Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-1992 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 20 AGENDA ITEM '1'/ CITY MGR. APPROVAL MEETING DATE: May 20, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge CIP 926: Award of Construction Contract Recommended Action: 1. Declare Lionsgate Corporation of Alamo to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Authorize staff to execute the attached construction contract with Lionsgate Corportion for $116,700. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $10,000. 4. Direct staff to transfer supplemental funding to the project as recommended. Discussion: Sealed bids for the Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge CIP 926, were opened last Tuesday. Eight contractors bid on the project and a summary of the bids is attached. Lionsgate Corporation of Alamo submitted the lowest bid of $116,700 which is 4.2% above the Engineer's Estimate of $112,000. As staff has deemed the low bid to be responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the project dated April 7, it is recommended that the Council declare Lionsgate Corporation to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award the attached construction contract to this contractor. Additionally it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute up to $10,000 in change orders to the contract to cover unanticipated changes to the project which may occur during construction. Fiscal Impacts: This project will be mostly funded through HCDA funds. A balance of approximately $105,000 in HCDA funds remains to be applied to the project. Additionally, approximately $6,000 in project costs can be assessed against Village Parking District No. 1 as these costs are for improvements which directly benefit the public parking lot. To fund the remaining base contract costs of $5,700 plus the $10,000 in contract change orders and an additional $5,000 in construction engineering, testing, inspection and project management, it is proposed to transfer $20,700 from the Civic Center Improvement Project (CIP 956) to this project. These funds will be available due to savings realized in the renovation of the Warner- Hutton House and in the handicap access ramp to the Maintenance building. If the Council agrees with this funding plan, staff will return with the appropriate budget adjustment resolution at your next meeting. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Construction Contract. Motion Vote: SUMMARY OF BIDS BOWER'S ESTLIATE L104.1s6/175 Co RP, P.i F Comv5TQvc So.4E3 BR05. Z II Waft Dew%ilon WI Noe Told UNl Abe Told 1* Rice Told Udl Floe Tote L 5. Cet44 1;1 f y 6-1ubblh 3,200 2, 00o S, q oo 62,o 2 L- 5 fn,urfu v 7',o., 500 2,000 2.677s 9,18o 3 L.5-. Overside Prai 2,50o 4,, 000 3, Soo /I, leo I .3 Concrete Lanolin /,000 1,000 so Soo 925 2.775 0'139 4,317 5 35 C„nrA Ra p.. /00 3,500 Zoo 7,000 15 Z,40Z5 139 5/,84 to 3 Co6 rrr fr 5*ai /00 300 Soo I, Soo 1,177 3.531 6,07 1,9Z/ 7 L -S. 'door/ Bridle 540,Z00 1L/,000 N9, 775 52,11/ S 3 1dood Lan e/ in 1.5 5,000 /7,'-/00 2,000 49.000 5, 15,440$ 3.400o 11,0 9 Z kloo Ra .rnp_5 7, 000 IS, 4000 3. 000 4 000 S, 2040 10, 572 5, 1340 /0, 272 10 12 klood fairs 100 Y, Soo zoo 2 goo 5 '7, o'/'/ 227 2, 725/ 11 L•5. Liy Ai S,00o 7, 7'00 15,00o 9,350 1 To rM C. .TTEMi /II, 000 II (o, Too 124 SOS /22,1`/5 Project NUM k/liplv/oocJ T/.rk S. Sric4 e Project too. 91 to CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BDS (ck° Page: o F 3 ad Det« May 5, 1412 SUMMARY OF BIDS ENOIEERS ESTIMATE L'oLc COAlST. TA MES 4. n'06,E5sivE Pr /tic N m O h Deaabtlon Unit RICO Told Udt P1101) Total U� Nee Told UM Noe Toll L 5. 14 cO/ -lubbih 3,200 2, 4 /99 /0, 000 16, 000 __C(fa4 f 2 L s 7 furt Ax4a v lon 500 2,'•199 /5, 000 /2, 000 3 L-S. Ovusidt Drain. 2,50o 1, 249 6,575 47, 000 y 3 ConCrr f e Landis p 1,000 9,000 2,00z 10,2 2,000 (0,000 /4000 3, 000 5 35 inne,,, Ra41ip..5 /00 3,500 357 /2. Zoo 7, 000 3S 1,22s" 6 3 eon grrff 5*ai /00 300 2,082'' 47,t'/7 15-0 450 /.Soo y,Soo 7 4-5. Idoorl arir/fc 5(0,200 47,'/00 55,7(0(7 5 S 3 1clooc/ Land/./ 5' 000 /7, '100 4,998 /y,q 4,000 12,000 47,000 /15,000 f, 9 2 tdood Ra arip 7, 000 15, (000 '1, /qt. s IS' 113 2,500 5,00o 9, 000 /47,000 10 /2 k/ood 51 airs 4 100 '7, 900 4 I= 7,'1 7 /75 2,1 Zoo 2, 4100 11 L•5. LiffAtinl 5, 000 8,74/10 40, 000 /0,000 Tor A L 1rEM3 /12,000 /24,9`1(, /25,89/ /39, Project Name: kIi /OoC/ rk Wed. i'r/c4 e Project No. 926 CITY OF SARATOGA ENGIEEFING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BUS (cff Pape: 2 of 3 mate May 5 J412 Z5 s A bH X0100 PMI E- O :e0t j SQS A0 AUVMINIf1S 1N311 LUYd3O EINIIi33119N3 Y001YUVS 40 1113 °2Zb a Sp!JL p?' 4-12 pao1'up_ 'pl iN i* i fG8'£S/ 01.1.'61-/ 000'7 l/ rwgii 1 1,10i S b07/ osS 'Of 000'S gi.14y !7 5.7 11 1 70" ZSz 0OZ' 47,. )IS 008 '/7 ooh sJIt7 pooh Zl 01 008' ooh'8 SG6'1,Z i tsb' i oo0'SI oo8'L. dt-giiv poop Z b Qs 8 S o'�'9 SGS' 61 i- ,858•b 00/-' 'L/ OOg 's s`� vi p uv-7 p 0 e 818'og9 SG8'/.s 00Z'g9S SprJ paopi L. ZSe fsbZ 81S ire, Z1..1 00£ 00/ s J !b..A c �.LJJ'U07 E 02 0S/' Ob 1- 1 I 'S aN°151 005 001 c d 31f nJ S£ S fr 68 Z 'S QL 'I 8549'02 �f bI Z'Z Q 00'‘ 0007 c LlipUV7 ?f )J)NO, ry' h8S 5 S. 00S'Z OJ 7 3p! srt^ p s '7 0 ol.,£ 'b 06871 005 wail" AnJx0 7.J n rrrvi 7 Sup ►cZ'h 076'8 00Z'f grn-9 A Sv/vVIA? •S Rol •3141 IM1 P1ol NM IM1 INol *MI I Ml P1 oildd 1M1 110114000 AMMO mV J nI l 1 H l V e 3 9zo 3 9 _t_t _g 1vr3$ sin 31VNI1S3 Sb331* N3 SO8 A0 A1lVMNM<1S Z5 s A bH X0100 PMI E- O :e0t j SQS A0 AUVMINIf1S 1N311 LUYd3O EINIIi33119N3 Y001YUVS 40 1113 °2Zb a Sp!JL p?' 4-12 pao1'up_ 'pl iN i* i CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION WILDWOOD PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THIS CONTRACT, made this 20th day of May, 1992 by and between the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called the City, and Lionsgate Corporation hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the City has caused to be prepared in the manner pre- scribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract docu- ments, for the work herein described and shown and has approved and adopted these contract documents, specifications and plans and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10 of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE: That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature necessary to construct all of the improvements for the City of Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and other contract documents and according to such instructions as may be given by the Saratoga City Engineer or his authorized agent. 15 ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications "Changes and Extra Work the City shall pay the Contractor according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance of the work. The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruc- tion or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili- ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex- penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the time frame specified in the Notice to Proceed, all according to the contract plans and specifications, the details and instruc- tions, and the requirements of the City. ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT: That the complete contract document consists of the following: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 2. Bid Proposal 3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty 4. Contract for Public Works Construction 5. Hold Harmless Clause 16 6. Performance Bond 7. Labor and Material Bond 8. Plans 9. Specifications 10. Insurance Certificates In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of the contract, this Contract shall be binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year hereinabove written. 1 AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: CITY OF SARATOGA: Date ATTEST: CONTRACTOR: 1 City Clerk 1 The foregoing Contract is By approved as to form this day of Title I f 19 License No. i Tax ID or SSN City Attorney 1 1 1 I 1 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 11(5 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 20, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: E n•ineerin SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Freeway Issues Recommended Action: None at this time. 4 Discussion: At your previous meeting, Councilmember Anderson and Mayor Kohler raised several freeway related issues and concerns. These were: 1. Apparent violations of the permitted working hours (early starts) on the project between Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek. 2. Continuing concerns of several Brockton Lane property owners about the release of water from the Cox Avenue utility struc- ture, in the event of a rupture of the 48 inch water main in the structure, during a catastrophic event. 3. The extent of the construction activity occurring within Saratoga Creek and the planned riparian restoration of that area. 4. Resident complaints about increased noise in the vicinity of La Vista Dr. and Via Real Dr. reportedly eminating from the construction activity in the freeway corridor since the con- struction of the soundwalls. At this time, I can offer the following comments on each of these four items: 1. Early starts CALTRANS' Resident Engineers, Traffic Authority staff and the City's Inspector continually warn and remind the various freeway contractors to adhere to the permitted working hours in Saratoga of 7:30 a.m. 6:00 p.m.. For the most part, the contractors seem to be complying with this requirement. However, lately, a fair amount of utility work has been occurr- ing on the freeway segment between Prospect Rd. and Saratoga Creek and we believe that the recent violations reported on that project were committed by the utility agencies' contrac- tors and not by the freeway contractor. Nevertheless, the permitted hours of work apply to all contractors and word has gone out to the utility agencies working on the freeway to adhere to the City's requirements. As I am not aware of any continuing complaints about early starts, I think this problem has been resolved for now although the City's inspector will will continue to remind and warn contractors to obey morning start times in Saratoga. 2. Cox Avenue utility structure Attached are two letters on this subject; one dated February 10 from me to the Traffic Authority, and a second dated March 12, conveying the Traffic Authority's response. At issue is whether there is a signifi- cant enough risk posed by a potential (although highly un- likely) rupture of the water main during an earthquake to warrant doing something to minimize the risk. Although the Traffic Authority maintains the risk is minimal and does not require any action on their part, staff is attempting to persuade CALTRANS to install a drain at the east end of the structure, between the Community wall and the re- taining wall which would convey any excess water from that area down to the drainage system in the freeway. While CALTRANS' policy is not to allow local street areas to drain into a state high- way drainage system, I'm hopeful that they will make an ex- ception in this case to relieve everyone's anxiety. CALTRANS is still in the process of reviewing the City's request and as soon as a decision is reached, I will let you and the Brockton Lane residents know about it. 3. Saratoga Creek work This is a new issue which I have not yet had enough time to review. I am advised however that the work which is occurring in the creek is adhering to the various re- quirements imposed by those agencies which have jurisdictional authority over the creek and which have issued permits or clearances for the work, (Fish and Game, RWQCB, Army Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Santa Clara Valley Water District). I I will continue to investigate this further and report back to you when I have more information. 4. Noise in the La Vista Dr., Via Real Dr. areas This is another issue which I have not yet had enough time to fully explore. It's possible that the noise these residents are hearing is simply due to the fact that a greater amount of freeway construction activity is now occurring in the portion of the corridor closest to where they live (behind Congress Springs Park and in Saratoga Creek). And it's also possible that the noise levels will decrease as more of the soundwalls between Congress Springs Park and Saratoga Avenue are erected. I will continue to monitor this matter and report back to you when I have a better understanding of what may actually be occurring. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Letter to Traffic Authority dated Feb. 10. 2. Letter to City dated March 12. Motion Vote: N/A Printed on recycled paper. February 10, 1992 Dear Mr. Maniaci: MT' gogi 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Joel Maniaci, Deputy Director Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224 San Jose, CA 95110 RE: Cox Avenue Utility Overcrossing COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman As you probably know, the Cox Avenue Utility Overcrossing is designed to convey water, in the event of a rupture of San Jose Water Company's 48 -inch pipeline, across the freeway and to the easterly end of the structure. From there, the water would discharge into the area between Cox Avenue and the community wall to the north and without any provisions for drainage in this area, would find its way under the community wall and into the rear yards of several Brockton Lane property owners where, depending on the volume of water released, it could create a significant problem. Recognizing this, I would like to know what provisions have been designed into this project (MSA 106 -10) to drain this water away from private properties and towards a public storm drainage system. Furthermore, I would like to know whether some type of automatic shut -off mechanism exists somewhere within the 48 -inch pipeline and if so, how this mechanism is activated. I appreciate your attention to these concerns and look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Larry Y. Perlin City Engineer cc: Jack Burbank, Engineering Inspector SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Jim Beall Chairperson Will Kempton, Executive Director Mr. Larry Perlin City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Nit. Perlin: Barbara Tryon Vice Chairperson Susan Hammer March 12, 1992 SUBJECT: COX AVENUE UTILITY OVERCROSSING (MSA 106 -10) Michael E Kotowski CITY OF 4 n i OGA ENGINEER'S OFFICE In response to your letter dated February 10, 1992 regarding your concern for drainage in the event of a rupture in the new 48" waterline crossing the Route 85 freeway the following is provided. The overcrossing structure allows for the escape of water through the outfall grate on the east side of the bridge and the grading below the outfall has been designed to direct any flow towards Cox Avenue where it can enter unrestricted into the local storm drain system. Although there is no automatic shut -off mechanism within the pipeline, Mr. Ed Mello of the San Jose Water Company has advised us that their computerized line flow monitor would register an immediate drop in pressure if a rupture occurred. The pipeline monitor would then be dispatched and would be able to shut -off the flow manually in no longer than 30 minutes from the time of rupture. The above information has been communicated to Mr. Andrew Steele, the homeowner on Brockton Lane adjacent to the east side of the overcrossing. We have also advised Mr. Steele that the potential flow of water from the outfall, should a rupture in the pipe occur, is not anticipated to be forceful enough or of a long enough duration to undermine the community wall foundation. The large outfall is not representative of the amount of water that is anticipated to be released, but is oversized to allow flow from the enclosed overcrossing structure at very low pressures. We have also been advised by the San Jose Water Company that the probability for a failure to occur is within the existing underground pipeline. At the subject locations, the uesia:, of the o'vaf k.ing has actually imprcvcd tthc integrity cf the pipeline. In any event the potential for a rupture has always been present, as long as the pipe has existed prior to any freeway related designs concepts. Zoe Lofgren To summarize, the Traffic Authority is of the opinion that the waterline overcrossing design is adequate, and a direct connection to the local storm drain system is not economically feasible at this time. However, if Mr. Steele would like to increase his level of confidence and if the City concurs, we have no objection to his suggestion to construct a retaining wall in front of the community wall footing outside of his property line. Mr. Steele has expressed his willingness to pay for all costs to construct the retaining wall. However, the Traffic Authority and the San Jose Water Company would require a review of the retaining wall design prior to the City's issuance of a building permit. 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, San Jose, California 95110 (408) 453 -3777 Printed on recycled poper Mr. Larry Perlin March 12, 1992 Page 2 Upon receipt of the City's concurrence, the Traffic Authority will proceed to advise Mr. Steele accordingly. JM /JCC /mI prinstl Your continued interest in the Measure A cc: Dan Kimberly Caltrans Sheldon (Bud) Bowers Caltrans Cliff Shour Caltrans Jack Kwei Caltrans Biggs Cardosa Stephen Biggs Ed Mello San Jose Water Company Jorge Martinez TA- /Bechtel Joe Toolson TA /HNTB Carol Sweetapple PRx program is appreciated Sincerely, WILL KEMPTON Executiy 'rector By JOEL MANIACI Deputy Director TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Overview: Printed on recycled paper. izauw cpo 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Mayor and City Council Planning Staff M E M O R A N D U M May 20, 1992 Use Permit #91 -008 Fathali, 18444 Purdue Drive PS COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Project Description: The applicant, Amir Fathali, is appealing a Planning Commission denial of his use permit application to operate a large family day care (7 -12 children). The subject property is zoned single family residential within the R -1- 10,000 zone district. Staff recommended and the Commission found that all the required use permit findings could not be made to support the request. In June of 1991, the City was made aware that the applicant was operating a large family day care without the benefit of receiving a use permit. The applicant was, therefore, instructed to apply for a conditional use permit in order to bring, this use into conformance with City Code requirements. The application was heard and denied .at' the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission determined that the use permit findings were not present to approve the use of a large family day care for this particular location. The fundamental concern expressed by staff and the Commission was the potential of creating an unsafe situation for both children and motorists due to limited visibility around the corner where the facility would be located. Staff noted that the combination of the acute angle of the curve, a narrow street width of 37 feet and a narrow lot frontage which reduces the amount of required parking, and an abundance of existing vegetation would potentially create an unsafe situation. The Commission was further concerned that a large family day care (7 -12 children) would increase noise impacts. Therefore, it was determined that the proposed use permit would be inconsistent with the City Code P requirements and objectives articulated in the conditional use permit ordinance. Staff has received an abundance of neighbor correspondence indicating the same concerns as noted above all correspondence is attached for review). The applicant asserts that safety concerns can be mitigated by staggering drop -off and pick -up times in order to reduce the amount of traffic. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that he would be willing to use his van for all transportation purposes and will park all personal vehicles within the garage to mitigate parking concerns. Further, the applicant asserts that noise associated with the children's play time can be minimized by staggering play time periods and increasing quiet time periods. These conditions, however, would be impossible to enforce due to the fact that constant surveillance would be needed to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare is being preserved. Recommended Motion Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the use permit request. full, submitted, PA L KERMOY Assistant anner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution UP -91 -008 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 4/7/92 3. Staff Report dated 4/7/92 4. Appeal Letter 5. Correspondence 6. Site Plan, Exhibit "A" PK /dsc RESOLUTION NO. UP -91 -008 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA, DENYING USE PERMIT FATHALI; 18444 PURDUE DRIVE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval to operate a family day care facility within a residential zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and a. That the proposed family day care use is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The additional traffic which would be generated by the proposed use at this non conforming site, on an already substandard and potential dangerous curve, is not in accord with the purpose statement of the R -1 zone district to provide development consistent with sound standards of public health and safety. In addition, the applicant's proposal to stagger delivery times as well as to create a busing program would be unenforceable by the City. Further, the increased noise levels associated with up to 12 children gathering and playing at the property at one time is not in accord with the purpose statement to protect residential properties from excessive noise within this district. b. That the proposed family day care will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, with regard to increased noise levels generated by children, and in that the 44 ft. wide substandard parcel does not allow for adequate turn around and off street parking facilities to accommodate this intensified land use at this location. The acute angle of the street curve at this property exacerbates potential line of site and traffic hazards associated with the loading and unloading of children on a regular basis within the street right -of -way. c. That the proposed family day care use does not comply with the purpose statement incorporated in the single family residential zoning ordinance to provide development consistent with sound standards of public health, safety and welfare. 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 of Fathali for use permit approval be and the same is hereby denied:. UP -91 -008; 18444 Purdue Drive NOES: MORAN ATTEST: aN4iS Secretary, Planni ommission Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 7th day of April, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOSOSIAN, CALDWELL, FAVERO ABSENT: DURKET, FORBES, TUCKER MG C .14106 Chair lanning Co i on ti* PLANNING COMMISSIOi MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 4 Com. Caldwell expressed concern regarding the privacy issue and the scale of the home. Com. Bogosian feels that property owners are aware of the constraints before buying the property. He stated the proposed plan does not address the privacy concerns. He noted the applicant had not pursued studies for drainage, etc. and now he should investigate the possibility of lowering the structure. Com. Moran stated she is not concerned about the size of the proposed house because she feels the neighborhood is in a transition of redeveloping. She does feel the house should be more scaled to this lot. Com. Moran expressed concern regarding the privacy issue. Com. Favero stated the character of the neighborhood should be preserved as is and is not in favor of the proposed size of the structure. FAVERO /MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF DR -91 -064. The Commissioners asked the applicant if she would want a continuance. After discussion, Ms. Kinnier stated she does not want a study session. The above motion was carried 4 -0. BOGOSIAN /MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF V -91 -017. PASSED 4 -0. 4. UP -91 -008 Fathali, 18444 Purdue Dr., request for use permit approval to operate a large family day care home within an R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 3/25/92; application expires 9/5/92). Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated April 7, 1991 and answered questions of the Commissioners. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ed. Clements, 595 Park Ave., Ste. 101, San Jose, addressed the State Health Safety Code noting quality child care is very important. He noted the applicant offers quality child care and to make this economically viable, they require 7 to 12 children. Mr. Clements presented written statements to the Planning Commission. Mr. Clements addressed staff's concerns. He noted the additional children will only increase the traffic by five cars and the applicant is willing to pick up and drop off children in order to decrease the number of cars. He noted the garage has been converted back to a garage as required by staff. He feels noise is not an issue as the traffic on Quito Rd. is nosier. Mr. Clements stated an additional five or six children will not impact the traffic. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 5 Ms. Soroosh, 18252 Purdue Dr., urged the Commission to approve the Use Permit. She stated the service it offers out weighs the burden it generates. Ms. Soroosh stated the concerns raised can be mitigated and explained this. Ms. Maria Lyon read a letter addressed to the Commission. She stated in -home day care is preferable to most parents. Mr. Gerry Price, Baylor Ave., expressed concern about cars parking on Baylor Ave. in front of his house and using the day care. He stated there are no sidewalks and this is a safety issue. Mr. Earl Anderson presented the Commission with a petition from the neighbors against the Use. Permit. He stated beyond six children, traffic and noise become a problem. Mr. Anderson noted he has not seen the applicant use his garage for parking cars. Mr. Anderson addressed the CC &R's of the homeowners. Assistant City Attorney stated that the State Statue which regulates day care homes, specifically says that any CC &R's are void when dealing with day care. Resident, 20276 Purdue Dr., President, Homeowners Association, expressed concern about traffic, noise and safety. He stated 45 homeowners signed a petition to deny the Use Permit. Ms. Helen Fathali, 18444 Purdue Dr., stated this is the first time they have heard complaints from the neighbors and they are more than willing to work with them. She stated noise will not be an issue as the children are different ages and play at different times. She stated that most of the neighbors who signed the petition were under the understanding that the day care would be expanded to 20 children. She stated at this point the garage is not used for cars but for storage, but they are willing to use it for cars if required. She stated if safety was an issue the parents of the children would be concerned. Ms. Fathali stated they are providing a service to the community and it would not be economically viable to be limited to six children. In response to Commissioners questions Ms. Fathali explained the operation of the day care and how many children attend. She also noted that 5 cars belong to family members. She stated they do not have a problem with parking because of staggered pick -up times. Mr. Bill Collins also stated the neighbors who signed the petition believed the day care was to be extended to more than 12 children. He suggested a condition in the Use Permit that would prohibit parking on the street. He stated safety is not an issue and noted that day care is a needed entity. Mrs Nelson, 18276 Purdue Ave., stated people who signed the petition were aware that the number was 7 to 12 children. Ms. Soroosh stated that not all the neighbors saw the petition. PLANNING COMMISSIOr MINUTES April 7, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Anderson concurred with Mrs Nelson. Mr. Ed Clements stated it was not outlined in the petition that the Use Permit was for 7 to 12 children. He stated the applicant is willing to work with the City and neighbors. Mr. Evans, 18420 Purdue Dr., stated the neighbors are concerned about the expansion from six children to 12. He noted the neighbors are concerned about safety for themselves as well as for the children. Mr. Evans stated the neighbors were aware of the intention of the petition. In response to Com. Bogosian's questions, the City Attorney stated conditions can be added to the Use Permit, but must be directly addressed to traffic, noise and parking. She also noted that the City can not be held liable on the grounds of granting a Use Permit. The City Attorney explained State Law and regulations regarding day care. She also explained the CC &R's. In response to Chr. Caldwell's question, Planner Walgren stated the noise was not an issue because of the noise from Quito Rd. He stated the noise levels were not measured, but staff did visit the site. FAVERO /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DENY UP -91 -008 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. CONFLICT WITH ZONING REGULATION, 2. NOISE, PARKING AND SAFETY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, 3. INTENSIFIED LAND USE, 5. OPPOSITION FROM RESIDENTS. ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION. Com. Bogosian expressed concern regarding the safety issue and also felt the nature of the noise is an issue. Com. Moran stated she visited the site and it is not well located. She noted the applicant is willing to work with staff and the neighbors. She suggested granting the Use Permit for a limited time period to see how it works. Chr. Caldwell expressed concern about the limited visibility from the perspective of a driver at the corner where the facility is located and safety issues. She stated the neighbors have addressed the issue of increased noise associated with doubling the number of children at the facility turnaround, as suggested, is not feasible and noted the neighbors do not want the expansion. The above motion was carried 3 -1 (Moran No) 5. DR -91 -059.1 Thomas, 14000 Pike Rd., request for modifica- tion to an approved project to construct a 4 ft. high retaining wall and deposit approximately 900 cu. yds. of additional fill per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The project REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: UP -91 -008; 18444 Purdue Drive Applicant /Owner: Fathali Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: April 7, 1992 APN: 403-28-027 Director Approval: 1Q2 I lea 184 1 lea i 187 I 1 Me i gar 1 ,a. 1 D' m g2. 1 Sr/ ii 790 F4ff 40 a ai es) 1 I I 1 1 I sine e7 I 87 I 67 I 67 I 17 j I I 0 1 67 I a 19493 /9479 /9465 /945/ /8437 19423 /9409 /6313 /938/ /9367 BAYLOR /8460 /6444 /9430 194/6 /9401 /8388 /9374 06.2 70 7 0 I 70 7b EP IT eau 23 2 l w t TI �6. J I 1 ;J 63 1 I T 19 L A8 I® 1 151 152 1 153 I 1 1 57 1 1 70 70 11415 /6403 PURDUE 70 1 70 I 1 1 SS I 67 1 1 1 m 1 176 1 175 1 1 _L __Ju 154 155 i 415 I £Q 7O 1 A 70 18391 /8377 19363 /9349 18490 /9409 19396 /8384 19372 /8360 /8349 1 DR•yo•o/Ql I RE•90.O1Z I el 1211 177 1 i i uett_ I I 1 124 123 1 122 1 121 94 —1 I 1 ---l-- 96 99 2 95 1 95 97 100 X)1 I 102 \(1 I i6 !,'s 1 /4 I 13 12 19 Sl \441 5? I $7 1 67 I fi d7 1 6f 18491 /9409 /9397 /8385 18373 /8361 /8349 VANDERBILT. File No. UP -91 -008; 18444 Purdue Drive CASE HISTORY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP -91 -008 3. Correspondence 4. State Permit 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 8/07/91 Application complete: 2/25/92 Notice published: 3/25/92 Mailing completed: 3/26/92 Posting completed: 3/19/92 Request for use permit approval to allow the operation of a large family day care home within an R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Deny the application by adopting Resolution UP -91 -008. File No. UP -91 -008; 18444 Purdue Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M -10) PARCEL SIZE: 15,795 s.f. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1% PROJECT DISCUSSION: The City had previously received neighbor correspondence indicating that the applicant was operating a day care facility within a residential zone district. Staff had reviewed the situation and determined that the applicant was operating a family day care home since March 1990 without receiving proper City permits. The applicant provides day care for up to twelve (12) preschool children, five days a week from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The City, therefore, required the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit in order to bring this use into conformance with City Code requirements. The City's Community Service Department had allowed the applicant to continue operation for a 45 day period in order to give him sufficient time to notify the families which use the service and to apply for a use permit. The applicant did apply for a permit, yet continued operating the day care after the 45 days elapsed. Staff, therefore, informed the applicant to either discontinue the day care use until a permit is granted, or operate a small family day care home which does not require a use permit (0 -5 children). The applicant chose the latter. Site Conditions: Presently, the applicant's two car garage has been converted for day care use. A bathroom, sink and dishwasher have been installed within the garage to accommodate the use. The applicant has therefore created a nonconforming parking situation inconsistent with City parking requirements. The applicant has been directed by staff to return the garage to its intended use within 60 days or the matter will be forwarded to the Community Service Department for enforcement. Staff will monitor the applicant's progress by performing a site inspection at the end of this timeframe. File No. UP -91 -008; 18444 Purdue Drive ANALYSIS: A family day care facility is defined as a home which provides family day care for 6 or more children other than those resident on the site. According to Chapter 3.6 of the State Health and Safety Code, a local jurisdiction shall grant a permit to use a lot zoned for a single family dwelling to any large family day care home which complies with local ordinances pertaining to spacing, concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. Neighbor correspondence has indicated parking and safety concerns due to the combination of the parcel being located on a 90 degree curve and the large number of parked cars present outside the home. Recent correspondence focuses on these two factors, emphasizing the danger of dropping off children on such a constrained street. Staff's review of the application indicated that while the home itself is suitable to provide a safe environment for the children, the property location is not ideal to support a day care facility due to traffic and parking problems. Staff's denial recommendation is based upon the findings required in City Code Section 15- 55.070; the proposed location of the conditional use is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located in that the parcel's nonconforming street frontage and location on a potentially dangerous curve will not protect the public health and safety; the public health, safety and welfare is not being protected in that a large family day care will increase the amount of traffic on such a constrained street, thereby increasing the probability of accidents; and the proposed conditional use will not comply with all applicable provisions in this chapter to provide development consistent with sound standards of public health and safety. However, if the Commission determines that the use permit findings can be made to approve this request, staff would recommend requiring the applicant to pave the front -yard area to allow a turnaround on the property to provide a loading /unloading area. Staff would further recommend that the turnaround be constructed of turfblock material, with integrated landscaping, in order to reduce the amount of coverage on the property and to maintain the existing residential appearance. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application by adopting Resolution UP -91 -008. RECEIVED MAR 2 5 1992 PLANNING DEPT. /H32 2 Lr :77t4A, .11 /Add- 7e4td,-4-1 JZ4441, �'Tllirw ,rsg44A■. /PrZ445,44 ..0-d-,..effde_ e'Q Gee.. c../ .s azaa 77 44° .A4tAltz*2--M.4041 j ...4*-sec,z-L-4-1. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 The FATHALI residence no longer has a garage, since it has been converted a DAYCARE facility. The residence has 4 -5 vehicles, a frontage street property of only 46 feet and is located on a 90 degree curve. This causes an annoying parking problem for Homeowners in close proximty. This problem is compounded when parents drive up to drop -off and pick -up their children at the FATHALI residence and at times results in double parking. Rain or fog creates an additional safety hazzard. In addition to the objections above, Senior Citizens(age 70 plug) reside on both sides of the FATHALI residence and are with the excessive noise created by a DAYCARE facility adjacent to their homes(7 -11 children at times playing in the yard areas). TRACT NO. 977, SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 DECLARATION ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIONS notes the following RESTRICTIONS: No. 5. nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance to the neighborhood. No. 6. no garage shall be at any time be used as a residence temporarily or permanently No. 9. No mercantile, commercial or manufacturing business shall be maintained or operated on any of said single, or multiple family residential lots, nor shall any nuisance be maintained thereon. The above RESTRICTIONS are recorded in Book 3607 of Official Records, page 166, file 1254570. SIGNATURE LAST NAME(PRINT) STREET ADDRESS I j,lAilj- 4---pe,te-e: 18 4 4 5 �1 c,e5 tte #10 1 M A T r r i s l )LA,48,k,„-t-14,_ 3 3 CQ Put-DOE W. CA Lei5 1 m 1 Rim,E bi(. 4 ST. G[-AK din F2 8g .9a C P' off/ -Z4 G 1 �.2, 4 ci P wro 4 e ,..t...Q.„4,..e...,.... SCA.F hi- g3a VUZPt,E Q. .1(iC...A Nt I'i ['63 (o- Pole-00a la-, 6 itC/Nsig /OW f be. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED APR 03 1992 PLANNING DEPT. March 20, 1992 REF: NOTICE OF HEARING letter UP- 91- 008(APN 403- 28- 027),REQUEST FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME(FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). The following SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 Homeowners do not want a DAYCARE HOME in their neighborhood. Therefore, we request that the SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION not approve the "USE PERMIT" (FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). See attachment No.1 for additional information. SIGNATURE LAST NAME(PRINT) STREET ADDRESS L.,0' 7-1-2?(:) .L.KLA'04,13) h 1 W A-A API A y C ..5 e m ,Gt'— 0 -4 07 ..0 0 -3-011a S00-1 i Ko 3 p�dK ji 5 -4-01 4 '4' a A 4..) 7011 c. sc,CS1 g5iv ci pm. (-,D' 6 ceitgAT06A, C.A. 1 0,1,4.,,. V. Ui1 Lc4 V, S f Mfg 44')) I( 4 lo.h." le bo cfr,4e.ez_fo.sb ea, (8 (07 POQ`ws' SA.E.ProGn C4 ci i e 601 G di j &39h PugDeIG i1 ,rz Jn5ofl 71 Y0 -3 au t 9S� S Q c a, a A 710/1x A V i i rtig N hit INon /8 'NS za lOt- ...w.. 5 1 0 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REF: NOTICE OF HEARING letter UP- 91- 008(APN 403- 28- 027),REQUEST FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME(FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). The following SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 Homeowners do not want a DAYCARE HOME in their neighborhood. Therefore, we request that the SARATOGA PLANNING COMLMISSION not approve the "USE PERMIT" (FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). See attachment No.1 for additional information. March 20, 1992 SIGNATURE LAST NAM(PRINT) STREET ADDRESS ti'cl' W C, No i z /2a 76 f rch -4 A r. xit, V 1r5 1 q 16L K. k)(5 tZ :Ei .c1 p .1 I OBE 9 V a. icw=' 18300 til2vuc Y S `T °cam C.,, 9 So "%;il.or-sel L.--r-e0P--e- Agual id, S 2)&4) /83 ?^'mac2teur 2' .5 a r r /4---,ii Di 81N%g.9NPeti i2P ae, j kttuabd A. tS t Z.- Q. S ki l 84 Z Pty v 4a 4- Ste, 11: Pona6. IA y� c 1) Orrr s morn s /g3 121 Y1��2 01 l 7k i /G /i /5'377 laADA -a CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 20, 1992 REF: NOTICE OF HEARING letter UP- 91- 008(APN 403- 28- 027),REQUEST FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME(FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). The following SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 Homeowners do not want a DAYCARE HOME in their neighborhood. Therefore, we request that the SARATOGA PLANNING COMIISSION not approve the "USE PERMIT" (FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). See attachment No.1 for additional information. SIGNATURE LAST NAMC(PRINT) STREET ADDRESS 9 ,24„ it) fvc-' kr.99,5 .8,9y4y,7 5 ie‘..9 69, 7,1 -&eko 6 r i l W re-1A NI tkAik, ea Way c kr Y 15ot-I lohi„ Setyleog 4 IND5/9 y /2`�s7 5/9y1-612 Alit 41--- 8oey7 a49,2 )'i/RDal I c,;,,,i2.4_, Ol'''`a4-- ,r;T -7-o-,r y, °M L IA /E s /84-S it vRvU,E t p g"' 1166)a -41(t(htg te48 i ci,treaf ,�,4a x-ru d,Z'tLJ eg-ii-capzidt:etri h'. f --ra'Eie iv t TM) E_r ,f qfd 11,,,A vg C 2 WO Paets a E 1, kettinte 4 a-s•-4 1 La.A...e Lau6469 t,A,C,4,/, lP /79 Bar/ Dr 7 (t'I ,epv� CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 20, 1992 REF: NOTICE OF HEARING letter UP- 91- 008(APN 403- 28- 027) FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOMB(FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). The following SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 Homeowners do not want a DAYCARE HOME in their neighborhood. Therefore, we request that the SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION not approve the "USE PERMIT" (FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). See attachment No.1 for additional information. SIGNATURE LAST NAME(PRINT) STREET ADDRESS I.l,l (jam v 4"ri t L.. 1 N L IZele-g...) jd,..: eLti i N a s7 4 :Lk S ,aTaG.A., 40 s W ec LC S `qMa,a 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 20, 1992 REF: NOTICE OF HEARING letter UP- 91- 008(APN 403- 28- 027),REQUEST FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HODS FATHALI 18444 PURDUE DR.). The following SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 Homeowners do not want a DAYCARE HOLE in their neighborhood. Therefore, we request that the SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION not approve the "USE PERMIT" (FATHALI, 18444 PURDUE DR.). See attachment No.1 for additional information. P U R b u e" 45 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REF: NOTICE OF HEARING FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL HOME (FATHALI 18444 The following SUNLAND DAYCARE HOME in their the SARATOGA PLANNING (FATBALI, 18444 PURDUE information. (Is R 3 RECEIVED APR 0 3 PLANNING letter UP- 91- 008(APN 403 TO OPERATE A LARGE PURDUE DR.). PARK UNIT NO. 2 Homeowners neighborhood. Therefore, COJ ;ISSION not approve the March 20, 1992 1992 DEPT. -28 -027 ),REQUEST FAMILY DAYCARE do not want a we request that "USE PERMIT" for additional DR.). See attachment No.1 SIGNATURE LAST NAME(PRINT) STREET ADDRESS 171-264- 162.88 cos- 39 76 1 18360 181 GO 0 1 to3 tt 7 Z. E3 77 Z5 84- 340 9 t t 9_ •Th, ,a of p 3: R E 1 gC� !ic.'bu a nom, M c Dtxl,CP 1/ it 48 184-o 3 4 84 54 ca 45 I5 68 to 80 ZT t 1 3z Torpt. Z,4 SY •i:i�- Ali \,.Kf TI•'W`lr?.�;:{ W.�. •�V,• •.'j:.L• `r 4,-. A M r Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Commissioners: RECEi VFD MAR 18 1992 f'Lit�N ING DEpT. ..�K ^.•.4. .i. .l :yam <'ti:j}r:. 18377 Purdue Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 17, 1992 Subject: Public Hearing .Fathali, 18444 Purdue Dr., Saratoga Wednesday, March 25, 1992 Since we will be unable to attend the hearing noted above, this letter constitutes our opposition to and concern regarding a large daycare center at 18444 Purdue Drive. Our opposition and challenge is on the basis of .safety. By the wording 'a large family daycare home", one must conclude that this is an 'open- ended' operation with an undetermined number of potential clients as limited by state law, thus an undetermined amount of additional traffic. Even without any additional traffic, that location is not a safe zone, and even with the daycare's limited operation to date the safety hazard at that location has increased dramatically. Since 18444 Purdue Drive is located where Purdue Drive makes a ninety degree curve, parked/stopped cars loading and unloading children present a serious safety problem. This is due to the fact that one cannot park /stop a car on a curve and not have it protrude into the normal traffic flow lanes. When there are no parking spaces available, passengers have disembarked while double parked, creating another type of safety hazard particularly when young children are involved. Having driven that curve for many years, we still approach it with great trepidation and have had more than one near miss with parked cars and/or oncoming cars. So, with a business located in this location, and the possibility of an increase in traffic in this residential area, it no longer becomes a question of 'if' there will be an accident, but of when and how often accidents will occur. t i;n^.;Tov�v.t=+: ct:r }'x .r:.�..:..- ;aa:.. a: ti �v. Sd Furthermore, we have always been under the impression, hopefully not a misconception, that one of the prerequisites for approval of a school, day care, or other such child care facility was that provision must be made for a safe place for loading and unloading of passengers. This certainly cannot be provided at the 18444 Purdue Drive location. However, if the City of Saratoga wishes to provide full indemnity to us and other Purdue Drive owners and occupants of residences for any accidents and subsequent claims/litigations, our challenge and opposition, but•not our concerns, will be withdrawn. If not, this letter will serve to establish the City of Saratoga coparcenary in any subsequent actions. Respectfully submitted, Robert 0. Fredrick ,i /t4 e4zede" An 9 a ena Fredrick Page 2 -'l:r z..t .�..:w...�:C i_ .j ai, em u.= .u4'(�:_ii�C� "�{.!_•,i'±P«vvg••`�M. t"�? :�e!Li�` V� \'4ti {r�::!i r :w:4•fr rirLG /67-17 cvL �fZdz u �c�c�i� .J1)-eace /1 e ,a 0-7-.e ,#-L 10/270 4,-7//te/ V wce ot e.634a 2 1 424:" ofcit g z-(zdoee-i-- CecA o-�� ds af `-'//64/ eal:41; eat)! fia,LX-e a vd tzt !8`, /992,.. ce 1;et-01-79 fttt• of &lifnrnia E371- 066.04 Facility Number: BHC$ 30561 Effective Date: 03/20/90 Total Capacity: 12 total children Expiration Date: 03/19/93 including own or related under 10 yrs. no more than 4 under 2 In accordance with applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code of California, and its rules and regulations, the Department of Social Services, hereby issues Lirrn�t NAHID DJAFARZADEH to operate and maintain a FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Nam of 1Tarititj NAHID DJAFARZADEH 18444 PURDUE DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 This License is not transferable and is granted solely upon the following: DAY CARE FACILITY IS LOCATED IN GARAGE.CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO MAIN HOUSE. CHILDREN NAPPING IN HOUSE MUST BE UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION OF AN ADULT AT ALL TIMES. OFF LIMITS: MASTER BATHROOM, LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, KITCHEN AND UPSTAIRS AREA. Client Groups Served: CHILDREN 0 18 YEARS Complaints regarding services provided in this facility should be directed to: 55 W. YOUNGER AVE., SAN JSOE 95110 (408) 299 -2471 FRED MILLER LO (2-Tmolt_a343190 Deputy Director, 1 /at Community Care Licensing Divi Authorized Representative Issue Date of Licensing Agency is UC 203 (1/87) --k POST IN A PROMINENT PLACE t Date Received: 4/4-7 /q2 Hearing Date: S /Z D Z (fr''' i�- Fee: `1 KY, 0 Receipt No.: 2.32_.9 APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: AM 112 AND IIJIN FATNAL I Address: L PURDUE b2 sARA I O GA CA 9s 010 Telephone: V(0$) 31 9_13 Z3 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: SAME Project File Number and Address: uP_a 66 V Decision Being Appealed: Ur a-- 0 c o a -tk" u"c., Grounds for Appeal (letter may attached): "(,25 LtC c_ �i. M c.... C_at C I% C Z Lk,a'(}«•J N r 0 A' tow, f' o... n a. C. f r- i.i. w d Q t 1. ,,tea THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. ..•....wG..�: 6.7 T v .vw..w�... �.dJL�lj:i _...r. l ti4 a`..•.. v.. N G S L 4 4.-#4 GS t�k c-,4 mot-` a 4 1._i'ea -y C4 C-ak‘t4C. (gyp P ,'r..-a_p.__'e "�1..a. ac`cC.. v J ac o__a &s. �:c �or1 u't.YY S q t t 4%1 dN -4 (..d- y V vs,\ tiet cL+rK e:., S4 tto j C_c5 N c i D el Ca w n4 d°� 1 TO wk cM i r (W coNIc "414AA'A 1°-d-°tyt‘e.J2k OLAAL1 cto 6c‘.6 /cols C1 Z212 1-4 T"' p uke, d_t/J (tAz. I 12 Ctu ukt, 1A)/ r dituv\ Pck-x-Y11- 1 i4JAY t &-iAa apt& zt 17 I G L 0 kzuoyLdtiug 9 p ekA<Ado exlApitaAA„ L, vuo y/1_&10- Lu4t. paaicti. ;„tip cp, Ce,th�. 6L91° (bk. j &AWL W )41 u4. etA 4-1k0 to.k. 0.A kwui-d ce.1,, 3 aif IL -1-v` L4_ j4A-u auPait Lufzq Ive310 43 t",y April 7, 1992 Planning Commission City of Saratoga Dear Planning Commission: Re: Day Care at 18444 Purdue Ave. We need your support, as well as.that of other cities, States, and the Federal government, to acknowledge the importance of quality, affordable and accessible day care for the children of working parent(s). Such a day care is currently operating at 18444 Purdue Avenue by Nahid and Amir Fathali. We have entrusted Nahid and Amir with the care of our children since December, 1986. We live near Forest Hill School, which is close to the day care. There is no denying that they are extremely responsible, dependable and consciencious people. That is why I'm certain that there can be an amicable solution to the complaints lodged by some of the neighbors. As far as I have heard, the major problems appear to be the traffic and the noise. The noise problem does not seers to be a constant bother as far as I have noticed. The Quito traffic behind the house is a more constant bother. And virtually the same noise level will exist if a large family with lots of children lived there. The children are taught manners and discipline, so I am assuming the noise refers to them playing. Perhaps the outside play could be limited to certain hours. Regarding the parking, from what I have encountered, the parents drop off and pick up their children at staggered times. The most cars for the day care that I have seers at one time was three. The other cars are probably personal vehicles of the Fathali's. If we all agreed to parking in the driveway, one behind the other, and to acknowledge extra caution and low speeds when approaching and departing from the day care, would this not help? I am suprised that there are complaints all of a sudden, when the day care has been operating at virtually the same activity level on Purdue Avenue for nearly two years. In any case, we ask that you please allow Nahid's day care to remain operating in her home. I believe all the parents, and the children and our employers have grown attached and depend on this relationship. Personally, I will do whatever I can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. Just don't close my day care! y9L5 Ma,u.+ -nbc: r)r Re: Nahid and Amir Fathali's day care services. Sincerely, Everett A. Lyons To whom it may concern, Nahid and Amir Fathali have been the daytime guardians of my children since they were six months old. Their services allow us to work and provide for our family. Both of my children love Nahid as a mother, and would suffer greatly from the loss of her from their lives -as they would a family member. In addition, it would be difficult to find people better suited to raise my kids. I have visited the day care unannounced, many times and have never been dissatisfied with the situation. When our family returns from a vacation, or family outing, the children ask if they can call Nahid when they get to the phone. It seems to me that the only gripes neighbors could have about the Fathali's would be the either the noise or the traffic. Regarding the noise, my sister has five children that can create twice the noise that I have ever heard at the Fathali residence. Are not neighborhoods created for families and children? Furthermore, if elder members of a neighborhood seek rest and serenity because of their age or health, shouldn't they seek it in a secluded retirement community, rather than in a public neighborhood —where all should be welcome. In regards to traffic and parking, I have never seen a traffic problem at the Fathali's home. Even at the most congested traffic hours, the worst I have had to do is park across the street which is not as bad as trying to park in some of my friends neighborhoods where you have to park down the block. In large families it is not uncommon for several family members to have at least one car. This would lead to at least one or two cars being parked on the street. Lastly, I would like to add that I am a picky parent, and am very discriminating about who watches my children, and would be very upset if I had to look elsewhere for such great supervision for my children. APRIL 7, 1992 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RE;USE PERMIT (FATHALI RESIDENCE) Dear Planning Commission, My family and I have lived in the city of Saratoga since 1986. My husband and I have three children that attend local schools and daycare. We are very active in the community and work in Saratoga. I am a full time working parent and very busy as you can probably guess. I have tried to find qualified, convenient and affordable child care in Saratoga since 1986. I was unsuccessful until I was introduced to the Fathali's. Child care is a problem every young family with children face. It is even more difficult in my case because I have an infant in diapers and do not want child care 5 days during the week since I work many weekends. Many of the schools are filled. Most schools do not take infants or the ratio of child to teacher is too high. I have been taking my daughter, Jackie, to the Fathali's for almost 2 years. They have ALWAYS provided a warm loving environment. Their facility is spacious and well maintained. The Fathali's have also been very dependable. I would like to add, that during the time I have been bringing my daughter to the Fathali's, I have never noticed a problem with parking. All the the parents come at different times. I am only there for a few minutes and have always been able to park in the Fathali's driveway or in front of their house. I am always courteous to the neighbors and never park in front of their homes or block their driveway. Losing this childcare facility would be a tremendous burden on my family and I know that my daughter would be very upset if she had to move to another facility. I do not know that I could find another place to put her. Please approve the Fathali's use permit. Birdie Forsythe j A' L ‘1/4--/ViAt AA„ X/c1- cf,A- s— i 10.4 p otvo. 7 Ow 9 50 7 Lt C :3 3 111 i QO )1Z ))24,5y-f4_,00 tArT 1:7" G/ 2. i 4 7e/ S yaw (/(A-vJ v /kra-1^3-g- ./1^-22-) Ovt AfLev, /%1j..j 6e-4L-L,5 e■JE 1 01? 0 e) caQ -8'393 3 77� _,L. w::: ,:e�...a ._:�_:�:_zati�.u;,�rv. ;.ir. w: aia.: srr yswss` au: �tiv, it :;:w.::sYdaaau.t,'U&SUM. C TO: Whom it may co ern FROM: Mary Davi ther of a Child in the Daycare in question SUBJECT: Saratoga Daycare Permit DATE: April 7, 1992 Last night I read the information regarding the Daycare Permit Issue. I feel the emotional issues are clouding the real concerns. 1. This is a "FAMILY DAYCARE" not a "CENTER," licensing is for a maximum of 12 children, the intent of the request has never changed, and it is not planned as an "EXPANSION 2. This daycare setting .has been here operating safely for at least 1 1/2 years at this location. 3. The parking issue could be resolved by restoring the garage to a garage. Since this is not a "Center or School" there is no set time parents must "line up" to pick up their children. If the drive way is full when I arrive I often drive around the block once, or park further down the street and walk back. Other. parents would do the same if asked. 4. The corner safety issue could be resolved by asking the neighbor across Purdue from the claycare to remove the juniper type bush which blocks vision around this corner. 5. I have never seen any of the parents make their kids cross the street by themselves. I allow my son to cross in front of me only after we have stopped and "checked it out I drop him off by pulling into the driveway in the mornings. I feel there is more of a physical threat to the children in the neighborhood riding their bikes in and out of their driveways without watching,_ than this daycare setting. 6. I understand when you retire you have certain expectations of "peace and quiet My parents, my sons grandparents, are 71 and 74. They live 2000 miles away and James would like nothing better than adopting almost everyone he sees over 50 as his grandparents. My son is probably one of the worst "noisy" offenders. But if you say "hi" to him and ask him to be a little quieter he really trys to stop and Nahid has often let us know if a particular neighbor has been under the weather and needs special consideration. 7. Noise level of the children can be maintained by a "playtime" curfew, ie. not allowed outside to play until after 9:00 a.m. and quiet play time only after 5:00 p.m. I certainly would hate to see the city refuse this permit. My son would have had to walk from our house across McCoy to his school twice daily last year and this year while he was in Kindergarten and First Grade. In an area where there are no crossing guards and no one at home to help him. I quite honestly do not know what will happen if this daycare is closed but if it happens everyone involved will lose. Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 18456 Purdue Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 May 20, 1992 Ref: A.P.N.: 403 -28 -028 (UP -91 -008) Having lived in other areas, my wife and I located in Saratoga, as we had been told that Saratoga was a prestigious location in which to settle permanently and raise a family. We are now retired and the original owners(35 years) of our home on Purdue Drive and have enjoyed the unique character and quality of life of our neighborhood and we wish to continue this excellent environment. The reason for my writing this ietter'is that we were misled into signing a document presented by the Fathali's young daughter and her explanation of it. She informed us that the document stated that they wanted to keep the Daycare Home as it is now(maximum of 6 children) and the garage is now being used for cars. We did not read the document in detail, which was our mistake. We were later informed by one of our neighbor friends, that she also was misled, as the document stated that we had no objection to the Fathali's operation of a large family Daycare Home. This is to inform you that we withdraw our suppottand signing of the of the document, as we do object to the operation of a large(7 -1.2) Daycare Home in our neighborhood. We live next- door(west side) to. the Fathali residence. I did attend the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1992 and supported the rejection of the USE PERMIT. I had planned to attend this evening's meeting(May 20, 1992), but unfortunately my wife is seriously 111 and I will not be in attendance. It is our request that the Council oupprt the findings of the Planning Commission and once again deny the request for the USE PERMIT. Respectfully, Claude W. Tomlin MAY 1 5 1 9- 92 Retwp7 12e4A- ,r 741/ 912- Z r- ze7.wt a &-c2/ 711 Ar U 14a 0-7/ "uA-d Overview: Printed On recycled paper 7.Iaf OEUT ©2 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Planning Staff DATE: May 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Design Review #91 -064 and Variance #91 -017, Rinnier, 14706 6th Street COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Project Description: The applicant, Linda Kinnier, is appealing a Planning Commission denial of her design review and variance applications. The plans call for the construction of a new, 2226 square foot, two story residence that encroaches into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks and that deviates from the City parking standard. The subject property is a currently vacant 3271 square foot parcel located on 6th Street near the intersection of Pamela Way within the R- 1- 10,000 zone district. Staff found that all of the necessary variance and design review findings could be made to support the project (the original staff analysis is attached for review). The Planning Commission first reviewed the project application in February of 1992. At that time the Commission expressed concern over the size of the proposed structure in relation to the size of the lot. A citizen representing the adjacent corner property gave testimony objecting to the project on the grounds that their privacy would be negatively impacted (the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached). The Commission continued the item to allow the applicant time to make plan revisions that addressed the concerns raised at the meeting. The project was reviewed once again at the April 7th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant submitted plans that reflected marginal changes from the original drawings.(the staff memo and analysis regarding these revisions is attached). In addition the applicant submitted a generalized landscape plan that proposed to mitigate the privacy impacts to the adjacent property. The Planning Commission felt that the proposed structure was still too large for the project site and that the kind of landscaping necessary to mitigate the privacy concerns would not be possible on this constrained parcel. A motion to direct staff to prepare resolutions for denial passed with a 4 -0 vote. The resolutions were subsequently adopted at the 4/22/92 regular Planning Commission meeting. Recomendation: Staff's original review of the project concluded that the required design review and variance findings could be made to recommend approval of the subject to the conditions contained in the resolutions. The attached staff reports include the analysis and findings to support this recommendation. ctfully Submitted, GtJ ge te Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Resolutions DR -91 -064 and V -91 -017 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/12/92 and 4/7/92 2. Staff Memo dated 4/7/92 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -064 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA IER; 14706 6T1 STREET WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of a new, two story, single family home; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The project does unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that proposed home will overlook and impact the privacy of the rear yards and the habitable rooms of the immediately adjacent properties. In addition, the proposed six foot side yard setbacks will not provide sufficient area for planting to mitigate these impacts. The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the home design incorporates continuous two -story vertical wall elements that increase the perception of bulk and mass on this narrow building site. The project is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that the floor area of the proposed structure in relationship with the lot size is far greater than that of single family dwellings currently existing in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of !tinnier, 14706 6th Street for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied. 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. PARSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, FAVERO, FORBES, MORAN NOES: none File No. DR -91 -064; 14706 6th Street ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: DURKET, TUCKER ATTEST: Secretary, Plannj)ng Commission 2dd 457 0kL. Chai rson, Planning Commission DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. V -91 -017 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA !tinnier; 14706 6th Street WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for variance approval to encroach into the required rear, side, and front yard and to deviate from the City parking standard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the contingent design review application (DR- 91 -064), which necessitates a redesign of the home and requires a new design review application. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Einnier for variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. 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 Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 22nd day of April, 1992, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secreta y, Planni g Commission eve i7 1,/4 Chairpensbn, Planning i g C ion anning Commission Minutes ng of February 12, 1992 Pa, Four Chairperson Moran Commissioner Durket stat maintenance bond. DURKET/FORBES MOVED APPR THAT THE COLOR BED R AND SECURED. Commissioner Cal year bond and th Commissioners Commissio application evaluati the ev done al. e motion carried 7 -0. 2. DR- 91-064 V -91 -017 Commissi Forbes requested that resurfacing and widenin the driveway be included as ndition of approval. CALDWELL/DU MOVED TO CLOSE THE PU HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. she was in favor darker color for the house. favor of a darker color and a tree DURKET /FORBES MOVED TO OVE V-89-045.1 PASSED 7-0 DR- 88.064.1 WITH THE AMENDMENT A TREE MAINTENANCE BOND BE asked for clarity of the mo to specify that the bond be a 5 e color be approved by the rket and Forbes were in agreement. Commission. osian stated that he was going to relu extension. He said he was perturbed regarding the trees. He felt that the trees did not get a fair h on may have been based on the idea that the removal missioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Bogosian's comme support the "after -the- fact" and stated that e trees was a Kinnier; 14706 6th St, request for design review approval to construct a new, two-story, 2,226 sq. ft., single family residence on an approximately 3,271 sq. ft. parcel and a request for variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks and from the City parking requirement in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 1/22/92). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated January 22, 1992 to the Planning Commission and also made the following modifications to the resolution: Page 35, second finding, should read "...the proposed setbacks are adequate so as not to unreasonably interfere. and Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Five Page 39, fourth paragraph from the bottom should read the construction of a new single family dwelling at the proposed setbacks will in no way... Planner Walgren also answered questions of the Commission. Chairperson Moran opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Douglas Prichard, project designer, spoke in support of the design of the proposed house and the variance application. He also answered questions of the Commission regarding the design, window placement, invasion of privacy mitigation and landscape issues. George CobeII, 14740 6th Street, stated he was not opposed to the new development of the lot, but felt the proposed house was too large and therefore inappropriate to the size of the lot He also expressed concem regarding privacy invasion, the proximity of the proposed structure, and potential traffic hazards with the use of the street for additional parking. Mrs. Cobell, 14740 6th Street, expressed the same concems as Mr. Cobell and added that she had concems about the tree removals and required landscape replacement She also posed a question as to the owner of the bay tree that is to be removed. Douglas Prichard, project designer, addressed the Commission stating that the property had been surveyed and the bay tree in question belongs to the applicant. Commissioner Favero stated that the tree removal and condition of the trees were of concern to him. He also asked for available information regarding the size of other homes in the neighborhood. Planner Walgren stated that he had no information regarding the size of the surrounding homes. Owner, 14700 6th Street, expressed the same concerns of the previous speakers and stated his opinion that the proposed house was out -of- character with the rest of the neighborhood. FORBES/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:34 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Durket stated he could not support the project because he felt the house was too large for the lot. Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Durket and added that he could not make the design findings because of the height and bulk of the building. Commission Tucker expressed agreement with the previous two Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 12, 1992 Page Six Commission Forbes addressed the City Attorney as to whether the Commission was obligated to approve any structure that met the Zoning Regulations because the lot was created as a legal lot. The City Attorney explained that the Commission was not obligated to approve any structure which did not meet the zoning codes and for which the Commission could not make the findings. Planning Director Eisner reminded the Commission that it would be impossible to deny legal use of the lot. FORBES /FAVERO MOVED TO DENY V- 91 -017. Commissioner Bogosian suggested continuing the item to enable the applicant to come back before the Commission with revised plans addressing the comments of the Commissioners. Following discussion, Commissioner Favero withdrew his second to the motion posed by Commissioner Forbes. The motion to deny V -91 -017 died for lack of a second. Chairperson Moran addressed the applicant explaining the option to either request a vote or to continue the item and present a modified design reflecting the comments of the Commissioners. The applicant was in favor of the continuance. /TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR- 91-064 AND V -91 -017 E MA 25, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. PASSE (Forbes op Planning Dir isner stated that the variance appl' n would require re- notification of the bors. Commissioner Tucker r The Commission took a break p.m. 3. DR- 91-067 ed that ells be sent the new notification. .m. and the meeting was reconvened at 9:06 y Oaks Associat 66 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for ign review approval to ction a new 3,713 sq. ft. one story residence within the Sobey subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is appro ely 43,010 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district. PI er Walgren presented the Report dated February 12, 1992, to the is'sion. PLANNING COMMISSIO /MINUTES April 7, 1992 age 2 3. She stated it is her recollection that trees 5, 6, 8, •nd 11 sho remain and would like the minutes to reflect this MORAN/ WELL MOVED TO APPROVE TEE ABOVE AMENDMENT. (Bogosi •stain) =BED 3 -0 -1 None REPORT OF POSTING AG Pursuant to Gover t Code 54954.2, e agenda for this meeting was properly posted pril 3, 199 Techni Corre ions to Packet Planner Walgren noted the Ca to the City Council and wi 1. DR -91 -073 MORAN PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR -91 -064 V -91 -017 0 COMMUNICATIONS lieri application has been appealed heard on April 15, 1992. PUBLIC ING SENT CALENDAR ang, 14581 Bo for design review 5,532 sq. ft., two 15 of the City approximately 44,862 located in an R -1 -40,00 the Sobey Oaks subdivisio application expires 7/27/92 BIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALEND• PASSED 4 0. Co Moran requested that item 2 be moved to then end h rings. Rinnier, 14706 6th 8t., request for design review approval to construct a new, two- story, 2,226 sq. ft., single family residence on an approximately 3,271 sq. ft. parcel and a request for variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks and from the City parking requirement in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 3/25/92; application expires 5/29/92). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated April 7, 1992 and answered questions regarding privacy issues and the house size proposed. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Oaks Ct. (Lot #16), request royal to construct a new, ry residence per Chapter e. The parcel is ft. in area and is ne district within cont. to 5/13/92; o e public pL ANNING COMMISSIOPMINUTES April 7, 1992 p 3 Ms. Linda Kinnier, 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. commented on the issues of parking, privacy, landscaping and house size. Regarding the parking, Ms. Kinnier stated they now have one covered and one uncovered parking space. She stated there will be one small bedroom window facing the neighbors to the north with regards to the privacy issue. Ms. Kinnier expressed concern about the trees noting that both are in bad health, one has fell over and the other should be removed. She quoted from the Arborist's report regarding the trees. Ms. Kinnier stated the house size does measure in the 1700 s.f. range and the 2200 s.f. includes balconies etc. Ms. Kinnier went on to explain the configuration of her lot and where the building is placed. She stated a smaller house does not fit her needs. She noted she had received calls in favor of the project. In response to Commissioners questions, Ms. Kinnier stated the level of the floor of the garage is at grade. She noted she had considered narrowing the house to obtain a 8 ft. setback, but this is not appropriate. Ms. Kinnier explained the landscape plan and the placement of the trees. She stated there would be a six foot fence along the property lines. Lowering the house was discussed. Ms. Kinnier stated the Soils Engineers did not recommend going any deeper. In response to Com. Favero's question, Planner Walgren stated there is potential that they will see more remodeling requests in this area. Resident, 14700 6th Street, stated the trees for screening will not address the privacy issue in winter. As far as excavating and lowering the structure, he stated it would be possible to put in a pump and he would be willing to run a line through his property. He expressed several other concerns regarding the living area of the house and privacy. He stated the structure could and should be more scaled to the lot size. In response to Commissioners questions, the resident stated the fence proposed is approximately 25 feet from his property. He stated the obscured glass proposed is acceptable, but there will be no privacy when the windows are opened. Mr. Doug Prichard, Home Profiles, stated they could meet all the requirements if the applicant put a flat roof on her home, but does not feel this is compatibles with the neighborhood. He noted the applicant has been very flexible in trying to work with staff. Chr. Caldwell closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. In response to Com. Moran's question, Planner Walgren stated the landscape plan, as submitted, is not detailed enough and staff will require a more detailed plan. Com. Bogosian stated he did meet with the applicant on -site to discuss the concerns raised at this hearing. Printed on recycled paper OTE7 cD2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: DR -91 -064 V -91 -017; Kinnier, 14706 6th Street 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman This item was originally heard at the 2/12/92 Planning Commission meeting. Staff felt that all of the required finding for both design review and variance could be made and, therefore, recom- mended approving both applications (the original staff report is attached). According to the official minutes from the meeting several issues were raised by neighbors and Commissioners. These are, briefly, as follows: 1. The adjacent property owners gave testimony that the proposed home would impact their privacy. 2. Several Planning Commissioners cited concern over the size of the proposed home in relation to the constrained project site. 3. Some confusion arose over the exact location of the large bay tree. 4. It was noted that the proposed driveway apron did not create standard sized off street parking spaces. The applicant accepted these comments and requested a continuance to allow time to modify the plans. The item was rescheduled for the 3/25/92 hearing. Revised plans were not submitted in a timely manner and the item was continued once more. In the interim period, the large black oak tree, located near the front property line of the subject site, fell over. Staff immedi- ately dispatched the City Arborist to inspect the felled tree. The site visit confirmed that the originally diagnosed root PLANNING COM!41SSIO 4INUTES April 7, 1992 Page 4 Com. Caldwell expressed concern regarding the privacy issue and the scale of the home. Com. Bogosian feels that property owners are aware of the constraints before buying the property. He stated the proposed plan does not address the privacy concerns. He noted the applicant had not pursued studies for drainage, etc. and now he should investigate the possibility of lowering the structure. Com. Moran stated she is not concerned about the size of the proposed house because she feels the neighborhood is in a transition of redeveloping. She does feel the house should be more scaled to this lot. Com. Moran expressed concern regarding the privacy issue. Com. Favero stated the character of the neighborhood should be preserved as is and is not in favor of the proposed size of the structure. FAVERO /MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF DR -91 -064. The Commissioners asked the applicant if she would want a continuance. After discussion, Ms. Kinnier stated she does not want a study session. The above motion was carried 4 -0. OGOBIAN /MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOL INGB FOR DENIAL OF V -91 -017. PASSED 4 -0. 4. WITH 91 -008 Fathali, 18444 Purdue Dr., quest for use permit approval to operat large family day care home within an R- 0,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of City Code (cont. from 3/25/92; applicat'- expires 9/5/92). Planner Walgren answered questions the Co Chr. Caldwell opened ented the st- report dated April 7, 1991 and sioners. lic hearing at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ed. Clements, 59 ark A• Ste. 101, San Jose, addressed the State Health S- =ty Code 'ng quality child care is very important. He no -d the applicant fens quality child care and to make this eco ically viable, they ire 7 to 12 children. Mr. Clements pr= nted written statements the Planning Commission. Mr. Cleme. addressed staff's concerns. •e noted the additional childre will only increase the traffic five cars and the appli t is willing to pick up and drop off 'ldren in order to dec -se the number of cars. He noted the -rage has been erted back to a garage as required by staff. 1 c. eels noise is t an issue as the traffic on Quito Rd. is nosier. Clements stated an additional five or six children will not •act the traffic. decay led to the tree's demise. A letter from the City Arborist reporting his findings is attached for reference. Staff has reviewed the revised plans submitted by the applicant. These plans differ from the previous proposal in the following areas: 1. The rear portion of the proposed structure has been lowered 2 feet. This will be achieved by further excavation on the site. This is purported to reduce the overall perception of massive- ness and height as viewed from the street and adjoining proper- ties. 2. The garage has been stepped back from the front property line by four feet to create a 20 foot deep pad suitable for off street parking. This modification does not eliminate the need for a variance from the required front setback of 25 feet. The revised drawings show an upper story deck that is cantilevered roughly four feet over the driveway apron. This adjustment is intended to create additional standard off street parking spaces. 3. The applicant has proposed obscure glass for the upper story master bathroom window on the south elevation. This is proposed to mitigate privacy concerns of the immediate upslope neighbor. 4. The applicant has submitted a somewhat generalized landscape plan that indicates the location of mature trees and other vege- tation to be installed on the site. While the plan does not indicate size or species, it does establish the placement of the proposed landscaping. Staff suggests, in the event that the Planning Commission approves the revised plan, to require the applicant to install a minimum of 24 inch box trees and 15 gallon shrubs. Staff has revised Resolution DR -91 -064 accordingly. Note: the landscape plan indicates the correct location of the bay tree on the subject parcel. The applicant has indicated that any further reduction of floor area or any other modifications to the design would be impracti- cal and would result in an undesirable living arrangement. Ac- cording to the applicant, the actual living area of 1794 square feet (subtracting the garage area), is the absolute acceptable minimum. It is felt that a one story alternative is not feasible due to site constraints. Staff feels that the applicant has marginally addressed the concerns of the Commission and the neighbors. The obscure window and the proposed landscaping will serve to further mitigate the privacy concerns of the adjacent property owners. The proposal to lower the rear portion of the structure will serve to reduce the perception of mass and bulk. Finally, the establishment of the 20 foot parking area.on site will provide adequate off street parking spaces. 2 Recommendation: Given the fact that staff originally recommended that both applications be approved and that the Commission subsequently cited concerns that may have not been addressed by the appli- cant's revised plans, staff suggests that the Commission consider two options: 1. Approve the revised project, including the staff suggested landscaping condition, by adopting Resolutions DR -91 -064, V -91- 017. 2. Since the applicant has indicated no desire to further amend the plans, deny the project and direct staff to prepare the appropriate findings for denial. Attachments: kinnieri 1. Resolutions DR -91 -064, V -91 -017 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/12/92 3. Staff Report dated 1/24/92 4. City Arborist Letter dated 3/17/92 4. Revised Plans Exhibit "A" 3 ctfully Submitted, eorge White Assistant Planner �GIU JJ��iF Ji.'�... ;.•�a1.h/��t'.: �7� :�w'� -�T�; I� s \I.G F�-��f IY• t.�..i.1• ,.�r� 1 J .lu. �ria.� Lam ___:.�2 diaa REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR -91 -064; V -91 -017; 14106 6th Street Applicant /Owner. Kinnier Staff Planner George White Date 1/22/92 APN: 517 -08 -023 14706 6th Street i T.� S*Ml a�`sr. mac. -Z ti• 'LI File No. DR -91 -064; V -91 -017, 14706 6th Street CASE HISTORY: gw /dsc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 10/30/91 Application complete: 11/29/91 Notice published: 12/8/91 Mailing completed: 12/9/91 Posting completed: 12/2/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new, two story, 2266 square foot, single family dwelling and a request for Variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yards and to deviate from the City parking requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting Resolution DR -91 -064 and V -91 -017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR -9I -064, V -91 -017 3. City Arborist report dated 11/26/91, Exhibit "B" 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" 11 i::i1 '1t':ti Xx ��51 �`]a :1 :!aT..q.a= e.;+Y.��_.. YSt L:_... ....�..:i i riY 4.1 +ti�Y•:.�._ •'�:rri:�'1. .i.�3�'lr..fi la..•I J� y •may...: A. ✓.V �i 1.i.1 IeT COVERAGE HEIGHT: File No. DR -91 -0d V -91 -017, 14706 6th Strel STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density PAS SIZE: 3271 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18.5% GRADING BEOUIRED: Cut: 8.5 Cu. Yds. Fill: 8.5 Cu. Yds. MATERIALS A COLORS PROPOSED: Dark gray or gle roofing, grayish blue wood and stucco PROPOSAI 41 %(1373 sq. ft.) 24 feet max. SIZE Q 1st Floor: 1171 sq. ft. $MISMIIara 2nd Floor: 1095 sq. ft. TOTAL: 2266 sq. ft. Note: The Zoning Code does not establish for lots that are 5000 square feet or less. SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Side: Side: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Background: 16' 20' 6' 6' Cut Depth: 4 ft. Fill Depth: 2 ft. black fiberglass shin siding, dark gray trim CODE REOUIREMENT/ M LOWANCX 60 %(1962 sq. ft.) 26 feet (To be determined by the Planning Commission) floor area standards Front: 25' Rear: 22' Side: 8' Side: 8' The site is located on the east side of 6th Street at the junc- tion of Pamela Way. The subject parcel is bounded on the east by a large backyard of a single residence, on the north by a one story home, on the south by a two story residence and on the west by 6th Street. The site is four to six feet in elevation above the property to the north and several feet lower in elevation than the property to the south. The lot is substandard in terms of lot size; 3271 square feet where 10,00 square feet is the district standard, frontage; 25.5 feet where 60 is required, lot width; 31.5 feet where 85 is required and lot depth; 104 feet where 115 is the district minimum. The lot is irregularly configured, with a frontage of 25.5 feet that widens out to almost 38 feet at the rear of the site. The lot was legally created by recorded deed in 1932. While the lot is vacant, evidence on the site indicates that a small •.se�` 1 File No. DR -91 -064'; V -91 -017, 14706 6th Street structure once may have occupied this site. Currently, the parcel is in a state of disrepair, with overgrown vegetation and assorted household debris occupying the site. Design Review: The applicant proposes to construct a new two story residence, the footprint which conforms to the irregular shape of the parcel. The floor plan consists of the usual residential room elements with a combined total of 2266 square feet. The structure rises from 22 feet in height for the narrow front section to 24 feet in height at the rear of the home. As much as is possible for this severely constrained site, the variation of rooflines and the necessary articulation of the building foot- print combine to reduce the perception of massiveness and bulk. The project site is located within one of the denser residen- tial areas of the City. The neighborhood has been developed over many years. The predominant and representative structure is that of a single family residence on a substandard lot with minimal setbacks. The project site is an infill lot between two such developed parcels. Due to the closeness of the proposed struc- tures and the existing homes, it is clear that potential privacy impacts exist. Staff is confident that these concerns can be lessened by the installation of screening trees and shrubs and solid wood fencing. A condition has been added to Resolution DR- 91 -064 to require such landscaping and fencing. The residence is proposed to be finished the lower story and painted stucco for roofing will be fiberglass shingle. The dark gray or black roofing shingles, blue and dart; blue trim. in lap wood siding on the upper level. The chosen materials are wood and stucco siding No ordinance size trees are scheduled to be removed to complete this project, however, the presence of a large oak in the south- west corner of the parcel prompted a review by the CIty Arbor ist. (attached Exhibit "B The oak, according to the report, is leaning precariously and should be removed. Two other trees are identified in the report, one large bay tree located on the adjacent uphill parcel and one smaller olive located on the lower parcel. The arborist recommends removal of the bay tree, however, since the tree is not on the project site the applicant is not responsible for its removal. Recommendation for construc- tion fencing along the north property line to preserve the olive tree are contained in Resolution DR -91 -064 as conditions of approval. The desired home is very simple in design and will maintain the character of the Village. The design, scale and materials of the structure are in compliance with all of the recommendations of the Village Design Guidelines and the Village Plan. The residence meets all other requirements of the code except for the setbacks and parking standards discussed below. Staff feels that, given the existing density of the area, this struc- File No. DR -91 -064', V -91 -017, 14706 6th Street ture will be a relatively unobtrusive addition to the neighbor- hood. Further, considering the obvious constraints on the par- cel, this proposal will maintain the character and integrity of the Village while providing the applicant with reasonable use of the property. As a result, Staff can make all of the required findings for Design Review. Variance: Setbacks The proposal meets the minimum standards for the side and rear setback, 6 and 20 feet respectively. The height of the structure, however, triggers additional setback requirements. Two feet must be added to the side and rear setbacks to comply with these additional standards. Staff feels that, given the nature of the lot and its obvious constraints and the variety on nonconforming setbacks in the general area, meeting the district standard is adequate for this site. The alternative would be to lower the rear portion of the home to 22 feet in height which would, in Staff's opinion, only serve to flatten the roof and result in a less attractive building. The front setback is proposed to be 16 feet where 25 feet are required. Staff has surveyed the area and concluded that the historically established setback along 6th street is, roughly, 15 feet. The front setbacks for the existing homes on the imme- diately adjacent properties are 12.5 feet and 14.5 feet re- spectively. The placement of the proposal at 16 feet from the front property line, therefore, will be consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Staff feels that all of the required findings can be made to support the setback variances because obvious extraordinary circumstances exist on this property. Parking- The project design allows for only a one car garage where a two car garage is the residential standard. Staff feels that the narrowness of the site prevents the establishment of a conventional side by side garage. The site plan shows that outdoor off street parking will be available on and adjacent to the driveway apron so that a minimum of two cars can be parked on site. Staff feels that, due to the previously discussed site constraints, all of the required findings can be made to support this variance request. RECOMMENDATION: Since all of the required findings can be made for both Design Review and Variance requests, Staff recommends approving both applications by adopting Resolutions DR -91 -064 and V -91 -017. BARRIE D: iTE and ASSO :RTES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road.. Los Gatos, CA 95030 1• KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: George White City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Terence Welch November 28, 1991 Job #197B At* 8 �.va. .�.u��.+..�`.......,.. ul ry:�• :I.,.• ..l .:i\'� .�:Y�.a::. Enclosures Map Chart Chart Definitions Photos WCISA Pruning Standards KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA Table of Contents Comments on Specific Trees Tree #1 1 Drawing A 2 Drawing B 3 Tree #2 3 Tree #3 3 Page BARRIE b. 11 .TE and ASSOC, TES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23335 Summit Road.. Los Gatos, CA 95030 KINNIER PROPERTY 14706. SIXTH STREET SARATOGA On November 26, 1991 our firm surveyed the trees at the Maier property, 14706 Sixth Street, Saratoga. Apparently a house existed at one point on this now vacant lot. A 2,226 square foot house is proposed for this 3,271 square foot lot. The actual building footprint will be 1,171 square feet. Near the street the lot width i8 only 25.5 feet wide, but widens out to almost 38 feet wide toward the rear of the lot Because the two major trees on the property, #1 and #2, have visible cavities present, core samples were taken from their trunks to assess the extent of the decay.. Photo #3 shows these core samples, with the bark side on the right, and the interior on the left side of the photo. QA, QB, and QC (three upper samples in photo #3) were all taken from the trunk of tree #1, while UA. UB, and UC (three lower samples in photo #3) were all taken from the think of tree #2. Photos 1,4,7, and 8 show where the samples were located on the trunk, with white dots. of spray paint. Two additional samples taken from Tree #1 are not shown in photographs. r Comments on Specific Trees Tree #1, Black Oak, Quercus kelioagl( Although relatively healthy, this. tree has severe structural problems; Substantial decay is present in the -lower and upper potions of the trunk. In addition, the tree's limbs are almost all growing toward the south, creating a one -sided tree. The weight is concentrated on the south side, slightly increasing the- likelihood that the tree will fall. For these reasons, removat of this tree Is recommended. This mature tree has a 15' wide cavity at 5' above grade. This cavity extends from the opening at 6' above grade, through the center of the trunk, down to grade Level.. Apparently a limb or leader split out at some point In the past A sample (sample #OC, photos 384) of the wood, Imown as a core sample, taken fir-above lune an the south side of the trunk,' shows that only 4' of sound, -healthy wood is present before decay is encountered.. Two more samples (not pictured), taken on the east and west:e_ kles of the trunk indicated decay present at 4-5' inside the trunk. Such a Uri wall of sound tissue is not enough to support the weight of Such a large tree. In addition, decay has likely -1 ff KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA occurred in the buttress roots on the south side of the trunk, further reducing the structural integrity of the tree. This tree could either fall due to root failure, or the trunk could break at the decayed cavity. The following drawing shows the estimated amount of decay present at 2 above grade: DRAWING A Estimated cross section of trunk at 2' above grade Decayed Area KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA At 13' above grade on the southeast side of the tree is the site of an old pruning wound. The tissue surrounding this wound has died. At 14' above grade on the north -west of the tree is also an old pruning wound. A 20" diameter area has died back around this wound. The decay which has occurred as a result of these two wounds has no doubt joined together to form one large decaying cavity.. Although two core samples (Samples #QA QS, photos 1 3) indicated that 6.5" or more of live, healthy tissue is present, this section of the trunk will always be a relatively weak area. Two dead stubs of limbs, 8" and 10" in diameter, are 'present at approximately 18' above grade (visible in photo '6). The decay resulting from the death of these two limbs has also likely spread down to the interior trunk decay below. All of this decay weakens the section of trunk where it is present. If vigorous callousing was present, and new wood was being laid down over wounds, the structural integrity might be restored. However, the two wounds at 13' and 14' have not calloused over. Especially considering the tremendous one -sided weight present in the upper portion of the tree, It may break off In this area of the trunk ai some point In the fut The following drawing shows the estimated amount of decay present at 13' above grade: DRAWING B Decayed Area -3- ..►..""�c._.:F :�ih �w�? vri .;;wzt+k•r;.}+i?�w5v.Y1�•wtr;•v ;�T• :e�'..• F'.: KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA Tree 62, California Bay, Umbellularia calitornica This tree has severe structural problems, including 'a trunk which is severely decayed, and a very weak structure which has resulted from being topped. This tree is an active hazard, and should be removed as soon as possible. This tree has been repeatedly topped. The resulting sprouts are shallowly anchored in the outer layers of the bark. As the tree grows older, and these sprouts become longer and heavier, the tendency for limbs to split out will become evert greater. In addition, a major leader split off the northern side of this tree at' 3' above grade. Approximately 5096 of the diameter of this trunk has died and is actively decaying. Old fruiting bodies of Artisrs Conk, Ganoderma applanatum, is growing in this wound. This 'their conk emerges soft and white, and then becomes woody and very hard. It is the fruiting body of a fungus which attacks many species of trees, usually indicating extensive decay is present on the interior of the tree. Fungal fruiting bodies are forming at 1? above grade on the north side. These appear to be the beginning stages o#•Artist's Conk. Since the major roots below this side of the trunk are of crucial importance because of the trunk's lean toward the east, this creates an especially hazardous situation. In addition, the canopy of this tree is thin, indicating that the roots are not ,providing water and nutrients in the same quantities that they once did. This condition likely came about because of the re- grading of the lot, when fill soil was placed against the root collar of the tree. This reduced the supply of water and oxygen to the roots, and dtainage pattems were changed. In addition, repeated topping has deprived the tree of needed carbohydrates; further weakening it. This combination of factors has brought the tree to its present condition. Portions of the root collar on the south -west side of the trunk, north -west side of the trunk are dead. FM soil is piled against the trunk on the east side so it is difficult to ascertain how much of the root collar is dead or decaying on that side. 3 core samples taken from the trunk of the tree revealed extensive decay. Tree 63, European OlIv MIA 4uropea, This tree's trunk is located several feet away from the boundary line on the northern -4- +ar_.�a�►�w.. a l •_:i6s1 v:4 J1ila..:...l .:.ly i.a 1. >al� KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA border of the property along the driveway. Although it does not have a full canopy, this is more than likely due to a relatively difficult situation, in the shade of a tree with little water. Fertilization and irrigation should increase the density of the canopy of this tree. The tree could easily be pruned to accommodate the structure which will be installed adjacent to it. All pruning should be performed by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, according to Westem Chapter I.S.A. Pruning Standards. No pruning should be performed by carpenters or grading .personnel, before, during or after construction. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker should prune this tree in cooperation with the architect to provide clearances where needed before grading equipment is allowed on site. This tree will provide some screening for the neighbors from the new structure. A temporary construction period fence should be erected around this tree. This fence should be erected at the dripline. Where construction intrudes into rootzones, this fence should be erected 24• from the limits of that construction. It should consist of portable cyclone fencing, or wire mesh securely attached to metal posts driven into the ground. It should not be easy for construction workers to move, or take down. This fencing should be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and should not be removed until final landscape grading is completed. If for any reason it becomes necessary for any machinery to enter the fenced -in rootzone of a tree, an Intemationai Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist should be consulted first. Trenching of any sort must be planned to avoid traveling beneath the tree canopy.. This should include planning for P.0.8E., sewer lines, electrical power, cable T.V., and irrigation. Plans should show specific locations of trenches, if possible. -5- No chemicals, solvents, paints, etc. should be dumped on site. No concrete be washed into the soil within 20 feet of a rootzone. All trash and debris should should removed from the site, rather than dumped or buried where it might affect roots. Please call our office if you should have any questions. TW:Ia Enclosures: Map Chart Chart Definitions Photos KINNIER PROPERTY 14706 SIXTH STREET SARATOGA Respectfully submitted, Terence Welch, Associate Barrie D. Coate and Associates BARRIE D. Cp.' E and ASSOCIL :ES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353.1052 :3335 Summit Road.. Los Gatos. CA 95030 OBH 1 MULTI -STEM TREE DBH 2 AND DBH 3 HEIGHT SPREAD HEALTH STRUCTURE NEEDS THINNING REMOVE END WEIGHT ROOT COLLAR COVERED ROOT COLLAR DISEASES TRUNK DECAY c DEFINITION OF TERMS ON TREE EVALUATION CHARTS Diameter at breast height, or 4-1 /2 feet. Possible numbers in that column could be from 2' to 50'. Self- evident in the definition. Numbers that could be listed in that column would be 1 for yes, or 2 for no. Diameter at breast height for the multi -stem trunks, if any. As explained, listed by feet. Canopy spread listed by feet. A judgment of relative health for the species in the subject area and sod. Number 1 signifies excellent health. A rating of number 5 represents specimens which are dead or actively dying. Judgment of relative structure: 1 perfect structure; 2 good to average struc- ture; 3 potentially hazardous and repairable; 4 actively hazardous, but repair- able; 5 actively hazardous and not repairable. Defined as requiring removal of pieces to reduce the canopy mass to allow wind to travel through it This can be accomplished by thinning of Interior branches, as well as removal of end of branches by thinning, not by stub- cutting. Possible entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning little is needed, 5 meaning attention is badly needed. Defined as requiring the removal of the ends of major limbs or major branches in sufficient quantity to prevent the breakage of the limb in question. This is done by thinning. Different species will require different amounts of and -weight removal depending on the inherent structure of the tree. As an example, Elm trees must not be allowed to develop heavy end weights, where the same amount of end weight on a Magnolia may not be dangerous. Possible entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning no attention is needed, 5 meaning immediate attention is needed. When the root collar of many species is covered, ,Phvtoohthora cactorum, or other diseases, may kill vascular tissue. This column defines the amount of disease activity discovered. When more than 50 percent of the trunk circumference has been killed, the tree would be rated number 5, and a removal recommendation made. Trunk decay would signify the proportionate amount of decay in the trunk of the tree. This is usually a result of removal of large limbs or branches from which decay travels and is a far more serious problem in some species than in others. Significant amounts of trunk decay in Elms would be a very serious potential problem, where the same amount of trunk decay in a Magnolia might not be nearly so dangerous. Potential entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no decay, 5 signifying so much decay that the tree should be immediately removed. roving a.' .:..w Ian:: a.. vi.. i-:. Ml•' �K.... a�.ta.n. .�.n w� 7■777.7 ..w.. ••7. INSECTS TREE CROWN DISEASES DEAD WOOD PAVEMENT DAMAGE NEEDS CABLES NEEDS FERTIUZER NEEDS WATER REMOVE MISTELTOE REMOVAL PRIORITY PRUNING PRIORITY This would define the proportion of insect presence and damage to a tree. A separate list might accompany this to show what insects might be found in each different species of tree. The potential numbers listed under this column would be 1 through 5 showing the proportionate severity of the infestation of insects. Number 1 being no presence visible at the time the survey was taken, 5 being a very severe case that should be treated immediately. Defined as the proportion of diseases present in the specimen at the time the survey was taken. Potential entries in this column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signing no presence of diseases at all, 5 signifying very severe disease presence that should be treated. In many cases, It Abold ham been treated since diseases often must be treated in advance of their presence. For this column a high rating may only serve to provide warning for the following year that treatment for the diseases in question should be planned on in advance. Examples are Anthracnose disease on Modesto Ash. They would have to be sprayed before foliage is developed far enough for the disease to damage the foliage, usually in early March. Self-explanatory. Defines the proportion of dead wood that Is In the crown of a tree. Entries possible in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning none present, 5 meaning a signtflcant quanttyy of dead parts present. This would usually be reflected In the health rating for this tree, but not always If the species typically accumulates dead twigs in the tree, as does MO it�ibrissirl. This relates to the amount of damage, usually by raising of sidewalks or move- ment of curbs caused by tree roots or tree trunk mass, and reflects the propor- tionate danger of pedestrians tripping over raised portions of pig. Possible entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying a level pave- ment and no affect by the tree on the pavement surface, 5 signifying a very severe pavement Interruption that should be repaired immediately. If support cables are needed, the quantity needed would be noted here. This column would signify the need of the tree in question to be fertilized. The entries possible in this column are 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no need for fertilizer, 5 signifying a severe need for fertilizer. Many species used here would require very little fertilizing in these soils, but in a species such as Magnolia, it will often not be in good health unless it is fertilized. Defines the need for water of a given tree. The possible entries are 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no water is necessary, 5 signifying the lack of available water is creating a severe impact on the health of the given specimen. Watering may be difficult on old specimens unless a water truck is used or homeowners are encouraged to do their own watering. The implication is not meant that weeldy watering is necessary, nor should shallow watering for a lawn be suggested. It is meant to imply that deep occasional watering, as once a month during the summer to supply several hundred gallons of water slowly, would be the require- ment. Mistletoe is often seen in Oaks, Ash, Maples, Walnuts, and other species. This parasitic plant must be removed by branch removal or removal of the hostoria (base) of the duster before the pest spreads throughout the tree. The level of importance of the danger the tree presents. The relative importance of the recommended pruning based on the danger created by the unennncie nnrtinne c_ 0 to 3 11 J 1:"...*f 72Varg: V ca) iv i li 1 1 I i a S I ARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Plant Name (n x a. DBH (inches) HEIGHT 8 8 8 SPREAD fo HEALTH (1-5) 112 4i. co STRUCTURE (1-5) NEEDS THINNING co REMOVE ENDWEI I* ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) 4, ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (14) 4. TRUNK DECAY INSECTS (1-5) TREE CROWN DISEASES(1-5) I% DEADWOOD (1-5) DAMAGE TO PAVING (1-5) CABLES NEEDED co co NEEDS FERTIUZE to NEEDS WATER X RECOMMEND REMOVAL REMOVAL. PRIORITY 4 PRUNING PRIORITY c R g i c_ 0 to 3 11 J 1:"...*f 72Varg: V r R e. e .,+.1.:,.. 4 r1.av "+i j a._ `a p I 1 'rte 7_ Z 1 '.1 fir^ it_ r< �L�`.. 1 1 9 ♦t� BARRIE D. CC TE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 -353 -1052 23535 Summit Road.. Los Gatos. CA 95030 Mr. George White Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue City of Saratoga March 17, 1992 Saratoga, CA 95077 Dear George, On Monday, March 16th I visited the Kinnier property at 14706 6th Street in response to your request. The Black Oak, Quercus kelloggii(designated tree #1 in our report of November 26, 1991), fell over March 15. Examination of the root buttress, which is now upended and visible, demonstrates that Oak Root Fungus decay in the buttress roots was so extensive that insufficient structural wood remained to support the wood and upper structure. As predicted on page 2 of our report of November 26, this tree fell due to failure of buttress roots which were severely decayed. BDC:la Sincerely, eativALL4 ,g2 Cez,A Barrie D. Coate Here are my reasons for asking the City Council to approve my proposed house design for 14706 6th St. 1) A tremendous amount of weight has been given to one neighbor's concern of his loss of privacy. This neighbor has come to both of my hearings. This neighbor has emotional ties to the property, as his family owned it before me. This man is not the owner of the property, his sister is the owner, and neither has he or anyone lived there for 40 years; a fact he did not reveal and which I have learned from neighbors since the hearings.He would prefer that I build a 1 story house, which would give me approximately 800 square feet of living space, and as such is impractical. I feel the Planning Commission has given undo weight to the objections of one neighbor whom I cannot please. All my other neighbors have seen my drawings and accept the design of my house as proposed. They have no objection to its size, placement, or impact on their privacy (and they actually live there) and they have given me their signatures to demonstrate this fact. Also,the Planning Commission failed to understand that this neighbor benefited by a gain of 5 feet of property due to my survey. The results of my survey corrected the location of our property line and added 5 feet between his house and our property line. This brings the total distance between his house and my house to 17 feet. Regarding the Commission's statement that six -foot sideyards cannot support the growth of trees, this is a fallacy. Six -foot sideyards are commonly planted with evergreen trees such as redwoods and Italian Cypress?awt m ne elle that thrive and provide privacy, and I will be happy to provide pictures to demonstrate this to the Council. )?ty This is what I propose for the north side of my property to appease the neighbor's concern for privacy as pin t) much as is reasonable for me to do so. 2) The Planning Commission states my house has excessive bulk and mass. In fact, its front elevation is of e0- 1 I equal height to the neighbor's house immediately to the south (uphill) side. Also, my design contains a balcony on the front elevation which minimizes the massing on the front elevation. On the south (uphill) side, the house is dug 4 feet into the natural grade. This puts the soil line at windowsill height. This reduces the visual impact of the house on that side from a two-story to a one and -a- half -story house. The house contains 1790 sq ft of living space. The 2200 sq foot figure is misleading, as it includes the garage and counts twice the double- height entry, and is not the way people are accustomed to thinking of house sizes. Upstairs the house contains a 3-foot wide hallway and a 10 -foot wide bedroom. These are minimum sizes according to California code and cannot be reduced anymore. 3) The ratio of the footprint of my proposed house to my lot size is actually less than some houses in my neighborhood. This is in direct opposition to claims of the Planning Commission. Here are the numbers: Address Ratio of footprint to lot size 14560 6th St. 66% 20582 3rd St. 37% 20584 3rd St. 36% 7 my proposed design 34% 4--- 14721 6th St.(comer of Pamela) 30% Truly Yours, /u7 CC, j e 1,A;4-42, P Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Thank you for your consideration. MAY_ 1 3 1992 Re: KINKIER PROJECT (DR -91 -064; V -91 -017) 14.706 6TH STREET Dear Council Members: I'm Herman Wyrsch and our family owns the adjacent piece of property to the north at 14700 6th Street. The structure on our property was built in 1893 as St. John's Episcopal Church and is listed as a historical landmark. My grandparents purchased the church in 1919 and it has been the family summer home ever since. we have watched what was the country become what is called "The Village" today. In February we reviewed plans for the proposed Kinnier pro- ject and were concerned about several issues. parking and size were definite objections. A two story, 2,226 sq. ft. home, built six feet from the property line, on an upgrade, non conforming 3,271 sq. ft. parcel, with the living quarters overlooking our back yard and pool, would greatly interfere with our privacy. The Commission asked for revised plans. In April we re- viewed the revised plans and were terribly disappointed in discovering very little revision was made to accommodate the size and privacy issues. The square footage is slightly re- vised for the parking problem, and excavating only two feet did virtually nothing for our privacy. The lack of space on both sides of the building makes planting trees large enough to screen for privacy impossible. The upstairs windows still overlook our yard and into our living room. The proposed size indicates that this house is being built to get the most square footage without any consideration for legal variances. This structure could, and should, be more closely scaled to the size of this lot. There is a market for smaller, charming village living. The smallest lot in Saratoga requires a structure that is conducive to its size and its surroundings. The Herman Wyrsch Family (415) 873 -5765 May 11, 1992 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: City Council Hearing on the Kinnier property at 14706 6th Street Scheduled for May 20, 1992 at 8:30 PM Members of the City Council, We have received your Notice of Hearing regarding the applicant's Appeal of Denial of Design Review. In general, we feel that the property owner should be able to determine the design and structural detail of the home to be built. Obviously the building must conform to existing codes and good engineering practice. In addition the building should blend into the existing neighborhood. We have not seen the drawings so cannot comment the blend of the proposed design. However your letter states that the proposed design fails to meet required setbacks and parking requirements. We also understand that variances should be considered and granted when reasonable. The idea of a 2,226 SQ. FT. dwelling on a 3,271 SQ. FT. parcel does not fit our idea of the nature of this part of Saratoga. Brownstones of New York or the wall to wall houses of San Francisco do not belong in Saratoga. Our primary concern centers on the surveyed lot lines vs. the existing fences and retaining walls. The survey commissioned by Ms. Kinnier alters the lot line position of all neighboring parcels. Sincerely, Mardi and Roy Smith 14739 Oak Street Saratoga, California 95070 -6029 USA May 18, 1992 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2.-(U 4, AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 20, 19p2 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering ((0 SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Reauthorization of Existing District Recommended Action: Adopt resolutions reauthorizing the District for FY 92 -93. Report Summary: Each year, the City Council must reauthorize the existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1. The attached two resolutions, if adopted, begin the reauthorization process. The first resolution directs the preparation of the •Engineer's Report. The second resolution appoints the attorneys for the District. Staff will return with the Engineer's Report at your June 17 meeting. The public hearing on the report will most likely occur at your first meeting in July. Fiscal Impacts; None directly. All costs of administering the District are charged to the various Zones and recovered via the annual assessments. ,Attachments: 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing prepara- tion of the Engineer's Report. 2. Resolution appointing attorneys. Mo ion Vote: PC:cw Printed on recycled paper. RECOMMENDED ACTION BACKGROUND, OZTVW Ct 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council e FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director THROUGH: Harry Peacock, City Manager Y Y er g DATE: May 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Quimby Act Park Dedication Fees COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Staff recommends that the current park dedication fee amount remain 'in effect. The City Council annually reviews the Park Dedication Fee imposed on new residential development. The current fee is $8,160 per unit. The purpose of the fee is to provide funds to attain and maintain park facilities for the City. During the past several years, the park dedication formula. has been adjusted to provide for a park ratio of 5 acres per 1000 residents, the maximum allowed by State law. The fee is based on a formula using population, persons per household, price of land, and park ratios. Substantial changes have not occurred during the past fiscal year in any of the criteria to justify a fee adjustment. Therefore, staff recommends that the current fee remain in effect and re- evaluated next year.