrounding properties in terms of noise, dust levels, traffic impacts during construction, and drainage _ issues. The administrative design review process requires that at least ten adjacent property owners be notified of a proposed project. Section 15-45.065(a) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended so that a project proposing to add or enlazge a basement level is subject to the same review and noticing requirements. Section 15-45.065(a) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended read: 15-45.065 Administrative design review. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: (1) New single-story residences; (2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of fifty percent or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a one hundred square feet or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlazgement of existing basements. Development Requirements for Basements and Li h The proposed requirements address issues related to grading and drainage, soil conditions and potential impacts of basement excavation on neighboring properties. Article 15-80 _ MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS shall be amended to include Section 15- 80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. The amendment shall read 000003- 15-80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. (a) A basement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, including attached garage, and may not be located within any required setbacks. This shall be deemed the allowable area of the basement. In no case shall a basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. - (b) Lightwells shall not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (c) A basement shall be a one level structure; multi-story basements are prohibited. . (d) A basement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. (e) The allowable area for a basement shall be reduced by S% for each foot in excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. Floor, in this case, means finished floor, and ceiling means the bottom level of the ceiling framing members. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. (f) All proposed basements and additions to basements shall obtain geotechnical clearance. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report shall include an analysis of groundwater conditions prepared by a certified hydrogeologist. (g) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a nearby City storm drain inlet or to another drainage facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Department. The size of a proposed basement maybe limited based on drainage issues or issues raised m the geologic and geotechrucal reports. Staff Recommendation Staff has prepared a draft Resolution for the Commission to consider adopting. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Public review of this Initial Study ends April 29, 2002. If the Commussion decides to adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to basement requirements, the Commission needs to grant a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact prior to acting on the Resolution. Staff has attached a separate Resolution which would accomplish this. Since the public review period for the Initial Study ends on April 29, 2002, Staff recommends that this item be continued to the May 8, 2002 public hearing where the Resolution relating to the Environmental Impact and the Resolution recommending the Zoning Ordinance Amendment maybe adopted. • 000004 Attachments 1. Initial Study 2. Resolution -Recommending the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to Basement Standards 3. Resolution -Environmental Determination for Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to Basement Standards - r~ • 000005 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ooooos ~ _ _ .~, cr ~E~-.F ~ ".i- H ~~~ ~1. - regarding Basement Standards 2. Lead Agency Name 8~ Address City of Saratoga, Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 3 Contact Person & Phone # Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner, 408.868.1235 Attachment 1 -CITY OF SARATOGA ~' ''~ ~~ .INITIAL STUDY '~ -- ~~ --y- 1. Project Title: Application No. 02-058 - Zoning_Ordinance Amendment 4 Prolect Location Citywide 5. Prolect Sponsor's Name 8 Address: Saratoga Planning Commission 6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable -Citywide 7 Zoning. A, R-1, HR, R-M, P-C, P-A, MU-PD, R-OS, AP/OS Zoning Districts 8 Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. ,lttach additional sheets if necessary.) _ The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will include: a revised definition of "basement"; provide a definition of "lightwell'; specify setback and size requirements; and specify planning review requirements for proposed basements. 9 Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project'ssurroundings.) Not Applicable -the proposed basement standards would apply to all proposed basements and lightwells proposed citywide. ~ 0 Other agencies whose approval.is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): No other agencies are involved. 000007 • ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics D Agriculture Resounxs D Air Duality ^ Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Geology/Sons _ _ ^ Hazards 8 Hazardous Materials D Hydrology/Water duality D Land UselPlanrnng ^ Mineral Resources D~IJoise -- ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services D 4ecreation D Transportation/Treffic _ D Utilities/Service Systems D Mandatory Findings of Signifipnce ^ None • ._ 000008 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fend that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - - I find that although the proposed project could have a signfitxnt effect on the environment, there will not be a signficant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MItIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a signficant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a "potentially significant impacC or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Thomas Sullivan, AICP, Director Community Development Department Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: - - 1 A brief explanaUOn is required for all answers except "No ImpacC answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency ales in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact question is adequately supported if the referena~ infortnaUon soura:s show that the impact simply does not apply to protects like the one involved (e.g., the protect falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on protect-specific factors aS well aS general standards (e.g., the protect will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a protect-specific screening analysis). - 2 All answers must take account of the whole action involved, induding off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as protect-level, indirect as well as - direct, and construction as well as operations impacts. 3 Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may oxur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than signifipnt with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be signifia3nt. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required - - a 'Negative Declaration. Less Than Signifipnt with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of rr,itigaUOn measures has redua:d an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and bnefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than signifignt level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses', may be cross-referenced.) 5 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative deGaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identif)r~nd state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Signficant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they - address site-specific conditions for the project. ` 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previous prepared or outside document should, where 000009 appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. -_ - 7 Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted sh be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identifjr: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and - - b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than signfcance. • • 4 - ~~~0~~ Liss Than _ _ Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact In Impact coiponted Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: - a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source #1) - b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway? (Source #2) a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source #2) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the areas (Source #2) X X X X Discussion of Aesthetics Impacts: Since a basement is an underground structure there will be little or no visual impacts A City Arborist Report is required for proposed basements and any other type of construction that are m proximity to protected trees as defined in tiie Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whetherimpacfs to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies my refer to the Califomia Agricu/tura! Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by tine Califomia Dept. of Conservation as atroptional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring °rogram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses (Source #1,2) • X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricukural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source #1,3) - X b) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. -_ (Source #1) X Discussion of Agriculture Resources Impacts: No discussion is required. III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the Bay Area Air Qualify Management District (BAAQMD) maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the - applicable air quality plan? (source ;iit6) X 5 000011 Less Than _ Potentially SlpnKrcant Less Than No S1pnlRcant With MltlpatTon Sipnlficant Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality - violation?source #6) - X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase _ _ ' of any criteria pollutant for which the project region - - is non-attainment under an applicable federal or = state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source #6) X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source #6) X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source #6) X Discussion of Air duality Impacts: The construction of basements is currently allowed per the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will simply provide a new definition of basement, provide a def~nit~on of lightwell, specify size requirements, and specify planning review requirements.-Therefore, the Zoning Amendments will have no additional impacts on dust or odor emissions that may occur during construction of basements IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species m local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cal~omia Dept, of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source #4) X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source #4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (inGuding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source #2) c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X -_ X g -000012 Less Thsn PotantiallY SipnMcant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Sipnifrcant With Mltipation Si~nit'icant Im ct Impact Incorporated impact ~ native resident or migratory fish or wildlffe-species or with established native resident or migratory - - - wildlife_corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife - nursery sites? (Source #4) X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source # 4) X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (source #4) X Discussion of Biological Resources Impacts: The construction of basements is currently allowed per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Specific development projects involving the construction of basements will be reviewed for environmental impacts depending on the project location in the City, and the surrounding environmental features. For example, if protected trees are in proximity to the project, then a City Arbonst review would be required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES._Wou/d the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 (Source #4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source #4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features (Source #4) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source #4) X X X X Discussion of Cultural Resources Impacts: The proposed amendments will not impose any impacts on archaeological resources. However, specific basement projects may unearth unique cultural resources including human remains, in which case all construction activities is required to stop until the appropriate steps are taken. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments will include a requirement that all proposed basements will need a geologic and geotechnical report prepared by a certfied/ registered professional. Any unique ge`~logic features will be analyzed in the geologic reports prepared for a specific development project. 000013 Liss Than PoterWallY SignMcant Less Than No SignMcant With Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: - -- a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial _ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (Source #4) - - i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo _ - Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to _ Div. of Mines and Geology Pub. 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? - b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source #4) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the protect, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source #4) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source #2,4) - e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (source #4) X - X X X X X X Discussion of Geology and Soils Impacts: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will include a provision that all proposed basements require a geologic and geotechnical report prepared by a certified/ registered professional. An analysis of groundwater conditions prepared by a cert~ed hydrogeologist will also be required for all proposed basements citywide to analyze issues regarding water tables and underground springs. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a signfcant hazard to the public or the _ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source #4) b) Create a signficant hazard to the public or the environment Through reasonably foreseeable upset _ -~ __ X 8 000014 C Llff Than Potentlslly Slpnlficant Less Than Nc Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Siyn/1icaM tNitf- Mltipation Significant _ /mpad Incorporated Impact Impact environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of - hazardous materials into the environment? (Source - ~) - X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source #4) - - X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source #4) - X - e) For a project located within an airport land use plan __ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within - two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in -the project area? (Source #4) X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #4) X g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk_of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized -- areas or where residences-are intermixed with wildlands? (source #4) X tr Discussion of Hazards and Hazardous ilflaterials: No discussion is required. VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proect a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source #4) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquffer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source #4) X, c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of _ 9 ` X 000015 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): _ Significant Impact With MltigaOion Significant Impact Incorporated Impact the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which - would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or - off-site? (Source #4) _ - X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of - the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surrace runoff in a - manner which would result in flooding on- or off- _ site? (Source #4) X ~- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would _ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source #4) X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water? (Source #4) X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard - delmeation map? (Source #5) X h) Place within a 100-year floor hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source X #5) ~) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of - loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam_? (source #4) X ~) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (source ~) X Discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: See item #VI. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments will include a provision requiring that all proposed basement projects obtain an analysis from a certified hydrogeologist to address any groundwater and potential drainage issues. This will be a new provision; previous basement projects were not required to obtain a groundwater analysis. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: ~~ a) Physically divide an established community? (Source #1,3) - X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning 10- 000016 Less Than Potentially SipnMcant Less Than lyo Issues (and Supporting Information Services): SipnHicant With Mftipation Significant Im cr Impact Incorporated Impact ~ ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source #1, 2, - 3) X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source #1, 2, 3) X Discussion of Land Use and Planning Impacts: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will provide Planning Staff and applicants clarity on the definition of basement, and will specify requirements for all proposed basement protects. The planning review requirements will address any environmental concerns -such as groundwater and soils -that may occur on specfic basement projects. The zoning amendments would therefore have a positive effect on the environment. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source #1,4) X b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local - --- general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (source #1,4) X Discussion of Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts: There are no known mineral resources within the City limits XI. NOISE. Would fhe project result in: a) Exposure of persons.to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source~l,2) X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? X Source #1,2) _ _ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Source #1,2) X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above _ _ levels existing without the project? Source #1,2) - _ X ~_ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within ~w~ 11 alto ul a Niiuii~ aii ~ t vi Nuuu~ u58 aii Nvi ~, - 11 000017 - -- Less Than _ Potentially SipnHfcant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Sipntficant Impact With Mitisation Sisnlfrcant Incorporated Impact Impact two miles of a public airport or public use airport, _ would the project expose people residing or working - in the pLOje~t area to excessive noise levels? - (source #1,4,6) X Discussion of Noise Impacts: No discussion is required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source #4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source #4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source #4) X Discussion of Population and Housing Impacts: The Amendments will alter basement requirements. However, there will be no impacts on population growth. XIII.PUSLIC SERVICES: a) Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental - - faeilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,-response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (Source #1,2,4) _ Fire Protection? X Police Protection? ~ X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities? Discussion of Public Services Impacts: No discussion is required. XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other X X 12 X • 000018 R - -- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues and Su ortin Information Services • Significant NVith Mitigation Significant ( PP 9 ~• Impact Incorporated Impact Impact neighbofiood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be . X accelerated? (Source #4) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational _ _ facilities which might have an adverse physical - effect on the environment? (Source #4) _ X Discussion of Recreation Impacts: No discussion is required. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehiGe trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source #1,4) X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of - service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source #1,4) X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels-or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? (Source #1,4) d) Substantially increase ha2ards due to a design feature (e g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g~, farm equipment) (Source #1,4) X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (source - #2,4) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (source #4) X g) Conflict with adopted policies. plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus - tumouts, bicycle racks)? (source #4) X Discussion of Transportation/Circulation Impacts: No discussion is required.. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: X 13 000019 Less Thsn _ Poee~talh Slynflicant Leas Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): SiQnI>icant Impact W~ Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source #4) - - b) Require or result in the construction of new water o_ r wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source #4) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source #4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X X - X X • f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source #4) X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source #4). - X Discussion of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts: No discussion is required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC~-NCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable - =~ ~a ~~0~~ -- - - Less Than _ Potentially S1pMRcsnt Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Slpnilicant IMth Mltipation Significant Im ct __ impact Mcorporated Impact ~ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and _ - - - - the effects of probable future projects.) ~ X c) Does the project have environmental effects which • will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -- - X • _ • SOURCE LIST: _ 1. City of Saratoga General Plan 2. City of Saratoga Municipal Code 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance _ 4. Planner's knowledge of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5. FEMA Flood Insurance Maps, Community Panel Numbers 060351 0001-0004,0004 C, 0002 C 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD) Guidelines • • 's 000021 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000022 Attachment 2 - -RESOLUTION NO. Application #02-058 - RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDIN~BASEMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council of the City of Sazatoga with respect to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to requirements for proposed basements; WHEREAS, this matter was considered at a duly noticed public hearing on May 8, 2002, at which time all members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Saratoga be amended to read: __ 15-06.090 Basement. "R *" Es~y~c rh~t nnrt-inn of n c*-~ *+ ~ ~ *+ 1 1. 1 r] r F rl, r ___________ ____~__ ~___ r..,_.~..__ .._ .. ,,,.. ~.._,.._~ .,.,..~~"., .,~.~u~~y ,.,u~,.,. ~~ , rr, rho ,.o;l;,,,. ,.~..~.~ ~.,.~o,.,.,,,.,* "Basement" means a space In a structure that is partly or wholly below grade and where the vertical distance from grade to a finished floor directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. If the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. (See Figure 1 below.) This requirement applies to all lots, with the exception of hillside lots. • finished floor 42" ~~ ~ basement ~ i Building Section Figure 1: Maximum vertical height from finished floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. _ ~~00~ On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter shall be counted as floor area and considered a story. The number of stories measured vertically at any given point shall not exceed the maximum number of stories allowed in each zoning district. (See Figure 2 below.) - 2 stones 2 stones _~ Floor ~ ~asemen~ Area 'tea (not a story) Portion where Budding Section vemcal herght from floor above to grade ~- exceeds 42" Basement SOOT Area (no floor area) Figure 2: D hillside lots. Floor Plan of Basement on As used herein, the term °grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The Community Development Director shall make the determination for sites where it is unclear as to which is the natural and which is the finished grade. All basements are subject to the requirements of Section 15-80.xxx 15.06.xxx Lightwell. "Iaghtwell" means an excavated area adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4') measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have guardrails and gates in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 15-45.065 Administrative design review. • (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: 000024 (1) New single-story residences; (2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of fifty percent or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a one hundred squaze feet or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlargement of existing basements. 15-80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. (a) A basement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, including attached garage, and may not be located within any required setbacks. This shall be deemed the allowable azea of the basement. In no case shall a basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (b) Isghtwells may not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (c) A basement shall be a one level structure; multi-level basements are prohibited. (d) A basement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. (e) The allowable azea for a basement shall be reduced by 5% for each foot in excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. Floor, in this case, means finished floor, and ceiling means the bottom level of the ceiling framing members. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. (f) All proposed basements and additions to basements shall obtain geotechnical clearance: The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report shall uiclude an analysis of groundwater conditions prepared ~y a certified hydrogeologist. (g) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Depamnent a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a nearby City-.storm drain inlet or to another drainage Facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Department. The size of a proposed basement may be limited based on drainage issues or issues raised in the geologic and geotechnical reports. • 000025 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of-Saratoga, State of California, this 8`~ day of May 2002, by the following vote: __ AYES: NOES: I ABSENT: _ ' - I ABSTAIN: - - ~I Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: i Secretary to the Planiun~ Commission i • _ 0(D~026 attachment 3 • RESOLUTION NO. - Application_#02-OSS CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Environmental Determination for Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to Basement Standards in all Zoning Districts WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it will recommend to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to basement standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the information included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact attached hereto. _ NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: S Section 1. After careful consideration of the information provided in the Staff Report and from verbal testimony, the Planning Commission determines that there are no environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of the Saratoga City Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 0~~~~ `1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California on May 8, 2002 by the following roll call vote: ,, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • JCl.lCldly lV L11C rldlllllll~' 1.U11ll1llJJ1U11 • 000028 NIINUTES • SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 3, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:30 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (2case): (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) Name of case: Tsung-Chin Wu, Yuh-Ning Chen v. Parker Ranch Homeowners Association (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-707015) Conference With Real Property Negotiators (Section 5496.8): Property: 19848 Prospect Road Agency negotiator: Dave Anderson, City Manager Negotiating parties: Grace Methodist Church Under negotiation: Instructions to negotiate regarding price and terms for purchase of real property. 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 Evan Baker, Vice Mayor, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Streit requested a moment of silence to honor the late Burton Brazil, founding Mayor of the City of Saratoga. 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 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director City Council Minutes 1 Apn13, 2002 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR APRIL 3, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 28, 2002 was properly posted on March 1, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, discussed the different appeals that the Council has received in regards to the proposed station by the Fire Commissioners, Federated Church, Fire District, and the various neighborhoods. Don Whetstone, 14769 Vickery Avenue, noted that he is disappointed with the way things have worked out with the AdHoc Committee's efforts to develop plans for a Public Safety Center. Mr. Whetstone stated that he feels the Fire District destroyed the process. Mr. Whetstone discussed the current design of the fire Station, noting that the Fire District would end with only five parking spaces. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, noted that he is the Chair for the F.A.C.T. Committee. Mr. Dolloff noted that he has spent many hours participating on the AdHoc Committee. Mr. Dolloff noted that he feels the best place for a new fire station is on the Contempo property. Mr. Dolloff noted that the Fire District's architect has told him that the District does not have enough money to complete the project. Mr. Dolloff stated that he does not know what happened to the bond money. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, suggested that the City of Saratoga should consider approaching LAFCO to takeover the fire protection. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF • City Council Minutes 2 Apri13, 2002 CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAIVtATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF JUNE "SCLERODERMA AWARENESS MONTH: APRIL 21-27 "VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. _ 1 B. COMMENDATION FOR TERI BARON -OUTGOING TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Streit read and presented the commendation to Teri Baron. 1 C. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION iVIEMBERS JIM SCHINDLER AND ISABELLE TANNENBAUM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING JIM SCHINDLER AND ISABELLE TANNENBAUM TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Isabelle Tannenbaum and Jim Schindler. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 6, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 6, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Crty Council Minutes 3 Apn13, 2002 2B. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 6, 2002 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 6, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKER/MEHAFFEY'MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2D. REVIEW PLANNIN_ G COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES - MARCH 27, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE ACTION MINUTES FROM MARCH 27, 2002. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2E. CLAIM, OF MARILYN DENIKE; CLAIM NO. GL-053661 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize ABAG to settle claim. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 2E be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the damage to the vehicle was due to a construction project in the parking lot. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, responded construction was not the problem, a piece of rebar that holds the cement bumper in the ground came up, which when the claimant backed out of the parking stall the rebar hooked to the car's bumper. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ABAG TO _ SETTLE CLAIM OF MARILYN DENIKE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • City Council Minutes 4 Apri13, 2002 - 2F. VESSING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept notice. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVE TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2G PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -NOTICE OF COMPLETION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept notice. BAKER/ MEHAFFEY MOVE TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 3. ALTERNATIVES FOR DECORATIVE LIGHTING GUIDELINES FOR VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin explained that on October 4, 2001, Council authorized staff to purchase and install energy-efficient decorative lighting in the village business district. Council directed staff survey nearby cities that offer similar decorative lighting in their business districts to help formulate the hours of usage and guidelines. Coordinator Surdin reminded Council that in November 2001, the City hosted its first tree lighting ceremony in collaboration with the Village Merchant open House to kick off the holiday season. Coordinator Surdin noted that as of February 2002, the City has received several letters from merchants including the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC) requesting an expansion of the downtown tree lighting program. In regards to last year's energy crisis, Coordinator Surdin explained that any decorative lighting would be curtailed and discontinued in case of a stage 2 or 3 energy emergency. Coordinator Surdin stated that the following cities use decorative lighting in their downtown shopping district year round from sunset until 11:00 p.m. daily. The Town of Los Gatos utilizes decrative holiday lighting in their downtown shopping district beginning in November through February, year round lighting exists in their main plaza. City Council Minutes $ Apn13, 2002 Coordinator Surdin stated that three alternatives were before the Council: • Alternative 1 o Seasonal lighting only o Seven days a week, six hours per mght (5:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.) o Fiscal Impact - $900.00 • Alternative 2 o Year round decorative lighting during the three most active evenings each week o Thursday -Saturday four hours per night (sunset -11:00 p.m.) o Fiscal Impact - $175.00 • Alternative 3 o Year round decorative lighting, o Seven days a week 4-6 hours per night (Sunset- 11:00 p.m.) o Fiscal Impact - $7,200 Coordinator Surdin noted that in addition to the electrical costs other fiscal impacts such as on going maintenance contract with the lighting vendor as well as replacement of damaged lights would have to be considered. Donna Collins, 14519 Big Basin Way, has been in Saratoga for almost ten years. Ms. Collins noted that she is the one who first started hanging up decorative lights. Ms. Collins noted that the lights attract potential patrons to the Village. Councilmember Bogosian asked Ms. Collins if her store was open during the evenings. Ms. Collins responded that she is not open during the evening, but in her opinion patrons to the Village are more inclined to walk up and down the Village if the lights were on. Ms. Collins stated that patrons walking might look in her window and come back another day to shop in her store. Bill Cooper, 14503 Big Basin Way, stated that the lights are a great addition to the Village. Mr. Cooper encouraged the City Council to approve turning the lights on for a few hours during the busiest nights. Mr. Cooper noted that the lights encourage visitors to browse through downtown. Mayor Streit asked Mr. Cooper if he felt Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights were sufficient. Mr. Cooper responded that those were the busiest nights in the Village. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he is the liaison for the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC) whom all 100% support the lights on the weekend. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he supports Alternative #2. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that $2,100 is not excessive. City Council Minutes ( Apri13, 2002 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she is apprehensive of approving any of the alternatives without asking the property owners. -- Councilmember Bo osian noted that he feels that th ' g e lights were appropnate during the holiday season, but he feels the novelty would wear off if they were on all year. Councilmember Bogosian noted he would support extending the holiday lights into February, but any longer he feels would look garish. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he disagrees that the lights are needed for safety purposes. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he disagrees with Councilmember Bogosian's comments, he feels the lights add ambiance and makes the Village look magical. Vice Mayor Baker noted that with the endorsement from the property owners he would support Alternative 2. Mayor Streit noted that he concurred with Vice Mayor Baker and supports Alternative 2. Mayor Streit noted that if the merchants and/or property owners want to pay for the lights to be on seven days a week he would support it. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the lights would be turned off if there were another power crisis. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he also supports Alternative 2. In regards to Councilmember Bogosian's comments, Councilmember Mehaffey stated that the i power crisis is over and all of the merchants support the lights. ""' Consensus of the Ci Council to contact the ro ert owners for their su ort and tY P p Y pp implement Alternative 2. Councilmember Waltonsmith and Councilmember Bogosain do not support Alternative 2. 4. SARATOGA LIBRARY UPDATE _ _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow gave a brief background-on the $15 million dollar bond the voters of Saratoga approved on March 2000 to renovate the Saratoga Library. Assistant Manager Tinfow pointed out the Council set aside $500,000 as a "buffer" to help assure that the final library cost would not exceed the available bond funds. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that staff is working with Gilbane Building Company to manage the library construction project. Weekly meetings are held at the site to discuss scheduling, project milestones, and possible problems. Every two weeks, a stakeholders construction meeting is held. The Citizen's Oversight Committee meets monthly and oversees the library budget to make sure funds are being spent in accordance with the requirements of the bond measure. City Council Minutes '7 Apn13, 2002 Assistant City Manager Tinfow pointed out that currently the Library project stands at $14,127,934 for all contracts and known costs. A balance of $372,066 for change orders remains in the original budget. The $500,000 buffer remains for additional library construction if needed. In conclusion Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that the Library project remains on budget and construction is estimated to be complete by February 28, 2003. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he recently had the opportunity to tour the library site. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he was impressed on how clean the library site was. Councilmember Mehaffey stated that it was his suggestion to put this on the agenda. Councilmember Mehaffey reiterated that all the volunteers involved with this project are doing a great job. Councilmember Mehaffey commended Assistant City Manager Tinfow on doing a great job managing the project. Vice Mayor Baker stated that the Library would not go over $15 million dollars. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City,is going to get a great library. Marcia Manzo, 20477 Walnut Avenue, noted that the temporary library checks out over 60,000 volumes of books a month. Ms. Manzo noted that Gilbane informed her that there would have been no way the library could have stayed opened during construction. Bill McDonald, 15201 Montalvo, stated that he was representing the Friends of the Library. Mr. McDonald noted that the Friend's would soon be starting their fundraising efforts to buy furniture and extended volume of books for the library. Mr. McDonald not~d_that he is happy to hear the library's budget is on target and will be great when it is done. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that the City present a commendation to the Friends of the Library supporting their fundraising efforts. Censuses of the Council to present the Friends with a commendation supporting their fundraising efforts. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions and authorize execution of contract with tree moving service. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-020 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FY 2001-2002 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $6,400 FOR TREE REMOVAL AND TRANSPLANT SERVICES AT THE HERITAGE ORCHARD City Council Minutes $ Apri13, 2002 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-021 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF NON- ORCHARD TREES John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Planner Livingstone explained that-at the March 6, 2002 City Council meeting staff prepared a report requesting direction on the disposition of the non-orchard trees in the Heritage Orchard. At the meeting, Council directed staff to amend the Phase II Orchard Restoration CIP Project budget and the Heritage Orchard Master Plan to remove the trees. Planner Livingstone noted that staff investigated options to have the Oak trees moved or sold. A tree mover was contacted and explained that most of the trees are too large to move and have structural problems, which prohibit moving them. One tree close to Fruitvale Avenue could be moved at a cost of approximately $20,000. Planner Livingstone explained that staff is recommending that this tree be transplanted to the entrance of the City as part of the Gateway Project. The Heritage Preservation is recommending that the remaining trees be removed. Planner Livingstone noted that the lowest bid for the tree removal project was submitted by Ian Geddes Tree Care Inc. for $3,450. The bid for moving and -- replanting the five small Oak trees is $500 a tree. The total cost of this project is $6,400. Councilmember Bogosian asked why the City is taking out the orange tree, there is nothing wrong with it and produces good fruit. A discussion took place amongst the Council in regards to the orange tree and a . consensus was reached to keep it. Consensus of the Council to keep trees 1-3 and replant them and remove trees 4-9. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2001-2002 BUDGET OF $6,400 FOR TREE REMOVAL AND TRANSPLANT SERVICES AT THE HERITAGE ORCHARD. MOTION PASSED 5-0. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF NON-ORCHARD TREES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ORANGE TREE. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Bogosain commended Planner Livingstone for a job well done on pulling this report together in such a short amount of time. City Council Minutes 9 Apn13, 2002 NEW BUSINESS 6. UPDATE ON MAIL/IDENTITY THEFT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Captain Dennis Bacon, SCC Sheriff's Department, presented staff report. Captain Bacon reported that Saratoga has experienced an increase in the number of mail thefts from residential mailboxes. There have been 22 thefts of mail from mailboxes from October 1, 2002 to March 28, 2002. Captain Bacon explained that there are dual roles in the investigation of mail theft. The theft of mail itself is a federal offense and is investigated by the U.S. Postal Service. Any subsequent crimes committed as a result of the theft of mail such as fraud, illegal use of credit cards, or identity theft, are investigated by the Sheriff s Office. Captain Bacon explained the crime analysis as follows: __ • Most crimes occurred on Mondays and Fridays in the late morning /early afternoon hours between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. • The'greatest number of thefts occurred in the area bounded by Highway 85, Prospect, and Saratoga Avenues, and in the Sobey/Quito Roads area • Suspect (s) took outgoing checks and incoming credit cards and credit card statements Captain Bacon explained that the Sheriff's Department instituted amulti-pronged _ approach in their attempt to prevent the thefts from occurring as well as apprehend the person(s) responsib:e for these crimes. Captain Bacon explained their efforts: • Increased patrols of residential neighborhoods in the target areas to include more frequent stops and identification of suspicious persons • Issuance of a press release to the local news media describing the methods used by the suspects along with crime prevention information • Coordination of efforts with the U.S. Postal Service to include meetings with the Saratoga Postmaster and sharing of information with Postal Inspectors • Providing to all letter carriers the direct telephone number to County Communications/Saratoga Sheriff's Office dispatchers to allow quick reporting of suspicious person and vehicles via cellular phones • Conducting several Neighborhood Watch meetings with the additional identity theft information to the presentation • Posting of identity theft information on the Sheriff's Office West Valley Patrol website • The in-progress development of a citywide mailer to all residents regarding mail and identity theft prevention as well as plans for an informational town meeting for residents City Council Minutes 1 Q Apri13, 2002 - Captain Bacon pointed out that the U.S. postal Inspectors have made two arrests in _ recent months in San Jose and in Santa Cruz County in which numerous mailings to and from Saratoga residents were discovered. Captain Bacon noted a few crime prevention recommendations for residents as follows: _ • Never leave outgoing mail in a unsecured mailbox - • Watch for letter carriers and remove incoming mail from unsecured -residential mailboxes immediately • Obtain and use a post office box instead of residential mail delivery system • Report via 9-1-1 any suspicious persons or vehicles loitering near residential mailboxes Councilmember Waltonsmith thanked Captain Bacon for his report and requested that he come back every couple of months to update the City Council on maiUidentity theft. Councilmember Bogosian noted that people should buy a shredder for their homes because thieves often take mail out of recycle bins. Vice Mayor Baker stated that Saratoga is a target for mail theft. Captain Bacon suggested that the Sheriffs Office host a community meeting in the Council Chambers. 7. UPDATE ' ON BIG BASIN WAY TRAFFIC ISSUES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Lieutenant Smedlund, SCC Sheriff s Department, presented staff report. Lieutenant Smedlund explained that Big Basin-has become a significant route for morning northbound commute traffic. Lieutenant Smedlund noted that he placed Traffic Deputy Carl Neusel on Highway 9 from Springer Road through downtown Saratoga to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to do directive enforcement for approximately one week. Lieutenant Smedlund noted that Deputy Neusel started his patrol from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Lieutenant Smedlund noted that Deputy Neusel observed that once vehicles passed 6`h Street their speed increased. Deputy Neusel suggested that CalTrans be contacted to post an additional sign facing the northbound lane at Jacks Road stating " 25 MPH zone ahead". This would remind motorists proceeding northbound into downtown Saratoga will then have a reminder that the speed limit decreases from 30 MPH to 25 MPH. City Council Minutes 11 Apnl 3, 2002 Councilmember Bogosian asked if there was any way to speed up the process with CalTrans to install the recommended sign. Cit Mana er Anderson noted that he would have the Public Works Director Y g Contact CalTrans. Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he is concerned with the speed along Big Basin, but the biggest hazards are the delivery trucks that park in the red zone on the corner of 4th Street and Big Basin. Lieutenant Smedlund noted that he would inform a Traffic Deputy to target that area for violations. Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Sheriff's Department report back to Council after the summer concert series at the Mountain Winery. Mayor Streit thanked the Sheriff s Office for their report. 8. SARATOGA LIBRARY ROOM-NAMING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: _ Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. __ Assistant Cit Mana er Tinfow ex lained that the Libra Bond rohibits funds to Y g P rY p be used for expenditures other than those related to construction or fixed interior equipment. As a result, no funds are available for furniture or movable equipment. The Friends of the Saratoga Library are preparing to fundraise for furnishings, fixtures and equipment, and plan to launch their campaign in April. Fundraising options will include engraved floor tiles, engraved decorative book spines, and donor plaques. In the course of the Friends' planning, the question of whether or not to offer room naming as a fundraising option was raised. The Friends' have decided not to pursue the idea. However, Councilmember Bogosian asked that the topic be presented to Council for consideration in case interest was expressed by future donors. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that room naming as a library fundraising tool has been used in a number of libraries although none in Santa Clara County. Nearby examples include San Francisco Public Library and Orinda Library. The range of naming opportunities can extend to spaces other than rooms. The range of donations ranged from $50,000-$200,000. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that Council could adopt a policy of no room naming options or direct staff to develop a draft room-or space naming policy for Council consideration at a later meeting. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to draft donation guidelines with a minimum donation for room naming at $200,000. Ctty Council Minutes 12 Apri13, 2002 r+ - 9. SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY LEASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow explained that library services in Saratoga are provided under a lease agreement between the City of Saratoga and Santa Clara County. The City owns the building while the County provides the materials, furniture, and personnel. The most recent lease was set to terminate in 2003 with the ability for 30-year renewal in 10-year increments at the Library's request. With the expansion and renovation of the Saratoga Library, either a new lease or a lease renewal is needed to reflect the building changes and update the remaining terms and conditions. Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that significant language from the old lease include language about land acquisition, a design process and construction, bond issuance and repayment term, and termination resulting from failure to secure financing. The new lease carves forward any of the same terms and conditions of the old, and an overview of significant provisions follow: • Use of Premises -Use is restricted to maintenance and operation of a branch library, and any sublease or occupation by others is precluded without the City's prior written consent. • Alterations, additions and maintenance -The County is responsible for maintaining the interior and exterior of the building without limitations. The City is responsible for maintaining anything beyond the exterior walls of the building (landscaping, sidewalks, parking lot). • Taxes and Utilities- The County is responsible for all tax liability and utility cots. • Liability and Insurance -The County and the City agree to mutually indemnify each other from liability based on the same division of maintenance responsibility. Both the City and County are required to maintain liability insurance at the City's standards. • Termination -The County is permitted to terminate the lease agreement if the City decides to withdraw for any reason from the SCC Library system. The City agrees to give one-year notice shouldit decide to withdraw. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated that staff requests direction, specific terms and conditions for the new lease: • Term length • Cafe operation • Exterior building maintenance • Digital HVAC system assistance Councilmember Mehaffey asked if staff had information on the County's policies on renting out the community rooms. City Council Minutes 13 Apri13, 2002 Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that she would request the County's policy and report back to Council at a future time. In re ards to the ro osed libr cafe Councilmember Waltonsmith re uested g p p ~' q that the City have some input on what type and who operates the cafe. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the City Council meet with the Friends of the Library to discuss the proposed cafe. In regards to the exterior maintenance, Councilmember Bogosian stated that either the City takes care of the Library or the City's Architect draft a protocol for maintenance and it is a part of the lease. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he is skeptical that the County could maintain the Library appropriately. Mayor Streit stated if the City takes over the maintenance, the Library should get something in return such as longer hours of operation. Mayor Streit stated that within the lease he wants to make sure there are performance measures and a reserve fund specifically for maintenance. Attorney Taylor stated that the Library could give the City a specific amount and in turn the City puts the funds in a sinking fund and release to the library in accordance with certain provisions. Assistant Cit Mana er Tinfow stated that she would contact the Cit 's Architect Y g Y and find out interior and exterior costs and report back to Council at future date. Councilmember Mehaffey stated he does not support a 30-year lease and suggested 15-20 year lease. Mayor Streit stated he feels 10-15 years is adequate. Councilmember Bogosian stated he would support a 10-year lease. Consensus of the City Council to go with a 10-15 year lease with the County. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Vice Mayor Baker reported the following information: West Valley Solid Waste JPA -under new recycling contract household batteries would be recyclable. West Valley Sanitation District -recently hired a new Director of Engineering and Operations. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information: Silicon Valley Animal Control -recently approved draft budget and in_the process of negotiating a MOU with the Silicon Valley Wildlife Center. City Council Minutes 14 April 3, 2002 a: ? Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: Historical Foundation -plans for the remodel of the Museum building has been submitted to the City's Community Development Department for design review. PAB -looking at eight expressways, Saratoga is at end of expressway (Lawrence Expressway), which dumps cars out on Saratoga Avenue and prospect Road. Councilmember Mehaffey reported the following information: KSAR -continuing to look at existing polices and discussed sending Executive Director to accounting classes to help control the finances more accurately. Mayor Streit reported the following information: Hakone Foundation - developed a five-year CIP program. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith stated she would like to discuss a draft Chamber of Commerce contract and requested that it be agendized for April 17, 2002. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that a subcommittee be formed to work with the City Manager to discuss the draft contract prior to the City Council meeting. Mayor Streit noted that he and Councilmember Bogosian have already been working with City Manager Anderson on the contract. Consensus of the City Council to agendize the Chambers Contract at the next regular meeting. - OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There be no further business Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Minutes 15 April 3, 2002 ITEM 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department MEMO • TO• Planning Commissioners _ - FROM: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner „~~ DATE: May 8, 2002 RE: Application #02-OS8: Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Basement Standards At the Apri124, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, Application #02-058 proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance requirements for basements, was continued to the May 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The required 20 day public review period for the Initial Study prepared for the proposed amendment ended on April 29, 2002. Staff did not receive any comments on the Initial Study. At the May 8, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission may adopt both Resolutions attached to the Staff Report which would grant a Negative Declaration of Negative Impact and recommend that the Ciry Council amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to basement standards. -- THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • ITEM 2 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Discussion #02-058 -Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements for Basements Citywide Sazatoga Planning Commission Lata Vasudevan ~Y Assistant Planner _ April 24, 2002 N/A Department Head: The Planning Commission is proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance requirements for basements. The proposed amendment will include: a revised definition of basement; a definition of lightwell; size and setback requirements; and planning review requirements for proposed baserr_ents. As described below, the purpose of the amendment is to provide clarification and specify planning review requirements to address issues raised by Staff and the Planning Commission with regard to proposed basements. Defuution of "Basement" The current Zoning Ordinance Section 15-06.090 provides a definition of basement. However, the Zoning Ordinance does not take into account sloping lots where there are limitations in complying ~ti~ith the current definition of basement. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 15-06.420, a "Hillside lot means a lot having an average slope of 10 percent or greater." The proposed definition of basement will include a separate requirement for basements on hillside lots. Section 15-06.090 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to read: 15-06.090 Basement. • ."Basement" means a space in a structure that is partly or wholly below grade and where the vertical distance from grade to a finished floor directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. If the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. (See Figure 1 below.) 000001 This requirement applies to all lots, with the exception of hillside Tots. finished floor 42" ~~ ~ basement ~ ~_ Building Section Figure 1: Maximtun vertical height from finished floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter shall be counted as floor area and considered a story. The number of stories measured vertically at any given point shall not exceed the maximum number of stories allowed in each zoning district. (See Figure 2 below.) - 2 stones 2 stones ~~ ~ i Floor Basement Area • •- Area (not a story) Pornon whre Building Sectton verncal height from floor above to grade exceeds 42" Basement Floor Area (no floor area) ~- Floor Plan of Basement Figure 2: Determining floor area for basements on hillside lots. • • As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The Community Development Director ___ shall make the determination for sites where it is unclear as to which is the natural and which is the finishedgrade. - All basements are subject to the requirements of Section 15-80.xxx 000002 Definition of "Li hg~twell" Pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, basements used as living space must have natural light and ventilation open to the outside. All basements that are beneath a dwelling unit must have emergency egress to the outside. Lightwells are often proposed to meet the light, ventilation and egress requirements for basements. The current Zoning Ordinance neither includes a definition nor specifies any requirements for lightwells. The proposed definition of "Lightwell" specifies a maximum width of 4 feet. The purpose of this requirement is to restrict wide lightwells so that the basement level does not become daylighted. Article 15-06 Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to include a definition of "Lightwell" that reads: __ 15.06.xxx Lightwell. "Lightwell" means an excavated area adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4') measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have guardrails and gates in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. - Planning Review Requirements for Basements Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the addition of a basement level to an existing structure does not tngger any form of public noticing. However, the construction of a basement may have impacts on surrounding properties in terms of noise, dust levels, traffic impacts during construction, and drainage issues. The administrative design review process requires that at least ten adjacent property owners be notified of a proposed project. Section 15-45.065(a) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended so that a project proposing to add or enlarge a basement level is subject to the same review and noticing requirements. Section 15-45.065(a) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended read: 15-45.065 Administrative design review. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: (1) New single-story residences; (2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of fifty percent or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a one hundred square feet or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlargement of existing basements. Development Requirements for Basements and Li h The proposed requirements address issues related to grading and drainage, soil conditions and potential impacts of basement excavation on neighboring properties. Article 15-80 _ MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS shall be amended to include Section 15- 80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. The amendment shall read: 000003- 15-80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. (a) A basement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, including attached garage, and may not be located within any required setbacks. This shall be deemed the allowable area of the basement. In no case shall a basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. - (b) Lightwells shall not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (c) A basement shall be a one level structure; multi-story basements are prohibited. (d) A basement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. (e) The allowable area for a basement shall be reduced by 5% for each foot in excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. Floor, in this case, means finished floor, and ceiling means the bottom level _ of the ceiling framing members. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. (f) All proposed basements and additions to basements shall obtain geotechnical clearance: The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report shall include an analysis of groundwater conditions prepared by a certified hydrogeologist. (g) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a nearby Ciry storm drain inlet or to another drainage facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Department. The size of a proposed basement may be limited based on drainage issues or issues raised in the geologic and geotechnical reports. Staff Recommendation Staff has prepared a draft Resolution for the Commission to consider adopting. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Public review of this Initial Study ends Apri129, 2002. If the Commission decides to adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to basement requirements, the Commission needs to grant a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact prior to acting on the Resolution. Staff has attached a separate Resolution which would accomplish this. Since the public review period for the Initial Study ends on Apri129, 2002, Staff recommends that this ' item be continued to the May 8, 2002 public hearing where the Resolution relating to the Environmental Impact and the Resolution recommending the Zoning Ordinance Amendment maybe adopted. ' • 000004 Attachments 1. Initial Study ~=e- 2. Resolution -Recommending the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to Basement Standards 3. Resolution -Environmental Determination for Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to Basement Standards • ~00~~5 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000006 .. - .H • - Attachment 1 CITY OF SARATOGA regar ing asement ndards 2 Lead Agency Name & Address City of Saratoga, Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 3 Contact Person & Phone # Late Vasudevan, Assistant Planner, 408.868.1235 ~, 'l~~,~:~ _ INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Application No. 02-058 - Zoning_Ordinance Amendment - d' B Sta 4 Protect Location Citywide 5. Protect Sponsor's Name ~ Address: Saratoga Planning Commission 6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable -Citywide 7 Zoning. A, R-1, HR, R-M, P-C, P-A, MU-PD, R-OS, AP/OS Zoning Districts 8 Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the pro/ecf, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. ,'tttach additional sheets if necessary.) _ The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will include: a revised definition of "basement"; provide a definition of "lightwell'; specify setback and size requirements; and specify planning review requirements for proposed basements. 9 Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Not Applicable -the proposed basement standards would apply to all proposed basements and lightwells proposed citywide. ~ 0 Other agencies whose approval.is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): No other agencies are involved. • - 000007 - • ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" as indicated by tMe checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics O Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources O Cultural Resources ~ Geology/Sons _ ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials f7 Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources O Noise -- O Population/Housing ^ Public Services O Recreation ^ TransportaUOnlTraffic _ ^ Utilities/Service Systems O Mandatory Findings of Significance ^ None • `~ u 2 00000 - DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ~ _' I fend that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - )( I find that although the proposed project could have a signficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signficant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ' REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially sign cant unless mitigated" impact on the - environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a signficant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature - Date Thomas Sullivan, AICP, Director Community Development Department Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: - -- 1 A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency ales in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" question is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to protects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on protect-specific factors aS well aS general standards (e.g., the protect will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a protect-specific screening analysis). . 2 All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as protect-level, indirect as well as - direct, and construction as well as operations impacts. 3 Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than signifignt with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required - ' a 'Negative Declaration• Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies when: the incorporation of n',itigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impad:" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced.) 5 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEt]A process, an effect has been adequatery analyzed in an earner EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify=and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are `Less than Signficant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they - address site-specific conditions for the project. _ 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incofporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previous prepared or outside document should, where 000009 appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. _ _ 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted sh be cited m the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and - - b) the mitigation measure identfied, if any. to reduce the impact to less than sign~cance. • • 4 - ~~0~~~ Liss Than _ Potentially SignHfcant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant With Mitigation Significant Im ct Impact Incorporated Impact ~ I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:- ~ _ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source #1) X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway? (Source #2) X a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or - quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source #2) - X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare _ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views m the areas (Source #2) X Discussion of Aesthetics Impacts: Since a basement is an underground structure there will be little or no visual impacts. A City Arborist Report is required fdr proposed basements and any other type of construction that are in proximity to protected trees as defined in t;ie Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURC_ ES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies my refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as a»-optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: - a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ?rogram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source #1,2) - X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricukural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source #1,3) b) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. (Source #1) Discussion of Agriculture Resources Impacts: No discussion is required. X X III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the sign~cance criteria established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Wau/d the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the - _ _ applicable air quality plan? (source #6) 5 X 000011 - Less Than _ Poterrtfal/y SIQn-Bcant Less Than No Issues and Su porting Information Services): SipnNlcant Wlth Mlt/pation SiQnlficant ( P Impact IncorporataO Impact Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute _ _ substantially to an existing or projected air quality - violation?source #6) - X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or = state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source #6) X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source #ti) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source #6) X X Discussion of Air Quality Impacts: The construction of basements is currently allowed per the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will simply provide a new definition of basement, provide a definition of lightwell, specify size requirements, and specify planning review requirements-.-Therefore, the Zoning Amendments will have no additional impacts on dust or odor emissions that may occur during construction of basements. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would fhe project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species m local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cal~omia Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source #4) X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies; and regulations or by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source #4 ) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological intenvption, or other means? (Source #2) c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X • X 6 -000012 Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Less Than Potentially Signlfiunt Less Than Wo Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory - - wildlife_corndors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source #4) X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source # 4) X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (source #4) X Discussion of Biological Resources Impacts: The construction of basements is currently allowed per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Specific development projects involving the construction of basements will be reviewed for environmental impacts depending on the project location in the City, and the surrounding environmental features. For example, if protected trees are in proximity to the project, then a City Arbonst review would be required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES._Wou/d the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the s~gn~ficance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 (Source #4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source #4) . c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features (Source #4) d) Disturb any human remains. including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source #4) X X X X Discussion of Cultural Resources Impacts: The proposed amendments will not impose any impacts on archaeological resources. However, speafic basement projects may unearth unique cultural resources including human remains, in which case all construction activities is required to stop until the appropriate steps are taken. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments will inGude a requirement that all proposed basements will need a geologic and geotechnical report prepared by a certified/ registered professional. Any unique ge'slogic features will be analyzed in the geologic reports prepared for a speafic development project. 000013 Lass Than PoUentfal/y Sipnlt3cant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Sipnllfcant {~q~ Nftipation SipniBcant Iml»et Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:- - ~_ a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial _ adverse effects, including the risk of loss. injury, or death involving: (Source #4) - _ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo __ '- Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other __ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to _ Div. of Mines and Geology Pub. 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source #4) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source #4) X X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source X #2,4) - e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for tine disposal of waste water? (source #4) X Discussion of Geology and Soils Impacts: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will include a provision that all proposed basements require a geologic and geotechnical report prepared by a certified/ registered professional. An analysis of groundwater conditions prepared by a cert~ed hydrogeologist will also be_ required for all proposed basements citywide to analyze issues regarding water tables and underground springs. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the • environment through the routine transport, use. or _ disposal of hazardous materials? (Source #4) __ X b) Create a signficant hazard to the public or the environment Through reasonably foreseeable upset - 8 000014 X - X X - _Less Than Potentlslly SIpn/Rcant Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Services): _ Slpnlfrcant tMth M/tfpation Significant _ Impact Incorporated Impact No impact environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of - - hazardous materials into the environment? (Source - • ~) - X ~_ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste . within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source #4) -- X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source #4) - X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan __ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in _the project area? (Source #4) X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #4) X g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk_of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized -- areas or where residences-are intermixed with w~ldlands? (source #4) - X Discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No discussion is required. VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source #4) X; b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge _ such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits _` have been granted)? (Source #4) X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, inauding Through the aiteration of 9 000015 Less Than Potentially Signllcant Less Than No Issues (and Su ortin Information Services : _ Significant With Mifigstion Significant PP 9 ~ Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which - - - would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source #4) . X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of - the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surtace runoff in a - manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site~ (Source #4) X - ~_ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would _ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial - _ additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source #4) X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water? (Source #4) X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source #5) X h) Place within a 100-year floor hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source X #5) ~) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, iniury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam_? (source #4) X ~) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (source ~) X e Discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: See item #VI. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments will include a provision requiring that all proposed basement projects obtain an analysis from a certified hydrogeologist to address any groundwater and potential drainage issues. This will be a new provision; previous basement projects were not required to obtain a groundwater analysis. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? - (Source #1,3) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning - X 10- 000016 2 1 - _ Lsss Than Potentially Signifcant Less Than No Issues (and Supporting Information Services): SignHicant firth Mltigstion Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source #1, 2, 3) X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source #1, 2, 3) X Discussion of Land Use and Planning Impacts: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments will provide Planning Staff and applicants clarity on the definition of basement, and will specify requirements for all proposed basement projects. The planning review requirements will address any environmental concerns -such as groundwater and soils -that may occur on specific basement projects. The zoning amendments would therefore have a positive effect on the environment. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source #1,4) X b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local -- general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (source #1,4) - X Discussion of Energy and Mineral Resources Impacts: There are no known mineral resources within the City limits XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source-#1,2) • X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? X Source #1,2) _ _ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Source #1,2) X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in .ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above _. levels existing without the project? Source #1,2) - _ X ~_ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within L ..- ..1. t . L1:. J {. 17. . i lW V 1 I IIIC•7 VI O ~/UUIIV ~tl ~l~Jt t Vr p1%Ullb ~1JC OII'JVI 1, ~~ 000017 - - Less Than _ PotenSally Si~n/ficant Less Than No -- - Significant With M/tiyation SiQnifrcant Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Impact Incorporated Impact - Impact two miles of a public airport or public use-airport, ~_ would the project expose people residing or working - - - in the ~ojett area to excessive noise levels? - (source #1,4,6) X Discussion of Noise Impacts: No discussion is required. . XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source #4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating~the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source #4) X X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement _. housing elsewhere? (Source #4) X XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to mamtam acceptable service ratios,-response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (Source #1,2,4) Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks Other public facilities? Discussion of Public Services Impacts: No discussion is required. XIV. RECREATION: Discussion of Population and Housing Impacts: The Amendments will alter basement requirements. However, there will be no impacts on population growth. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighbomood and regional parks or other 12 X X X X X 000018 3 - Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No • Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Significant With Mltipation Sipniricant Im act Impact Incorporated Impact p neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be X accelerated? (Source #4) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or regwre the construction or expansion of recreational _ facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source #4) _ X Discussion of Recreation Impacts: No discussion is required. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAPI=IC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source #1,4) X b) Exceed, either individually or cumwatively, a level of - service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source #1,4) X c} Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels-ora change in location that result in substantial safety risks? (Source #1,4) X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous _ _ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g~, farm equipment)? (Source #1,4) X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (source , #2,4) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (source #4) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus - tumouts, bicycle racks)? (source #4) X Discussion of Transportation/Circulation Impacts: No discussion is required.. _ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: - 13 000019 _ } Less Than _ Potentlslly_ SignMcaM Less Than No Signifcant Issues (and Supporting Information Services): Impact Widh MlNgation Significant Incorpontsd Impact Impact a) F~cceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source #4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source #4) -_ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source #4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X X " _ X X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source #4) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source #4). Discussion of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts: No discussion is required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC~-NCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Calffomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually - limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ~a X X X • X _. ~~~~~ ~ -- - - A - less Irian _ Pofent/allY S/pnlRunt Less Than No SlpnllJcant Issues (and Supporting Information Services): - _ _ Impact With Mltf~atfon Slpnlficant Incorporated Impact _ Im ct ~ when viewed in connection with the effects of past _ projects, the effects of other current projects, and - the effects of probable future projects.) - X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --- X _ • • SOURCE LIST: 1. City of Saratoga General Plan 2. City of Saratoga Municipal Code • . 3. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance _ 4. Planner's knowledge of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments - 5. FEMA Flood Insurance Maps, Community Panel Numbers 060351 0001-0004,0004 C, 0002 C 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD~ Guidelines • • 15 000021 I THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • - 000022 Attachment 2 -RESOLUTION NO. Application #02-058 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDINGBASEMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS C~ C7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council of the City of Saratoga with respect to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to requirements for proposed basements; WHEREAS, this matter was considered at a duly noticed public hearing on May 8, 2002, at which time all members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Saratoga be amended to read: __ 15-06.090 Basement. r t~ ~'~= .,,;';,..,~ ~~ *'~°'~~~~-~~„* "Basement" means a space in a structure that is partly or wholly --a -- --- ------------~ below grade and where the vertical distance from grade to a finished floor directly above such space is less than or equal to 42 inches. If the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any poin* along the perimeter, such space shall be considered a story, and the entire space shall be included in the calculation of gross floor area. (See Figure 1 below.) This requirement applies to all lots, with the exception of hillside lots. finished floor 42" ~~ ~ basement ~ i ~ Building Section Figure 1: Maximum vertical height from finished _ floor of the level above basement to adjacent grade. ~~0~~ On hillside lots, as defined in Section 15-06.420(e), only the portion of space where the finished floor directly above the space is more than 42 inches above grade at any point along the perimeter shall be counted as floor area and considered a story. The number of stories measured vertically at any given point shall not exceed the maximum number of stories allowed in each zoning district. (See Figure 2 below.) - 2 stories 2 stones I ~ Area Area ~ ~~~ (not a story) Pordon where Buildtng Section vertical height from floor above to Bade ~- exceeds 42" Basement ~OOi'4i~ (no floor area) Floor Plan of Basement Figure 2: Determining floor area for basements on hillside lots. As used herein, the term "grade" shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The Community Development Director shall make the determination for sites where it is unclear as to which is the natural and which is the finished grade. All basements are subject to the requirements of Section 15-80.xxx 15.06.xxx Lightwell. "Isghtwell" means an excavated area adjacent to a building that extends no more than four feet (4') measured horizontally from the building perimeter to the interior wall of the lightwell, that is enclosed on four sides, that is open at the top, and allows light into a below grade level of a building. Lightwells shall have guardrails and gates in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 15-45.065 Administrative design review. • (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: 000024 ra (1) New single-story residences; ' (2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of fifty percent or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a one hundred square feet or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlargement of existing basements. 15-80.xxx Requirements for Basements and Lightwells. (a) A basement shall be located entirely beneath the building footprint of the main structure, including attached garage, and may not be located within any required setbacks. This shall be deemed the allowable area of the basement. In no case shall a basement be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (b) Lightwells may not be located within any required setbacks, and in no case shall lightwells be located closer than 10 feet from any property line. (c) A basement shall be a one level structure; multi-level basements are prohibited. (d) A basement shall not be located beneath any accessory structure. (e) The allowable area for a basement shall be reduced by 5% for each foot in excess of a floor to ceiling height of 9 feet. Floor, in this case, means finished floor, and ceiling means the bottom level of the ceiling framing members. The maximum floor to ceiling height of a basement shall be 12 feet. (f) All proposed basements and additions to basements shall obtain geotechnical clearance: The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Geologic and Geotechnical Report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and registered geotechnical engineer. The Geologic Report shall include an analysis of groundwater conditions prepared ~y a certified hydrogeologist. (g) Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a Grading and Drainage Plan stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer. Water collected from a basement shall either be transported to a nearby City-storm drain inlet or to another drainage facility. The method of drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Department. The size of a proposed basement may be limited based on drainage issues or issues raised in the geologic and geotechnical-reports. 000025 k PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City oFSazatoga, State of California, this 8`~' day of May 2002, by the following vote: _ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ' ABSTAIN: - - Chair, Planning Commission _ ATTEST: Secretary to the Planuin~ Commission • _ 0~~~6 ~~ `` ~ _ RESOLUTION NO. _ - A lication_#02-058 PP _ ~` CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA attachment 3 Environmental Determination for Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to Basement Standards in all Zoning Districts WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it will recommend to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance with regard to basement standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the information included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact attached hereto. _- NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the information provided in the Staff Report and from verbal testimony, the Planning Commission determines that there are no environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of the Saratoga City Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • ®~~0~ r c PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of Califo_ rnia on~.P;f_~~_ ~--- ~~~~ 8, 2002 by the following roll call vote: = ' 1--~ -., = a ~, ~ ~~ . '.,,:---- ~, ~ ~~• , ~ . . ~ -=~ ,. AYES: - - - :. .- o ~.~ ~ - - NOES: ^ ,_ ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission • ~~~~~