Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARM`Oa% AGENDA BILL NO. 12- --.1 `4 Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: February 17, 1982 C. Atty. 0AR711=:. Community Development C. Mgr. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- SUBTECr: Modification of Section 3.24(c) of the HCRD Ordinance Issue Summary The Planning Commission is currently reviewing portions of the HCRD Ordi- nance as it relates to density and slopes on which structures can be constructed. They have determined to have the density matters move along with their hearings on the Specific Plan Ordinances for consistency there - with'.' However, they have recommended revision to the provisions for defining slope on which structures can be constructed, per the attached report. This will be incorporated into the Specific Plan Ordinance. It allows for a variance procedure relative to building on steeper slopes. Staff does not feel that administration o.f.this will be unduly burdensome. Recommendation Set public hearing to receive public input relative to this proposed modification. Staff recommends approval of the Planning Commission's recommended change to the HCRD Ordinance. • Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Director of Community Development's Report dated 2 -09 -82 2. HCRD Ordinance 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 1- 27 -82. Council Action • yi ��� z. a p 3a.(fly��) � F stn, 1rGS� 3i REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 2 -09 -82 COUNCIL MEETING: 2-17-82 SUBJECT : Modification of Section 3.24(c) of the HCRD Ordinance The Planning Commission, at their meeting on January 27, 1982, considered modification of Section 3.24(c) of the HCRD Ordinance. After considerable discussion, they moved to recommend approval of this modification to the Council, with the following wording: • "No home or other structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds 40% natural slope at any location between two 5 foot contour lines, except that a Variance per Article 17 oF t e Zoning Ordinance may be granted w ere e tindings under Section 17.6 can be made, an an exception under Section 15.2 of the Subdivision r finance may be granted." (Underlined wording indicates the modi- fication to the current HCRD Ordinance.) Ro ert S . Slioo Director of Community Development RSS:cd • OI:DINANCE NS -3. 33 AN ORDI ',:AN :' OF THE CITY OF SAr\ATOCA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING A IIII.LSIDE CO2:SEI:VAIIW; RF11I1jE,ITIAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION BY ADDIX ARTICLE 3 -A THERETO The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTIO'N' 1: Section 1.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended by adding to it the following additional zoning district classification: HC -RD - HILLSIDE CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION 2: Article 3 -A is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 of the City of Saratoga, which Article shall read as follows: SECTION 3.20. PURPOSE. The IIC Zoning District is established to achieve the following purposes: (1) To create a zoning district and regulations therefor to implement the open space element of the Saratoga General Plan, directed to the preservation and conservation of the natural landscaping and open space at the same time as permitting orderly and regulated residential development, anI (2) To create a zoning district which will be compatible with and consis- tent with the slope conservation areas presently shown on the Saratoga General Plan, so that a rezoning of any part of said slope conservation areas to the 11C-F1 district will be consistent with such Ceneral Plan, and (3) To create a special zoning district which establishes.developrient density on guidelines and criteria based upon steepness of slope and other r ,.atters relating to devclopment capability, :ind by such district to replace the present open space regulations- of this City which consist of a co- mbination of R -1- 40,000 zoning district regulations tol,cther with slope density and other I development formulas and criteria set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance of this City, and • (4) Upon application of such zoning district regulations to the foothill and mountainous portions of this City, to insure an orderly and harmonious single - family residential development which will result in a minimal amount of disturbance to the natural terrain, and (5) Through a coordination of design and engineering skills to insure land use in balance with its natural ability to support development, and (6) To require geological and soils and other investigations and reports so as to minimize hazards, and (7) To protect and promote the health,- safety and general welfare of the co;3nunity, and (8) In so doing, to create a zoning district classification for applica- tion to open space areas which is reasonably adaptable to being combined with planned community development regulations (presently termed P -C) so as upon any such combination, to permit the clustering of homes upon concurrent dedi- cation of open space easements pursuant to the 1974 amendments to the Government Code (Government Code Sections 51070 - 51095), or as-such Government Code may hereafter from time to time be amended in relation to the dedication of such easements, and thus to additionally supplement the open space element of the General Plan. SP.C'CI0;1 3.21. PERMITTED USES. The following uses are permitted in an 11C-RD Zoning District: (a) Detached one - family d.aellings; (b) Raising of vegetables, field crops, fruit and nut- trees. and horti- cultural specialties, and the processing of such products as arc so raised or grot;n on the premises; (c) Fences, walls and hedges otherwise complying with the regulations set forth in Section 3.4 hereof, and which arc proximate to the principal • structure and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in excess of 4,000 square feet; (d) All other permitted uses as listed in Subsections (c), (d), (c), (f) and (g) of Section 3.2 of this Ordinance. SECTION 3.22. CONDITIO \AL USES. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, but only upon the prior granting of a Use Permit therefor in accord with the provisions of Article 16 hereof: (a) Swirning pools and tennis courts for community use; (b) Any other use listed as a permitted or a conditional use in an "A" (agricultural) or an "R -1" (residential) zoning district which is ilot listed in Section 3.21 hereof. ' • SECTIO:; 3.23. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA. The following listed regulations shall be in addition to and not in lieu of, any and all other development criteria and requirements set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance of this City. No use shall be established, and no building or other structure shall be erected or constructed in an liC -RD Zoning District, nor shall any building or other perniit •be issued therefor, unless and until the following development standards have been complied with: (a) Site Development Plan. A site development plan has been prepared and approved by the Advisory Agency in accord with Section 13.9 of Ordinance 60, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the physical location of each such use and structure is as is set fortli on such approved plan. file planting and landscaping, portion of said • plan shall, insofar as is reasonably practical, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and c C sedimeaat control element setting forth reasonable mitigation measures in acccrd with the excavating and grading and Subdivision Ordinances of the City. Grad- ing shall be representative of adjacent topography and be an extension of natural contours insofar as reasonably practical, and be designed to minimize c cut and fill and to avoid erosion, flooding, slides and other hazards. Water, 1 sewer and other utility services, streets and other access routes which tra- verse any geologic or soils hazard shall be specifically engineered to eliminate the risk of failure or collapse, and set backs from hazard areas shall be in accord with the geologic and soils investigation. report and recommendations. (b) Geologic and Soils Report. A combined preliminary geologic and soils investigation and report prepared by a registered engineering geologist certified by the State of California and by a registered Civil Engineer qualified in soils mechanics by said State, shall be filed in conjunction with the site development plan unless the City • Geologist determines that existing infornkztion pertinent to the Subdivision or Site Approval arlkes preliminary analysis unnecessary. The geologic and soils report shall fully and clearly present: (1) All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations based on the most current professionally recognized soils and geologic data (i.e., California State Mines and Geology, USCS, etc.); (2) The significance of the data, interpretations and evaluations with respect to the actual development or implementation of the intended land use through the identification of any significant geologic problems, critically expansive soils or other unstable soil condition which if not corrected may lead to structural damage or aggravation of future geologic problems both on and . off the site; -4- (3) Recommendations for corrective measures deemed necessary to • prevent or significantly mitigate potential damage to the proposed project and adjacent properties or to otherwise insure safe development of the property; and (4) Recommendations for additional investigations that should be made to insure safe development of the property. •(c) Design Review. Design review of all structures and landscaping has been granted pursuant to Article 13 hereof. Siting of structures and structural elevations shall be cor..patible with natural landscape and so located as not to substantially disrupt the natural silhouette of prominent ridges and ridge lines. C"eI,rTn-.T Z 7/. C rTT^ AP T!A A KrM T1C'ATCTTV C : - (a) Dcnsit•,r (Maximum Dwelling Units per Area). The maximum number of dwelling units (density) for each. development ' shall be determined by dividing the gross land area of the parcel being subdivided . by thy- .average gross land area per dwelling unit rounding down to the next whole number. No parcel or portion thereof which can independently be further divided br subdivided shall be included in the gross area used to determine the maximum number of units permitted. The average gross land area per dwelling unit shall be as determined by the foula and as generally represented in the following slope density table: AVG SLOIT ACIYD.U. AVG SLOPE AC /D.U. AVG SLOPI' AC /D.U. AVG SLOPE AC /D.IJ.IAVG SLOPE; AC /ll.U. 0 '' 1.10 10 1.31 20 1.64 30 2.16 40 3.18 1 # 1.12 11 1.34 21 1.68 31 2.23 41 3.34 2 :3' 1.14 12 1.37 22 1.72 32 2.30 42 3.50 3 ... 1.16 13 1.40 23 1.76 33 2.38 43 3.70 4 V4 1.18 14 1.'43 24 1,81 34 2.47 44 3.91 5 1.20 15 1.46 25 1.56 35 2.57 45 4.15(_ 6 1.22 16 1.49 26 1.91 36 2.67 46 4.43 7 1.24 17 1.52 27 1.97 37 2.78 47 4.74 1.26 18 1.56 28 2.03 38 2.90 48 5.09 0 1.2S 19 1.60 29 2.09 39 3.04 49 5.51 g;n* 6.00 � *I.lierc the site cxcccds a slope of over 50 /., no site should be less than 6.0 acres. (Note: E-� :pressed in gross acres.) �5- In al ' 1 cases ette followl.ttg formula sha the average gross land 11-- take mining ake precedence in deter - - area per dwelling unit; a =_ 1 C .9091 .014985S fib) Mininum Site Area ' The minir:uri net 43,560 site area ' square feet; Per dwelling unit and the avers shall be no less determined site area per dwelling than fined by the above g unit shall be e spt forth slo as Slope density table. • The average slope of the parcel be- by the followir.� being subdivided shall be o fo��,ula; determined S = -00229 I L , b Where; S av -erabe slope - Pe in percent I rounded to nearest whole percent contour interval in feet A = gross area in acres of the total (c) Fort" Percet Parcel bein n 40% g developed Slo0e- Prohibition. No home or other structure •• • i 40 " /,, shall be built "Pon a .. P slope which exceeds - -rT7ON 3.2' MIN It•ap k rrONT", ,OF WIDTH AND Site e set forth Width and sit � Le depth the minimum P shall b site ron e as follows; e, i i Fro - j' idt!i D t Ii 80 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. Oil a cul -de -s ac turnaround, i5 /, o the minirtLm frontage shall be more of the frontage oir.c e 60 feet where ad ` t1�c turnaround. ._ -6- -^ SECTTO ?: 3.26. COVERAGE, YARDS, BUTLDTNG IIETGIIT AI;D ACCESS ROADS. • (a) Covnr is e. • [7 The maximum impervious surface and building coverage shall not exceed 25% of the site area or 15,000 square feet, whichever is the lesser. (b) T•liriimLim Y,irds••and Setbacks. The minimum front, side and rear yards of the main residential structure on each site shall be as follows: Pront Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 25 'ft. ft. 35 ft. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the minimum setback of any building or structure from any planned or designated arterial or collector street shall be 75 feet from the curb line thereof, and where no established curb line exists the setback shall be 100 feet from the centerline of such street. (c) Building Height. No principal structure shall exceed 30 feet in height as measured from a warped plane parallel and conforming to the natural grade, and no acces .-ory structure shall exceed 12 feet "in height as measured in the same manner.' liaximum 30' PV Iteight _ __, __�„�•c�:J;"'"r Natural Grade Maxim:, Building lleignt of 30' r,icasurcd parallel to natural ground line. -7- C (d) Grade -of Private Accnss Roads and Driveways. • Unless otlicrwise required by the Advisory Agency, no private access roadway or driveway to or on any site shall exceed a grade of 18% for a dis- tancc in exccss*of SO feet. SECTION 3.27. MODIFICATIONS. The Advisory Agency may, in addition to the foregoing, impose additional conditions and restrictions to the development in said zoning district, and may grant modifications to the regulations prescribed herein with respect to fences and walls, site area, width, frontage, density, depth and coverage, and front, side and rear yards, at the time of approval of the site development plan for the entire property being developed, and without compliance with the provisions of.Article 17 of this Ordinance relating to variances.-.The approval of a site development plan shall automatically constitute a granting and per- mitting of such modifications as are shoran and delineated on the face of said C• plan. Such additional conditions and%restrictions, and such modifications and deviations shall only be.made and granted on a finding that the same is in the interests of the public health, safety and general welfare and in furtherance of purposes for the creation of the within zoning district classification, and in order to achieve compliance with one or more of the following guidelines and criteria: (a) To preserve (b) To minimize (c) To runimize (d) To minimize �. (c) To maxi,:iize (f) To minimize • (g) To avoid ha; trees and tree clusters; grading; site disruption; the distance from public services-; access; paving and other erosion producing activities; :ardour and sensitive areas; =8- seismic safety, slides, public service, etc., it is expected that this will affect the maximum number of dwelling units per acre as reflected in the table of Section 3. 24. Such impact may reduce the number of allowable dwelling units per acre. SECTION 3.25. RETROACTIVITY. Wherever property is rezoned to an HC -RD zoning district from another district classification, the density regulations herein shall not be retroactively applied so as to invalidate any site development plan that had theretofore been previously approved by the Planning Commission, so long as the development of such property in accord with said site development plan is completed within the time limits as specified in the ordinance or other regulation under which development in accord with said site development plan was required and imposed. The intent of this Section is to permit a site having an area, frongage, width or depth different from the minimums prescribed by the imposition of the within density regulations on such zoning, to continue as a non- conforming site to permit the use thereof for the permitted use in the IIC -RD zoning district notwithstanding such variation, so long as the development progresses and is concluded within the time limits as specified in the regulations governing development under such site development plan. The within provisions shall be in addition to those of Section 14,3 of this Ordinance. SECTION 3: If any section, sub::ection, this ordinance is for any reason held by a court invalid, such decision -,hall not affect the vali of this ordinance. The City Council of the City 9 - sentence, clause or phrase of of comj) et-en t jurisdiction to be lity of the remaining; portions • of Saratoga hereby declares that (h) To protect critical features of the natural landscape; (i) To protect the existing topographic character of a parcel or area; and (j) To protect the view of and from the steeper slopes in the City. • It is understood that the above- mentioned development criteria may or may not have an impact upon the site area and density (Section 3.24) permitted an individual. application under the provisions of this ordinance. In those cases where it is determined that the development criteria will have an impact due to seismic safety, slides, public service, etc., it is expected that this will affect the maximum number of dwelling units per acre as reflected in the table of Section 3. 24. Such impact may reduce the number of allowable dwelling units per acre. SECTION 3.25. RETROACTIVITY. Wherever property is rezoned to an HC -RD zoning district from another district classification, the density regulations herein shall not be retroactively applied so as to invalidate any site development plan that had theretofore been previously approved by the Planning Commission, so long as the development of such property in accord with said site development plan is completed within the time limits as specified in the ordinance or other regulation under which development in accord with said site development plan was required and imposed. The intent of this Section is to permit a site having an area, frongage, width or depth different from the minimums prescribed by the imposition of the within density regulations on such zoning, to continue as a non- conforming site to permit the use thereof for the permitted use in the IIC -RD zoning district notwithstanding such variation, so long as the development progresses and is concluded within the time limits as specified in the regulations governing development under such site development plan. The within provisions shall be in addition to those of Section 14,3 of this Ordinance. SECTION 3: If any section, sub::ection, this ordinance is for any reason held by a court invalid, such decision -,hall not affect the vali of this ordinance. The City Council of the City 9 - sentence, clause or phrase of of comj) et-en t jurisdiction to be lity of the remaining; portions • of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passes: this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub- • sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. The above and foregoing Ordinance, after hearings thereon held before the Planning Couanission of this City, was thereafter introduced, and after public hearing; held thereon by the City Council of said City, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 7th day of April 1976 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Kraus, Corr, Matteoni NOES: Councilman Brigham UsLVT: Councilman Bridges __: - 10 - Planning Commission Page 3 %leeting Minutes - 1/27/82 6. Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance)and the Grading Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area Staff intrd.duced John Blayney, the consultant preparing the ordinances for the Spe ific Plan. It was noted that public testimony will be taken on th s matter and it will be continued to a study session on February 2, 982 and the regular meeting on February 10, 1982. The public he ring was opened at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Blayney ga�e a presentation on the draft ordinance and discussion followed on four highlights of the ordinance: (1) transfer of develop- ment credits, N) concept of clustered housing, (3) large scale recon- touring and (4) concept of visible bulk of buildings. George Tobin, re resenting Cocciardi and Chadwick, discussed the density standards \as related to development credits. Joyce Hlava, a member of the Specific Plan Committee, expressed concern regarding the transferable development credits. She also addressed the issue of mass grading, stating that it had not been their intent to have mass grading -of an Entire hillside. Heber Teerlink, Mt, den Road, spoke to the issue of liability result- ing from the retroac ive provision of the Measure A Initiative, and urged the Commission `to consider this, f Wilhelm Kohler, President of the Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association =:•sc?Q- <rl <i;_= discussed the ordinanc� as it relates to the Initiative. The City :A:r.ii`i.: ^fir;= :�r>^w Attorney explained tha he t purpose of the Specific Plan is to.give more detailed guidance s to the implementation of Measure A. He added there has to be continu ty and consistency between the Draft Ordinance, =; :::>' > <'• "' the Measure A and the Sp cific Plan. He discussed the area that the HCRD Ordinance will cont o1, those areas not .covered by the Specific Plan. Mr. Kohler stated that th slope formula should be addressed and that the transfer credit be delete, since it is too confusing. . 7. Further discussion followed on the consistency, and the City Attorney commented that if there is\inconsistency between the three documents, it could be corrected at th6 time of the General Plan Review. He noted that the Draft Ordinance should reflect the Specific Plan, which should be consistent with the Initiative. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak ;Vay, stated that their area plan does reflect ways in which they feel the Specific Plan is inconsistent with Measure A. She also noted that the County of Santa Cruz is going to be in debt for millions of dollars for public roads that have recently been damaged, and any public roads that are damaged in landslides are the City's responsibility. \ It was noted that the City Geologist, Mr. Burkland from the County, and ;,:;ti•.�:;� >:.•;= ;;r::; �" w�' '4r. Brabb from USGS will be invited to the next study session on this issue. Staff was also asked to invite a representative from the Water District. \ Commissioner Zambetti stated that he, feels there are basic things in this ordinance that do not agree with Measure A, and he feels these should be reviewed and corrected. Commissioner Crowther agreed, but stated that he feels the City needs to get facts from the geologists to determine where the inconsistencies, are. It was directed that this item be continued to the study session on February 2, 1932 and the regular meetin; on February 10, 1982. It was note at the public is invited to the Istudy session. 7.(a J333- Consideration of a Revision to the Slone Density Formula in the 11C -RD District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Linejormula; continued from January 13, 1982 ' Staff explained that there are three parts to this matter; the first " two having to do with the density formula, and-the third part having t.; �Y. ;"- v::.r:.:::.••, >:- •.;::<.�. -: - y -� to do with the slope under existing structures. They noted that the current 11C -RD Ordinance has a statement relative to that which does - 3 - Planning Commission `lect ing Minutes - 1/27/82 GF -333 (cont.) Page 4 , - not allow for anv variation to the requirement that there be no slope under the structure exceeding 40 %. They added that the natter before the Commission tonight is to determine whether there should be put in place a process to allow a variance from that provision. The public hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m. Bob Saxe, the attorney representing Mr. Mauldin, discussed the pro - cedure. He noted that there is language in both the Subdivision Ordi- nance and in the Specific Plan that provides for a variance from this prohibition,,and they were asking that the ordinances be clarified by - :� •r;rz: ^ <t�• =� = -; allowing this variance procedure. He urged the Commission to send a favorable recommendation to the Council; honefully the City Council will allow the variance process, and Mr. Mauldin can then come in with specialized information from the geologist, engineer and architect and submit his application: Mr. Saxe gave the history of the Mauldin site Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing on Section 3.24(c) of GF -333. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney gave the proper wording for the modification of Section 3.24(c). Discussion followed on this wording, and it was determined that it should be: "No home or other structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds 40% natural slope at any location between two 5 ft. contour lines, except that (1) a Variance per Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance may be granted where the findings under Section 17.6 can be made, and (2) an exception under Section 15.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted." Commissioner -Laden moved to recommend approval to.the City Council of Section 3.24(c)tof GF -333, as modified above. Commissioner King seconded the motion. Commissioner Bolger stated that he would not vote in favor of this recommendation, since he feels that all parts.of this ordinance should be considered at the same time; he objects to a piecemeal basis. Commissioner Crowther agreed, stating that he had intended to vote for the recommendation, but did not feel that the ordinance should be considered on a piecemeal basis. Air. Saxe stated that they had addressed the Council, and the Council had suggested that they go back to the Commission on this particular point. He added that he did not feel this section has any bearing on the other issue that will be considered under this ordinance.- There was a call for the question on the :notion. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Monia dissenting. Commissioner Monia stated that he was voting no because the call for the question arose before there had been a motion to close the debate among the Commission, and he had not had an oppor- tunity to speak on the issue. 8a. A -803 - A. Moutafian, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the 8b. V -569 - construction of a two -story single family residence over 26' in height and a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 60' to 50' on Blue Gum Court; continued from January 13. 1982 Staff reported that this matter had been before the Land Use Committee and they had requested additional information, which has now been received. Commissioner King ,gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating that they had clarified their concerns about the site. The public hearing was reopened at 10:55 p.m. Mark Brogee, civil engineer, discussed the height and design of the home. Commissioner Crowther exnressed concern regarding the drainage system under the nool. It was noted that a condition in the Staff Report would cover this concern. Mr. Brogee discussed the drainage system being used and the elevation of the Pool. Tom Coe, 15217 Sobey exnressed concern regarding the slope and the inconsistency of the data received reuarding the slope. tie recommended that the footprint of the house be laid out and actual measurements of - 4 - r, AGENDA BILL NO. -� •: �� lal • II II 1 • t II' 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. -------- — ------- _4 ---- SUBJECT: A -804, V -568, James Elder, 19384 Chablis Court Issue Sunnazy Applicant an addition to an existing ratio requirements for the square feet. Applicant is Issues,: Square footage in compatibility wit Recommendation is requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct .two story dwelling which would exceed the maximum floor area R -1- 40,000 zoning district by 46% or approximately 2,000 also requesting a variance from impervious coverage requirements. excess of floor area ratio and impervious coverage requirements, i neighboring structures, and perception of size and bulk. 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended denial of the Design Review and Variance. (Necessary findings are listed on reverse side) Fiscal Impacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter of Appeal with subsequent letter requesting continuation of hearing. 2. Staff Report dated 1/6/82 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/13/82 4. Exhibits B & C 5. Resolution 6. Correspondence Received on Project Council Action 2117: Mallory /Watson moved to set for public hearing de novo 3/3. Passed 4 -0. (Callon absent.) 3/3: Clevenger /Jensen moved to uphold the appeal, granting design review approval and variance. Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Mallory opposed). FILE NO.V-S68 REPORT OF FINDINGS If the Council wishes to approve the subject Variance, they need to make all of the following findings: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply gen- erally to other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limita- tions on other properties classified in the same Zoning District. S. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. If the Council wishes to deny the subject variance, they need to make one or more of the following findings: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 4. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 5. The the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. I 4 t� THE ELDER - NELSON COMPANY January 15, 1982 Saratoga City Counsel 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: DE NOVO HEARING Dear Counsel Members, This letter is intended to request a De Novo Hearing on the Planning Commission's January 13th denile of Variance #568. The Variance Request is related to my need for an addition to my home. 4�-- / The topography of my property makes it impossible for me to add a needed bedroom wing without exceeding the 5% guideline listed in the Design Review Ordinance. I would appreciate being placed on the City Counsel's Agenda to hear my De Novo Appeal. Prior to the Counsel Meeting, I will provide much greater, indepth information regarding my situation to the Counsel Members. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ?,James F. Elder 19384 Chablis Court Saratoga, CA 95070 95 So. Market Street, Suite 500, San Jose, California 95113•(408)287 -4300 I loop ,M-- ff is THE ELDER - NELSON COMPANY February 8, 1982 Saratoga City Council ATTN: Betsy Cory 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Appeal of denial of variance to construct an addition to an existing two -story residence which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater than 5% at 19384 Chablis Court, Saratoga, CA. (Appellant /applicant, James F. Elder) Dear Council Members, Please accept my request for a continuance from the February 17th City Council Meeting to the March 3rd, 1982 Council Meeting for a hearing on the above mentioned appeal. An urgent business matter has made it necessary for me to be in Philadelphia from February 15th through the 19th, I will be out of town the evening of the Council Meeting. Due to the importance of this appeal, I feel it crucial that I be in attendance during the hearing. Therefore, I am requesting that this De Novo hearing be continued to the March 3rd Council Meeting, Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Sincerely, James F. Elder /cd 95 So. Market Street, Suite 500, San Jose, California 95113•(408)287 -4300 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Of City Of Sc;a�ora APPROVED t3:`: % DATE: 1/6/82 DATE: '� _ `� Commission Meeting: 1/13/82 !NI -1 !A, ", : SUBJECT V -568, A -804, James and Ruthann Elder REQUEST: Design Review and Variance approval to construct an addition to an existing two -story dwelling which exceeds the Standard Floor Area Ratio by 46% and the impervious coverage by 140. This project also requires Site Modification approval for the addition and the detached recreation room because the site slope is greater than 10 %. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption 15101 (e) PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by posting the site, advertising in the newspaper and mailing notices to 39 property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential SITE SIZE: 40,010 SITE SLOPE: Average site slope is 15.8. Slope at building site is 13.7 %. HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: Recreation Room: 13' Main Structure: 24'.5" SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing 1st Floor: Existing 2nd Floor: Existing Total: New lst Floor: New 2nd Floor: Total: New Recreation Room: 1,380 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. 4,380 sq. ft. 1,051 sq. ft. 2,048 sq. ft. 7,479 sq. ft. 688 sq. ft. C� Report to Planning Commission 1/6/82 V -568, A -804, Elder Page 2 FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,206 + 5% = 5,466 Maximum allowed by ordinance. This project exceeds the Standard Floor Area Ratio by 2,273 sq. ft. and the Maximum Floor Area Ratio by 2,013 sq. ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 510 20,405 sq. ft. proposed, 14,803 or 37% is allowed by ordinance. SETBACKS: Front: 44' Right side: 37' Left side: 30' Rear: 26' GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 916 Cu. Yds. Fill: 143 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 8 Feet Fill Depth: 2 Feet STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing an over 50% addition which would include five bedrooms and a four car, one recreational vehicle garage. The applicant would also like to enlarge the existing parking area to include a 30' x 60' sport court and add a recreation room accessory structure in the rear yard on a site with a slope greater than 10 %. The proposal requires a variance for the floor area ratio in excess of 5% and the impervious coverage in excess of the ordinance requirement of 37 %. Five findings must be made to approve a vari- ance. Staff recommendations on these findings will follow the analysis. Included with the plans is an alternate proposal for a separate garage structure located to the east of the existing dwelling. The detached garage would be 1,216 sq. ft. in size, while the attached garage underneath the main floor is 1,051 sq. ft. This proposal would leave an open covered area beneath the bedroom addition. A variance for the floor area ratio would still be required for the alternate proposal. Elevations for the detached garage are shown on page A -11 of the plans. As.shown on these plans, the neighbors view to the south would be impaired by the detached garage. The proposed recreation room located south of the main dwelling is 13 feet in height and 688 sq. ft in area. Since the slope of the lot is greater than 100, this accessory structure requires an approval of a modification to the site development plan, as does the addition. The accessory structure adds to the impervious coverage but does not impact the floor area ratio under the current design review ordinance. Staff did not note any negative impacts in terms of grading with this structure. Visually, it is topog- raphically screened to the south and west, and screened by the main dwelling (and the addition) to the north and west. Although the structure will be constructed at a higher portion of the lot, the plans indicate the roof will not appear higher than that of the main structure. In relation to the General Guidelines contained in the design review ordinance, the addition proposal is not in compliance with the Report to Planning Commission 1/6/82 V -568, A -804, Elder Page 3 following items: "Preservation of the natural landscape." Although the site has already been modified with the existing dwelling and surrounding landscaping, the proposal would cover over 20,000 sq. ft. or h the lot with impervious coverage which is excessive by ordinance standards. "Perception of size and bulk." Because of the site topography and lack of large mature vegetation, the size of the proposed structure would be visible from most of the surrounding area. However, the applicants have provided the Commission with land- scaping plans which indicate how the structure may be screened in future years. "Compatability with existing structures within 500 feet." Due to the rolling open topography of the area, the surrounding homes are also fairly visable. These homes appear to be large in size, but from Staff investigation, the proposal is still approximately 3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft. larger than the average -sized home in the area.(which ranges from 3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.). Findings V -568 Variances as specified by California State Statutes may be granted only when special circumstances applicable to the property, in- cluding site size, shape, topography location or surroundings are present. To confirm this, all the following five findings must be made. 1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. Staff noted no physical hardships associated with the subject property which warrant the construction of the non - conforming 2,000+ square feet to the existing home. 2. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the in- tended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. The portions of the zoning ordinance which apply to this site would also apply to the surrounding properties which have very similar site characteristics. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of"the speci- fied regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. C Report to Planning Commission 1/6/82 V -568, A -804, Elder Page 4 The requirements are the same for property owners in the same zoning district. 4. The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: ­ Design Review: Deny per Staff Report dated 1/6/82. Variance: Deny per Staff.Report dated 1/6/82. COMMENTS If the Commission wishes to approve the project or a portion of it, the appropriate findings need to be made prior to any approval necessitated by that being approved as well as a motion to modify the site development plan. If the approval`.is to be for­a'.por.tion of the proposed project it would be advantageous to approve the por- tion in concept, subject to receipt and review of a revised plan showing that being approved. Approved: Sharon Lester Planning Aide SL:jd P.C. Agenda: 1/13/82 . Planning Commission' Page 12 Meeting Minutes -.1/13/82 A -803 and V -569 (cont.) • -- _ - - - -; •_ - =_- •- -- =• - - geol _ and slope calculations was also requested. 1 a. A -804 James Elder, Request for'Design Review and Variance Approval ;:.w,aar.:.c�xW,..•.:.:..- 1S - to construct an addition to an existing two -story residence which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater than S% at 19384 Chablis Court .-_ Commissioner Monia abstained from the Commission's discussion and voting on this matter since he lives directly across the street and -- will be impacted by the proposal. Staff described the Proposal. They noted that the applicant wishes to change the original plan and add a sauna structure on to the h'= addition and not have a separated recreational room. They indicated .,,.;,.•.._ that this would add an additional 312 sq. ft. to the plan. .;..... ..; The public hearing was opened at 12:16 p.m. Jim Elder, the applicant, read a letter into the record, stating his reasons for desiring the addition. He commented that the topography -- of his property precludes him from improving his home as the neighbors could and still stay in the currently proposed square footage guide - ;- lines. Mr. Elder stated that it was financially impossible to sell his home and buy a larger one to meet his family needs, which includes five children. Mr. Elder submitted pictures of the neighborhood to show the comparison of the design to the other homes. Mrs. Elder read a signed petition from the neighbors, showing support for the proposal. a, Oscar Sohns, architect, submitted pictures of the cavity surrounding the home. He gave a presentation on the project. The landscaping ` "' """ " """ " ';- around the structure was discussed. Mr. Sohns indicated that they were going to put drains in behind the retaining walls and catch basins in the courtyard directly behind the garage, in order to - .- 7 =: = -' , -•:.:. ```�� convey the excess water to the street. Vic P4onia,- Granite Way, stated that the addition is approximately ..• 200 -210 feet away from their home, and he and his wife do not really ` feel that the addition is going to have a visual impact on them. He commented that he feels the topography should be taken into considera- :•a.> tion. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner - Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels it would be totally inappropri ate not to grant this variance, since it is in complete keeping with • r the ordinance, particularly when all of the neighbors are in favor of it. He added that he feels it also indicates that the floor area ratio per se used by itself is not necessarily a very good measure. He moved to approve V -S68, making the necessary findings, and speci- fically tieing the findings to the particular conditions that are in Section 4 of the Design Review Ordinance. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner Laden moved to approve in concept the design review. She commented that she agrees in fact that this house does meet the intent of the Design Review Ordinance, and she feels the applicant has worked very hard not to impact the neighborhood. She added that she thinks the design fits with the surrounding area and obviously the neighbors are in favor of it. She indicated that making the findings for the variance is difficult and she will vote against it, but would like to approve the design in concept and hope that the applicant can work within the design parameters and perhaps reduce the size to meet ordinance requirements. �a Commissioner Bolger stated that he thinks there are a number of r different issues that present a problem with this particular site. He commented that the square footage is in excess of 400 over the permissible floor area ratio, and there are also setback problems; - 12 - • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, .1/13/82 A, -804 d V - S 6 8 (cont.) ere fore, he cannot make the findings. Page 13 Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion to approve in concept. The motion was carried, with Commissioners King and Bolger dissenting. The applicant was informed of the 10 -day appeal period. 16. UP -S14 - J. Jordan and J. Hendricks, Request for a Use Permit to modify an existing non - conforming accessory structure over 6' in height in the required rear yard at 19467 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road. . . .... ... . . Staff described the application and the history of the site. They noted changes to the Staff Report concerning the relocation of the window. The public hearing was opened at 12:45 p.m. Robert Booth, attorney representing the applicants, stated that they did not feel a use permit is necessary in this instance for the structure, which may or may not have been erroneously built beyond the standards existing at the time, but which in fact has been used as a guest house. He commented that the applicants do not intend to add a kitchen and will put louvres on the window. He urged approval of the use permit to satisfy Staff and hopefully the neighbors, per the Staff recommendation. Lynn Belanger, attorney representing Mr. Robbins, the neighbor, addressed the sections of the code pertaining to this structure. She commented that they were urging the Commission to approve the use permit for the structure to be kept as a storage facility and garage. She noted the n_etition received on behalf of the Robbins' position. ° Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista Drive, gave the history of the accessory structure, stating that it has rarely ever.been used as a guest house. He added that allowing this use would materially injure his property and - impact his privacy. He noted a• letter received from Mr. Gatewood, addressing the effect of the structure on Mr, Robbins' property. Walt Angres stated that he lives to the west of the structure. He agreed that this structure depreciates the property and he feels the use is now being drastically changed from storage to a second family dwelling. Jessie McGuire, 15350 Bestview Court, stated that she feels that any change in the use of this structure would be a detriment to the Robbins property. �tiyrfµ; Jerry Jordan, one of the applicants, stated that the previous owner had allowed him to put the window in. He added that they have no intention of renting the structure; however, they bought the property as an investment and are trying to improve the property. He commented that one of the main reasons they bought it was for use as a guest house. Discussion followed on a possible recording on the deed to make any buyer aware of the fact that there is a use permit associated with the property. The Deputy City Attorney stated that perhaps the applicant would agree to a stipulation of some recording. He added that if the Commission decides to grant the use permit but restricts the use, then it might be appropriate to have that restriction recorded on the deed. Elizabeth Hendricks, one of the applicants, stated that the big attraction of the property was the guest house, and it would be a shame not to use that building for that purnose. y Mr. Robbins commented that the difficulty is the size of the structure and the closeness to his property. He stated that someone sooner or 13 - VAIII It, ;CIi >0 \1x}:.%= � xLL NO : V - S 6 8 _r RESOI.MON NO. V S 6 8 - -1 CITY OF SAT'ATOGA PI.A11NING MMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TIIIEP.EAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Ca:rmssi0n has received the application of JAMES ELDER for a Variance to construct an existing two - -story residence which exceeds the floor area ; and ratio by greater than 5% at 19384 Chablis Court 1%T11 -M1S, THE applicant (kax) -(has not) met the burden of proof required to support•his said application; IlO�d, TIUMFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful- consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the .application for the Variance be, and the same is hereby l =: (denied) , subject to the follol•ring conditions-: Per the Staff Report dated January 6, 1982. BE IT FUR'.iM -11 RESOLVED that the Report of Findiugs attached hereto -be a pprovcd and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to noL-ify the parties aifccted by this decision. 1'::S ;]7D AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planni.n- Ce,Z;lissi o.n, State of Call* forma, this 13th day of January l9 1982b), the. following roll CZLll vo`.c: AYES: Commissioners-Bolger, King, Laden, and Zambetti XUI;S: Coinmiss ioners Crowther and Schaefer AJ3SL:,';F: None - ABSTAIN: Commissioner Moni ATT ST • .� - :;1].1:1;111, I]111I:�; Secretary, 1 ning Commission �!Findings V -568 : J . Variances as specified by California State Statutes may be granted only when special circumstances applicable to the property, in- cluding site size, shape, topography location or surroundings are present. To confirm this, all the following five findings must be made. 1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance: Staff noted no physical hardships associated with the subject property which warrant the construction of the non - conforming 2,000+ square feet to the existing home. 2. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the in- tended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. The portions of the zoning ordinance which apply to this site would also apply to the surrounding properties which have very similar site characteristics. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. _ The requirements are the same for property owners in the same zoning district. 4. The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially in to properties or improvements in the vicinity. To whom it may concern; Thp undersigned neighbors have rpvim�ipd the proposed addition plans for 19384 Chablis Court, Fiaratoqa, California., They have no objection to the si7p or location of the addition. Name Address Sal SOO CCXG! , Me 3 4 ��� j •�,�;G� f (mot `f S7) Y-7 l 9z �� t. --T 7L v - A -N'A w 3 4/6 o 0 �' 4 s 22t THE ELDER - NELSON COMPANY 26 February 1982 The Honorable Linda Callon Mayor of Saratoga 11298 Fredericksburg Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Re: DE NOVO HEARING V -568, A- 804/19384 Chablis Court James and Ruthann Elder Dear Mayor Callon: This letter is intended to familiarize you with pertinent facts and information from our perspective as it relates to our March 3, 1982 De Novo Hearing. To date, we have explored every con - ceiveable option that would conform to the Commission's guidelines, be aesthetically acceptable to our neighbors and meet our needs as well. Due to the topography of our parcel, we are unable to satisfy all concerned without variance approval. For your consideration, I cite the following five findings which are a result of many months of research: 1. It is indeed a physical hardship and practical difficulty to conform a bedroom wing addition to the existing ordinance because of the topography conditions I have to deal with. A large cavity was created when the home was originally constructed. In order to expand our current bedroom wing by this addition, the only practical way is to build out over this cavity. 2. Our situation is unique in that our home is exceptionally visable from all sides of the property, affecting approx- imately ten neighbors. All affected neighbors have unani- mously approved our plans and most definitely rp efer it to its current appearance and all other options. The neighboring residences involved do not have the severe cavity affecting their topography. Also, the extent to which my home is visable from several other properties is 95 So. Market Street, Suite 500, San Jose, California 95113•(408)287 -4300 Page 2 unique. Neighboring properties could add bedroom wings to their homes without the detrimental effect mine could cause if the variance is not approved. 3. Strict interpretation of regulations prevents me from adding a bedroom wing to my property without a supporting structure underneath it. My neighbors could make additions to their homes without the necessity of a supporting structure. It is this supporting structure that corrects the cavity of the topography and is to be used as a garage that causes me to exceed the ordinance square footage guidelines. My option is to build a detached garage which would be a major distraction to my neighbors. In addition, the exposed supports of the bedroom wing would be especially distasteful. 4. This request for a Variance is in no way to be reflected as a special privilege or meant to be inconsistent with any limitations currently enforced by the Commission. The intent is to construct an addition that will have a positive aesthe- tic impact for my immediate neighbors and the community we are proud to be a part of. I am emphatically concerned with keep- ing within city ordinance. Planning Commissioner Vic Monia lives directly across the street from my home and, as a result, is directly affected by this proposal. Mr. Monia is totally supportive of our plans, as are all the other neighbors in the vicinity. Vic Monia made the statement at the January 13th Planning Commission Hearing that our home is "currently the ugliest house in the neighborhood and this improvement will be an enhancement ". 5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pub- lic, properties or improvements in the vicinity. To substan- tiate this statement, we have received over twenty signatures of immediate neighbors who have reviewed and approved our plans. Attached is a copy of the signed approval for your review. The decision, of course, will be yours. I am respectfully asking that you phone any of the neighbors listed below. These people are not only in agreement with our needs, but have individually agreed to lend extra support to request that the variance be approved. These neighbors are also most visually impacted by any modifications to our property. Dom & Louise Richiuso Jerry & Audrey Miatech 19303 Chablis Court 19300 Chablis Court 867 -5128 867 -2164 (continued on next page) Page 3 Don & Ann Waite 14708 Granite 867 -0210 I sincerely invite and urge you to all the circumstances surrounding consider all merits of this appeal the March 3rd meeting. Respectfully submitted, tF.Elder Ja 19 4 Chablis Court Saratoga, California 95070 aLL 8-Z- (408) 741 -2444 JFE /jbt Enclosure Vic & Karen Monia 14665 Granite 867 -1983 visit us at our home to review this appeal request. Please and tender your positive vote at N\• ti 'y'yrrgg Q ian+ii 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 o• (408) 867 -3438 March 30, 1982 Mr. James F. Elder 19384 Chablis Court Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Elder: The City Council, at their meeting on March 17, 1982, adopted Resolution No. 1066, which reverses the decision of the Planning Commission and grants Variance #V -568 and Design Review Approval #A -804. The City Council made the requisite findings, and these are attached as Exhibit "A ". A copy of the resolution is enclosed for your files. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, -ii Robert. SY . hook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure cc: Deputy City Clerk Oscar Sohns, 253 Almendra, Los Gatos, CA 95030 CITY OF SARR.OGA i AGENDA BILL NO. -23-1, DATE: February 16, 1982 DEPARI'MErPP:Adminis trative Services SUBJECT: Revised Joint Powers Agreement Relations Services Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. l C. Atty, C. Mgr. - Intergovernmental Lmployee The City of Saratoga has been a member of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Intergovernmental Employee Relations Services since 1974. Services provided include an annual compensation and benefit survey, completion of annual survey conducted by the League of California Cities, research of labor litigation, compiling ongoing "data bank" of compensation information for management and non - management classifications, information on bargaining settlements and trends, assistance in contract negotiations, etc. Periodic revision of the JFA is recommended by the membership and /or the Executive Board. The attached JPA contains minor modifications in the following areas: Fee Schedule - page 2. Old JPA lists a specific fee schedule for each member. New JPA specifies fee schedule to be set by Executive Board.. (Executive Board is elected by the members and actions are subject to challenge by the members.) This is not a major change of any concern. Compensation Survey - page 3. Old JPA required survey of 25 public agencies, new JPA requires survey of 34 public agencies. Supplemental Survey - page 4. Old JPA included a 24 hour allotment for survey time, new JPA includes a 16 hour allotment per member. Many members did not use the total 24 hour allotment and workload increases necessitated a change to a 16 hour allotment. Recommend -i tion Adopt attached Joint Powers Agreement for Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service. Fiscal Impacts During fiscal year 1981 -82, the membership fee for Saratoga was $906. Informa- tion being reviewed by the Employee Relations Service projects an 8% increase for 1982 -83, which would result in an annual fee of $978. Exhibits /Attachments Joint Powers Agreement Council Action 3/3: Clevenger /Mallory moved approval. Passed 5 -0. i JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICES This is a joint powers agreement between the executing public agencies and such other public agencies as may be subsequently added (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the parties "). WHEREAS, the parties are "public agencies" as that term is defined in California Government Code section 6500 dealing with Joint Powers Agree- ments; and WHEREAS, the parties are actively involved in employee relations under applicable provisions of the law; and WHEREAS, the parties are possessed of common powers and authority to col- lect, refine, analyze and use information, research and assistance in their respective employee relations; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to consolidate certain information, research and assistance functions and services in order to realize attendant eco- nomic and operational efficiencies. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to provide information, research and assistance necessary and relevant to the operation of the respective employee relations of the parties. 2. Powers. The powers to be exercised by the parties are those express and implied powers under applicable provisions of law relating to and governing employee relations of the respective parties, includ- ing, but not limited to, the power to collect, refine, analyze and use information, research and assistance in the area of employee relations. 3. Method. The method of implementing the above purposes and executing the above powers is to provide employee relations services in accor- dance with the terms and conditions hereof through staff and facilities of the County of Santa Clara, hereinafter referred to as "County ". By this agreement the parties do not create an agency or entity separate from the parties themselves. 4. Present and Additional Parties. The public agencies executing this agreement by and through their respective authorized agents (Present Parties) shall enjoy the rights and perform the duties prescribed by the terms and conditions hereof. Other public agencies subsequently added to this agreement in .accordance with the terms and conditions ti 2 hereof (Additional Parties) shall become and be parties to this agreement on the effective date of such addition and shall there- after enjoy the rights and perform the duties required in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof. The word "parties" as used in this agreement is intended to be synonymous with the terms "member" and "membership ". 5. Term. Irrespective of the date or dates of execution hereof by pre- sent or additional parties, the term of this agreement shall com- mence July 1, 1981 and shall be automatically renewed on July 1 of each succeeding fiscal year. A party intending to terminate membership in the succeeding fiscal year shall give written notice to that effect by May 15. All par- ties shall be provided advance notice in writing of the pending deadline for termination no later than April 15. The above provisions shall not apply to any party whose legislative body takes official action after May 15, to terminate participation under this agreement for the succeeding fiscal year. Notice of any such action shall be transmitted by the party to County within ten (10) days of the date on which it was taken. Any termination of this type occurring after July 1 shall cause the terminating party to remit to County a prorated fee for basic services for the subject fiscal year. This amount shall be based upon the party's current fee as determined in accordance with Section 6 of this agreement and the total number of days elapsing from July 1 through the date on which notice of termination is received by County. This period may be extended by written agreement between County and the terminating party in order to provide for the completion of requests for ser- vices in progress. 6. Fee Schedule for Basic and Special Services. The Executive Board shall set fees for basic services based upon number of employees, number. of employee organizations and such other factors as the Executive Board deem necessary. The Board shall also set fees for special services as necessary. Such actions of the Executive Board shall be final and binding. where an action of the Executive Board serves to modify the fee schedule for basic services during a fiscal year, a member may with- draw membership within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the modification. The member shall provide written notice to this effect to the County and shall be provided a pro rata refund of the fee for basic services paid by that agency for the fiscal year. This refund shall be based upon the number of calendar days remain- ing in the current fiscal year. This period for withdrawal shall be in addition to those set forth in Section 5 of this agreement. �r a) A compensation survey including thirty -four (34) public agen- cies located within the counties of Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara. This survey shall include: 1) Prevailing salaries for 14 job families. 2) Prevailing fringe benefit levels for 18 individual bene - fits. 3) Bargaining unit structures of the survey agencies, includr ing information regarding the expiration dates of existing agreements and next known salary adjustments. This survey shall be published annually so as to meet the data needs of the majority of the parties. 'yFi,� ?y ��*�i.�n� �c^�i•"'{r i�r.tti��N'%t.T�ny.`'�7'`,M �F41 S r ' 7. Commitment and Limitation of Funds. Each party shall pay a minimum contribution under this agreement equal to the fee for basic ser- vices established pursuant to Section 6. No party hereto shall be charged or liable for fees for services provided hereunder for any amount in excess of the party's minimum commitment except as it otherwise requests and receives special services in accordance with "+�v�•fS`'C+s. 't.^Y.'isyrc+C .:.::•f �- :rG.:..,5�,e �. .� this agreement. The parties expressly assume that additional revenues will be gen- erated throughout each fiscal year of this agreement to cover the full operating expense of the program, said revenues to be derived from fees for special services provided to the parties and /or ser- vices provided to non - parties in accordance with Section 16 of this agreement. 8. County Obligations. County shall: a; Hire and retain staff to provide the basic and special services ,'' hereinafter described, retaining. full legal responsibility, liability and control for the selection, retention, performance and terms and conditions of such employment by County. b) County shall maintain accounting and fiscal records in accor- dance with customary accounting procedures, all in accordance with accepted accounting practices used by the Controller of • the County of Santa Clara so as to accurately reflect all rev- enues derived and direct costs incurred under this agreement. ' c) County shall provide the basic and special services hereinafter described to the parties subject to the staffing and fiscal limitations anticipated and agreed to by the parties pursuant to this agreement. 9. Basic Services to be Provided. Each party hereto shall be entitled t.; x to the following services: a) A compensation survey including thirty -four (34) public agen- cies located within the counties of Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara. This survey shall include: 1) Prevailing salaries for 14 job families. 2) Prevailing fringe benefit levels for 18 individual bene - fits. 3) Bargaining unit structures of the survey agencies, includr ing information regarding the expiration dates of existing agreements and next known salary adjustments. This survey shall be published annually so as to meet the data needs of the majority of the parties. 'yFi,� ?y ��*�i.�n� �c^�i•"'{r i�r.tti��N'%t.T�ny.`'�7'`,M �F41 S r d) Research of labor litigation arising under the Meyers- Milias- Brown Act and under related labor relations statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act. e) Research regarding proposed and enacted labor legislation on both the State and Federal levels. f) Development of a "data bank" containing compensation informa- tion for both management and non - management classifications which shall be available to all members at all times. This information would include, as appropriate, salaries, fringe benefits, staffing levels, organizational information and class specifications. 4 Any party to this agreement shall, at its request, be included in the survey even if this serves to increase the number of agencies above the maximum of thirty -four (34). b) Supplemental survey information from within the State of Cali - r�, fornia over and above that provided under a) above, subject to a 16 -hour limit per party in each fiscal year. Where the compensation survey described in (a) above does not produce any salary information applicable to an employee orga- nization representing non - management employees and for which a fee is assessed a party in accordance with Section 6 of this agreement, that party shall receive an additional survey allotment of five (5) hours for each such employee organization. This additional allotment shall be provided without additional charge to the party or deduction from the party's 16 -hour allotment as described above. It shall only apply to the employee organization for which no salary data is provided in the compensation survey. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, neither the 16 -hour allotment nor the special supplement may be carried over to a succeeding fiscal year nor applied toward any other basic or special program service. c) Completion of the annual compensation survey (Series Report) conducted by the County Supervisors Association and completion of the annual compensation survey conducted by the League of California Cities. Any city or county party to this agreement may elect to waive the completion of the League of California Cities survey and receive an allotment of four (4) hours per fiscal year for application to any special service as defined - in Section 11 of this agreement. Such hours shall not be cumu- lative. Irrespective of how many parties may elect the afore- mentioned option, the Program shall continue to function as the data coordinator for the survey on behalf of all parties. d) Research of labor litigation arising under the Meyers- Milias- Brown Act and under related labor relations statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act. e) Research regarding proposed and enacted labor legislation on both the State and Federal levels. f) Development of a "data bank" containing compensation informa- tion for both management and non - management classifications which shall be available to all members at all times. This information would include, as appropriate, salaries, fringe benefits, staffing levels, organizational information and class specifications. 5 g) Development of a "data bank" containing information on bargain- ing settlements and trends among local public jurisdictions and, where appropriate, other public agencies and industry within the State of California. This information shall be available to all members at all times. h) Assistance in contract negotiations and administration over and above the development of settlement data. This would include providing members with copies of agreements, agreement excerpts on subjects selected by the member and consultation regarding negotiations or grievance issues. Where the aforementioned consultation entails the review of a party's existing agree- ments, the review of employee organization demands on that party or the review of counter - proposals made by the party and/ or its employee organizations, staff time so expended shall be charged against that party's 16 -hour allotment for supplemental survey services. In no event, however, shall such review en- tail the preparation of formal, written material without the assessment of a fee for special services in accordance with Section 6'of this agreement. i) Consultation regarding issues and questions arising under per- sonnel rules and employee relations regulations. This service shall not include the review of complete sets of rules, the development of rules or on -site consultation. Such services may be provided as special services. j) Development of information regarding arbitrators, fact - finders and mediators. k) Conducting workshops on topics of particular significance. This service shall not entail additional fees except as to meet costs for use of outside meeting facilities and /or speakers. The Executive Board may add, delete or modify the basic services provided under this agreement. 10. Special Services Available. Special services available to the par- ties include, but are not limited to the following: a) The development of compensation data over and above the allot- ments for survey services set forth in Section 9(b) of this agreement. b) Consultation on contract negotiations and administration not covered under Section 9 as a basic service, and direct partici- pation in either contract negotiations or administration. 6 c) Consultation regarding personnel rules and employee relations regulations not covered as basic services under Section 9 of this agreement, and the development of specific sections or complete sets of such rules. d) Conducting classification studies. e) Conducting special studies on any appropriate labor relations matter which may be requested by any one or more party. 4) The Board shall meet as necessary to fulfill its ' functions, but not less than once per year. The frequency of and agendas for such meetings shall be determined by the chairman, or vice - chairman, in consultation with staff. Except in extreme cases, each Board member will receive advance, written notice of meetings, together with an agenda of matters to be discussed. To the extent feasible,_each party shall also designate an alternate who shall serve in the absence or unavailability of its regular representative. 2) By majority vote, the members of the Executive Board shall select a chairman and vice - chairman at its first meeting of the new fiscal year. The terms of such officers shall extend for at least the balance of that year. A vacancy in either office shall be filled for the balance of the term by majority vote of all parties to the agreement. th e four (4) imme i3) A nominating c ommittee consisting of - ate past chairmen shall recommend individuals for the offices of chairman and vice - chairman. If a past chairman is unavailable, the vice - chairman shall serve. If neither is available, the current chairman will name the addition- al member(s). The Executive Board shall not be bound by these recommendations. 4) The Board shall meet as necessary to fulfill its ' functions, but not less than once per year. The frequency of and agendas for such meetings shall be determined by the chairman, or vice - chairman, in consultation with staff. Except in extreme cases, each Board member will receive advance, written notice of meetings, together with an agenda of matters to be discussed. 5) A quorum of thirty percent (308) shall be required in order for the Board to meet or take final action on any matter before it. Except where otherwise provided in this agreement, a majority of the quorum is required for the Board to take action. 6) A written record of all business conducted at Board meet- ings shall be maintained by staff and distributed to all 1, c parties to this agreement. The review, correction and approval of such minutes shall be an item on the agenda of the immediately succeeding meeting of the Board. b) The Executive Board shall have the following functions: 1) To establish priorities in the performance of Program ser- vices in the event that requests for such services create `. conflicts as to timely and efficient performance. Program s.. staff or any party to the agreement may seek and obtain such a determination. r !sa ►!'di 4 iiiks 2) To establish policy guidelines concerning the subscription r, of additional parties to this agreement and the offering . hy.fii zxnY'�i21^±'jlti 'i'1}t? tj ffic . S,y, l .tfy. of Program services and products to non - parties pursuant to Sections 4, 14 and 16 of this agreement. 3) To insure the full cooperation of all parties in accor- dance with Section 17 of this agreement. I 4) To assume such other functions as are expressly delegated to it in accordance with other sections of the agreement. 5) To determine the salary of the Program Manager, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County. c) The Executive Board shall have no power to alter, amend, modify kfry or terminate this agreement except as expressly delegated to it in accordance with other sections of this agreement. 12. Management Committee. a) The Executive Board shall delegate its powers to a Management ' Committee. Excepted from this delegation of powers is the authority to: a 1) Adopt the budget; 2) Make changes in the fee schedule; 3) Obligate the parties financially in any way; 4) Select the chairman, vice- chairman and members of the Management Committee. r > These powers shall be exercised only by the Executive Board. b) The Management Committee shall consist of seven (7) members serving one -year terms. The chairman and vice - chairman of the Executive Board shall be members of the Management Committee and shall serve as its chairman and vice - chairman. The remain- ing five members shall be chosen by the Executive Board, acting s- upon the recommendation of the nominating committee. The Executive Board, however, shall not be bound by the nominating committee recommendations. The Management Committee must in- clude at least one (1) representative from each of the follow- ing categories: 1) Counties and cities of 250,00 population or above; 2) Cities of 50,000 population or above; 3) Cities of under 50,000 population and special districts. y ,. The nominations committee and Executive Board shall also attempt to select Management Committee members from all geo- graphic areas and interests represented in the Program. C) A quorum of four Management Committee members shall be required in order for the Committee to meet or take final action on any matter before it. d) The Management Committee shall meet as necessary to fulfill its functions. The frequency of and agendas for such meetings shall be determined by the chairman, or vice - chairman, in con- sultation with staff. e) Except in emergency cases, each Executive Board member will receive advance written notice of meetings, together with an a agenda. Management Committee meetings shall be open to all members of the Executive Board. f) A written record of all business conducted at Management Com- mittee meetings shall be maintained by staff and distributed to all members of the Executive Board shortly after each meeting. The review, correction and approval of Management Committee minutes shall be an item on the agenda of the succeeding meet- ings of the Committee. o n> Upon the petition of five (s) or more representatives on the Executive Board, the Executive ooncu sxnzz be convened to re- view and accum' modify, or reverse any decision of the Manage- ment / z»' ' The County shall compute the fee for basic ser- vices payable under this agreement and shall promptly submit a ` statement therefor to each partx' Statements for special services rendered to parties pursuant to this agreement shall be rendered monthly or upon completion of said services, whichever uocuco 000ner, All statements shall be paid to County no late, than thirty (»o) uavu after receipt. 14, Additional Parties. Other public agencies may become additional parties to this agreement by executing an agreement with County for and on uenazc of all parties to be unuou by the terms and conditions of this agreement and delivering same to cvootv accompanied by the full fee for basic services for such local aeencv, The fee for basic services applicable to agencies becoming addition- al parties subsequent to July 1 of any fiscal year may be subject to proration in accordance with policy established by the Executive ` ooa,u' Information zs' i o . Each party shall keep con- �o �:�o agreement all written materials provided pursuant ' bearing a notation that the same is "confidential". This paragraph shall not preclude a party from such limited reproduction and u�o- tci»utioo of such written materials within its own agency as is re- qui,eu for such party's employee relations purposes; nor axuzl it preclude a party from using the data provided in such written matec- iala for its own employee relations evrpnoea or for purposes of uia- cussing same with other parties to this aq,eement, Neither the con- ciuential written material provided pursuant to this agreement nor the data contained therein shall be reproduced, distributed or ' `- divulged save and except as otherwise allowed by this Section and . . then only consistent with the terms and conditions of this agreement to provide employee relations services to the parties to this agree' ment. County may copyright in its name, for and on behalf of all parties to this agreement, any publication produced as a result of ' this agreement; provided, that such copyrighted material shall be ' available crcc of ooa,se or at minimal cost to the parties. ' ' zs i Non-Parties. Services may be provided non-parties con- ` a/utent with the terms and conditions of this agreement; e,ovmeu, that fees for such services anazz be no less than the fees which ' would be charged a party hereto; and pcu,iueu further that, where ' appropriate, such non-party enters into an appropriate written agreement with the County for and on behalf of the parties. a - 4 10 17. Agency Cooperation. County shall act as agent for and on behalf of the parties pursuant to this agreement and shall use its best efforts consistent with the fiscal limitations herein to perform as required herein, subject to reasonable availability of required data. The parties shall cooperate with each other and with County acting on behalf of all in providing information required for per- formance under this agreement. 18. Contract Liability- Indemnification. Each party to this agreement shall bear financial responsibility for the acts of their respective officers, agents and employees; and each party shall indemnify, save harmless and defend the other parties from all claims for money or damages arising from errors or omissions of such party's respective officers, agents and employees in the performance of this agreement. In no event shall other parties to this agreement be liable under terms and conditions of agreements reached, if any, between an indi- vidual party and any employee organization. 19. Fiscal Responsibility. Upon the termination of this agreement, County shall render a final accounting to parties accurately reflect- ing in accordance with accepted accounting practices the revenues derived and the direct expenses incurred in performance of this agreement. If a surplus in revenues derived remains at the termination of this agreement, County shall refund such surplus to the parties on a pro rata basis determined by their respective payments for basic services hereunder. In reliance upon the fiscal accountability of the Controller of the County of Santa Clara and his official bond, the parties expressly waive any separate bond by County under this agreement. 20. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this agree- ment, County enters into this agreement on the express condition that the services of the Program Manager will be available to County as an employee or contractor of County; and County retains the sole option to terminate this agreement if for any reason the Manager's services otherwise become unavailable to County; provided, that before such termination, County shall use its best efforts in a prompt fashion to obtain a satisfactory replacement. If it becomes necessary to terminate this agreement, County shall render an accounting to all parties and return to each party the surplus, if any, in accordance with Section 19 hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the below designated present parties have executed this agreement by and through their respective authorized agents on the dates set forth below. CM . J 11 CITY OF CAMPBELL CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW By: Date: By: Date: CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF PALO ALTO By: Date: By: Date: CITY OF GILROY CITY OF SAN JOSE By: Date: By: Date: CITY OF LOS ALTOS CITY OF SANTA CLARA By: Date: By: Date: TOWN OF LOS GATOS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Bv: Date: By: Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME By: Date: CITY OF MILPITAS By: Date: CITY OF MORGAN HILL By: Date: ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BY: Date: CITY OF MILLBRAE Date: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: Date: CITY OF SUNNYVALE Bv: Date: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA By: Date: CITY OF SARATOGA By: Date: CITY OF DALY CITY By: Date: CITY OF FOSTER CITY By: Date: CITY OF BRISBANE Date: SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT #4 Date: CITY OF SAN MATEO By: Date: CITY OF FREMONT By: Date: 4 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: AQ -7 Initial: Dept. Head: 70-- DATE: February 17, 1982 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr SUBJECT: Training Program for Japanese Garden Specialist Issue Summa The people in Japan have informed the City that it is not possible to implement the original concept of a six month Japanese Garden Specialist Exchange Program between the City and Japan. Mr. Yasui of Kyoto has informed the City that it would be possible to have our Japanese Garden Specialist, Jack Tomlinson, participate in an intensive eight week training program in Japan, and that it is very likely that the Head of the Imperial Garden staff may come to Saratoga to work with Jack at Hakone, for a yet to be determined period of time, after Jack returns from Japan. Being without a full -time staff member for this length of time will require the use of additional part -time staff at a cost of $1,300. Recommendation Approve the Japanese Garden Specialist's participation in an eight week training program in Japan and authorized expenditure of $1,300 for additional part -time staff. Fiscal Impact The City will continue to pay the Japanese Garden Specialist regular salary and benefits and the Division will require an additional $1,300 for part -time staff. Jack Tomlinson has agreed to pay for his own transportation to and from Japan which is approximately $1,400. Attachments /Exhibits Background report. Council Action 2117: Mallory /Jensen moved to approve and authorize $1300. Passed 4 -0. o REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 2/11/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 2/17/82 SUBJECT*- BACKGROUND OF JAPANESE GARDEN SPECIALIST TRAINING PROGRAM Original Concept The original concept was for an actual exchange program, i.e., our Japanese Garden Specialist was going to Japan and someone coming here for six months. This program would have been accomplished within the dollar amount available for the Japanese Garden Specialist's salary and benefits and was recommended to you and received preliminary approval last December. This Program was being coordinated by a result of his father's death he is to implement the six month exchange. Present Concept Mr. Kiyoshi Yasui of Kyoto, Japan and as unable to complete the necessary arrangements The present proposal would be for this City's Japanese Garden Specialist Jack Tomlinson to go to Japan for eight weeks of intensive training between April 10th June 6th, 1982. Jack would have the opportunity to work with Mr. Sawaragi, Head of the Imperial Garden staff, with Dr.. Nakamura, Head of the School of Archetecture of the University of Kyoto, with Mr. Ueda, one of the world's leading authorities on Bamboo and with Mr. Inoue, Manager of the Kyoto Bamboo Garden. The Japanese people have also agreed to provide Jack with room and board for the period of time he is in Japan. This proposal includes the City continue to pay the Japanese Garden Specialist regular salary and benefits for the eight week period of time and would request allocation of $1,300 to support the cost of 40 hours per week additional part -time staff in order to continue the regular maintenance and coverage of Hakone Gardens. Jack has agreed to support the cost of his own transportation, which is approximately $1,400. .. Mr. Yasui has also proposed that after Jack's return from Japan that Mr. Sawaragi Head of the Imperial Garden staff come to Saratoga to work with Jack at Hakone. I ti February 11, 1982 Background of Japanese Garden Specialist Training Program Page Two This would further Jack's training and be a' valuable assistance to the City in our quest to maintain the authenticity of this Garden. Mr. Sawaragi will also be able to assist the Bamboo Society in establishing the design and planting plan of the Bamboo grove. The Japanese people have agreed to support the cost of Mr. Sawaragi's transportation and Roy Swanson, the City's Park and Landscape Supervisor has agreed to provide room and board while he is in Saratoga. Potential for Hakone Foundation The Council in discussion connected with the Goals and Objectives of the City, considered working toward the establishment of a Foundation to help support Hakone Gardens. It is likely that interest in the Foundation may be brought about as a result of this training program and Mr. Sawaragi's visit to Saratoga. It would be appropriate for the City to solicit donations and gifts for Jack to take to his benefactors in Japan from residents of Saratoga, and it.is very likely that several functions could be held for Mr. Sawaragi when he is in Saratoga which would foster a public education program leading toward the establish- ment of a Foundation. Staff are recommending approval of this training program proposal. Barbara Sampson, Director Maintenance Services Department ,A - AGENDA BILL NO. 2- d- 3 CITY OF SARATOGA DATE: February 17, 1982 DEPAR<Tmwr: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, SDR -1362, JAMES DAY, MARION ROAD Issue Summary One year maintenance period has expired and all public improvements are ready for acceptance into the City system including 100 L.F. of half street. Recomne_ndation Adopt Resolution No. SDR- 1362 -3 accepting public improvements, easements and right -of -way. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Director of Community Development memo - 2/17/82 2. Resolution No. SDR- 1362 -3 Council Action 2/17: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0. 1. T rp, IL ' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARAI'OGA, CALIFORNIA 93070 -� 008) £367 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1362 Location: Marion Road DATE: February 17, 1982 The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1362 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilitie$ be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion SDR - 1362 -3 which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: James Day Address: P. 0. Box 387, Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 1/21/81 3. Improvement Security: Type: Investment Certificate Amount: $10,000.00 Issuing Co: Sumitomo Bank of California Address: Park Center Plaza San Jose, CA Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 115321 4. Miles of public Street: 100 L.F. half street 5. Special Remarks: RSS /c? sm Robert S. Shook RESOLUTION NO. SDR- 1362 -3 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGIIT -OP -WAY The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as follows: s SECTION 1: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering rights -of -way over portions of streets: a.) Offer recorded on January 17, 1964 in Book 171 at Page 37 of Santa Clara County Records. SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described Improvement Bond is hereby ordered released: That certain Improvement Bond (Type) Investment Certificate No. 115321 Dated: 7/11/79 issued by: Sumitomo Bank of Calif9rnia The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of 19 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga..by the following vote: AYES: - NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR ITT 'S?�"° ja. '� "•iii � r , _ X15 : @Eq n��3(g'' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 �•�' �;;# (408) 887 -3438 February 18, 1982 Mr. James Day P. 0. Box 387 Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: SDR -1362 Dear Mr. Day: We reported to the City Council at its regular meeting of February 17, 1982 that the one -year maintenance period has •expired for SDR -1362, and all public improvements are ready for acceptance, including 100 L.F. of half street. The Council therefore adopted Resolution No. SDR- 1362 -3, accepting public improvements, easements and right -of -way. A copy of this resolution is enclosed for your file. Very truly y urs, Robert S. Shoo Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure / cc: Deputy City Clerk ✓ CITY OF SARATOGA r AGENDA BILL NO DATE: February 9, 1982 DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services ---------------------------------------------------------- SU&TECI': Donations for Saratoga Community Library Issue Sunnary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The Council has requested to be able to review and accept all donations to the Saratoga Community Library. Attached is a letter from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian, outlining various gifts to the Saratoga Community Library from the Friends of the Saratoga Library and various individuals. Recommendation Accept donations to the Community Library as indicated on attachment, and request letters of acknowledgement be sent. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments Letter from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian Council Action 2117: Accepted on Consent Calendar 4 -0. l County of Santa Clara California Mr. Wayne Dernetz, City Manager City Hall. 137 77 Fru-itvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Dernetz, Saratoga Libraries Members, Santa Clara County Library System Saratoga Community Library Village Branch Library 13650 Saratoga Avenue 14410 Oak Street Saratoga, California 95070 Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -6126 (408) 867 -3893 February 4, 1982 The Sar.atooa Library's Gift Committee recommends` acceptance by the City'Council of the following items donated during the last six months of 1982: From the Friends of the Saratoga Library, P.O. Box 2642, Saratoga: Checks as follows: $ 54.63 to Milligan News Co. for additional award books for children completing the Summer Reading Program (9/3/82) 105.33 to Coalition to Restore Quality Library Service, for 20 mugs to be given as awards to library volunteers (9 /17/82) 75.00 to Randy Wilson, for entertaining at a children's program with "Songs and Stories from my Father's Land" (9/24/82) 95.00 to Ranger Steve, for providing a children's program with a tiger and a lynx the children could touch and talk with him about (9/29182) 540.49 to Eric Schramm for construction of a phonorecord bin to match those already being used (10/12/82) 41.94 to IIighsmith Co. for dividers for the children's phonorecord bin (10/28/82) From Mr. and Mrs. Laurence Dean, 14694 Oak Street, Saratoga: 20.00 an excellent used black and white Polaroid Land camera, for publicity pictures acceptable to the newspapers (7/30/82) From Mrs. Mary Holbrook, 14649 oak Street, Saratoga: 52.25 a like -new Argus 500 watt slide projector (8/7/82) From Mr. Gary Miller, 1033 Huntingdon Drive, San Jose 95129: 1500.00 an aerial map of Saratoga and lighted cabinet for display of the map (est.) and overlays (to be delivered by the City) *(12/28/82) *A thank -you letter was sent on this date to qualify the gift for a 1981 deduction. Sincerely, ® An Equal Opportunity Employer r CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO... Initial: Dept. Hd.- C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: UP -514, Jerry Jordan /John Henricks, 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- _ Issue S=ary Applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow the remodeling of a non - conforming two -story accessory structure for guest house use in the rear yard of the subject lot. Although the structure received a building permit in 1965 for a garage and storage structure, it did not comply with ordinance requirements at that time in terms of height and the rear yard setback. Current ordinance requirements for height and ­setbacks have not changed the status of the structure. The adjacent neighbor has expressed that privacy impacts have resulted from a window that was installed. At their meeting, the Planning Commission gave Conditional approval for the structure for garage and storage use only. Reconmendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of the Use Permit with Conditions to the Planning Commission. (Necessary findings are listed on reverse side) Fiscal Impacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter of Appeal 2. Staff Report dated 12/31/81 3. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/13/82 4. Exhibit B 5. Resolution 6. Correspondence Received on Project Council Action 2117: Mallory /Jensen moved to set forpublic hearing de novo 3/3. Passed 4 -0. ( Callon absent.) 3/3: Jensen /Watson moved to uphold Planning Commission recommendations for use as garage and storage with conditions that any plumbing other than drain and sink on lower level be remove( 220 wiring and outside floodlights may remain; window must be removed. Passed 4 -0 (Callon abstainina). 0 USE PERMIT REPORT OF FINDINGS FILE NO. UP- 514 If the City.Council wishes to approve the subject application, all of the following findings need to be made: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of .the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site • is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. If the City Council wishes to deny the subject application, at least one of the following findings needs to be made: 1. That 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. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to prop- erties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 0 Ii January 22,1982 lo: Members of the Saratoga City Council Saratoga , California RE: Use Permit #UP--514 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Saratoga Planning Commission's decision January 13,1982 on Use Permit #UP -514 operates directly and harmfully on'our personal and property riShts, we therefore request a de novo hearing to appeal that decision. Sincerely, Je y i+l. ordan J�� n M. Jordan 21463 Saratoga Hills Road 867 -0642 John He Tlicks =Tzd�eth Henricks 20011 Glasgow Dr. 867 -6994 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/31/81 Commission Meeting: 1/13/82 SUBJECT UP -514, Jerry W. Jordan and John D. Henricks 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road -----------------------------.----------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Approval of a Use Permit to convert an existing garage and storage structure to a guest house. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is classified as Categorical Exemption, Class 1, Section 15101(a). PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper, posting the site and mailing notices to 29 property owners in the vicinity. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 40,000. (;uRRnTTNT')TT,Tr. T:ANTI TTCPC - SITE SIZE: 1.053 acres HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Very low density residential. 0 Single family residential 19' to peak. 1300 sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO: 10.7% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 25% SETBACKS: Front: 215' (Accessory Structure) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Right side: 6' Left side: 137' Rear: 10' This matter was brought to the attention of the City Council at their meeting of December 2, 1981 as a result of a neighbor's complaint about an- accessory structure in the rear yard of the applicant, because of a possible change in its use in progress Staff Report UP -514 12/31/81 Page 2 and its questionable legality. Although the structure received a building permit in 1965, it exceeded the height, coverage and setback limitations in effect at the time of its construction. The City Attorney felt that the City was estopped from removing the structure, and the City Council determined the structure to be illegal and directed the owner to apply for a conditional use permit. According to Ordinance NS -3, Section 3.7 as adopted in August, 1961; accessory structures not attached to the main structure not exceeding 14 feet in height could be located in the required rear yard provided that no more that 500 sq. ft. or 100 of the area of the required rear yard, whichever is greater, could be covered by such structures. 4 The total height of the structure to the peak is 19 feet, and exceeds the 14' limit measured either as an average or total height. It also exceeded the coverage requirement, which in this case is 10% of the required rear yard, or 854 square feet, since the first floo_c__covers 1000 square feet, The current zoning regulations would not allow an accessory structure over 12 feet in the required rear yard (50'). At the time the structure was built, setbacks for accessory structures used for human habitation or containing audible machinery or equipment in the rear yard less that 14 feet in height and less than 500 sq. ft. or 10% coverage was 5 feet from the side and rear property lines. Structures any taller or larger than this were not permitted in the required rear yard. Currently, the rear yard setback for a structure of this height and size located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district would be a minimum of 50 feet, while the side yard setback could be 20 feet. The existing structure is approximately 10 feet from the rear property line, and 6 feet from the side. Throughout the years the structure has been used as a garage, for storage purposes, and intermittently as guest facilities. Floor plans submitted for the changes taking place indicate that the first floor will contain a garage, living room and office with a wet bar, and the 800 sq. ft. second floor will contain 2 bedrooms and a bath. The first floor was previously occupied by garage space and a partitioned room, while the second floor was one open room. There were no restroom facilities. The current zoning requlations permit one guest house or accessory living quarters without a kitchen. The applicant was in the process of making the interior improv- ements and adding a second story window facing the rear property line when the matter was brought to staff and subsequently the City Council. One of the major objections from the neighbor was the new window which faces the pool area in his rear yard, claiming that it greatly reduces his privacy. The applicant has , Staff Report 12/31/81 UP -514 Page 3 responded to this concern by indicating on the plans that fixed louvers slanting upwards will be installed over the window to block the view to the neighbor's property.. The purpose of this window is primarily to provide light and air to the new bedroom. Attic space along the side walls prevents the relocation of the window there. One of the Council members brought up the concern that it appeared the structure could easily be converted from a guest house to an apartment with the addition of a kitchen. One way to hinder this possibility would be to prohibit the installation of 220 voltage. However, the applicant states that 220 v was installed for hot water and space heating when the building was constructed in 1965. The Planning Commission has the discretion to condition that this service be removed. FINDINGS: a. That the proposed location of the conditional use in . accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. With the issuance of a conditional use permit for this use, a --long with any imposed conditions of approval, the location will be in accordance with the zoning ordinance and purposes of the district in which it is located. b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public helath, safety -or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff does not feel that the use of the structure as a guest house without a kitchen would be detrimental or materially injurious to the surrounding neighborhood. C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Through. the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit, the use will comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this staff report, Exhibit "B ", and the following conditions: 1. -The window facing the rear property line shall be covered with fixed louvers which do not permit visibility to any adjacent properties. 2. The structure shall be used.as temporary guest facilities only, without a kitchen. Approved: Nancy Ho man,6Planning Assistant NH:lt IP. C. Agenda 1/13/82 Planning Commissio( ( :: Pa e 13 Meeting Minutes 1/13/8.2 g A -804 and V -568 (cont.) therefore, he cannot make the findings. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion to approve in concept. The, motion was carried, with Commissioners King and Bolger dissenting. The ao icant was informed of the 10 -day appeal period. 16 �UP_51 4 - - Jordan and J. Hendricks, Request for a Use Permit to modify an existing non - conforming accessory structure over 6' in height in the required rear yard at 19467 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road Staff described the application and the history of the site. They noted changes to the Staff Report concerning the relocation of the window. The public hearing was opened at 12:45 p.m. Robert Booth, attorney representing the applicants, stated that they did not feel a use permit is necessary in this instance for the structure, which may or may not have been erroneously built beyond the standards_ existing at the time, but which in fact has been used as a guest house. He commented that the applicants do not intend to add a kitchen and will put louvres on the window. He urged approval of the use permit to satisfy Staff and hopefully the neighbors, per the Staff recommendation. Lynn Belanger, attorney representing Mr. Robbins, the neighbor, addressed the sections of the code pertaining to this structure. She commented that they were urging the Commission to approve the use permit for the structure to be kept as a storage facility and garage. She noted the petition received on behalf of the Robbins' position. Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista Drive, gave the history of the accessory structure, stating that it has rarely ever been used as a guest house. He added that allowing this use would materially injure his property and impact his privacy. He noted a• letter received from Mr. Gatewood, addressing the effect of the structure on Mr-. Robbins' property. Walt Angres stated that he lives to the west of the structure. He agreed that this structure depreciates the property and he feels the use is now being drastically changed from storage to a second family dwelling. Jessie McGuire, 15350 Bestview Court, stated that she feels that any change in the use of this structure would be a detriment to the Robbins property. Jerry Jordan, one of the applicants, stated that the previous owner had allowed him to put the window in. He added that they have no intention of renting the structure; however, they bought the property as an investment and are trying to improve the property. He commented that one of the main reasons they bought it was for use as a guest house. Discussion followed on a possible recording on the deed to make any buyer aware of the fact that there is a use permit associated with the property. The Deputy City Attorney stated that perhaps the applicant would agree to a stin_ulation of some recording. fie added that if the Commission decides to grant the use permit but restricts the use, then it might be appropriate to have that restriction recorded on the deed. Elizabeth Hendricks, one of the applicants, stated that the big attraction of the property was the guest house, and it would be a shame not to use that building for that purnose. Mr. Robbins commented that the difficulty is the size of the structure and the closeness to his property. He stated that someone sooner or �� .,.gin. rw }s• - 13 - No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to approve V -S67 pl per the Staff Report and making the necessary findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. KlTCrFT.T.Ami nnc 18. V -541 - R. A. Maddalena, Big Basin Nay; continued from November 17, 1981 It was directed that this item will be continued to a future meeting. Planning Commf.:: -ion Page 14 Meeting Minutes 1/13/82 : -.: .. .. .. .. UP �(c .. 514 nt.) -- - r is g oin g to try to occupy that building, if it is allowed _......:� - to be modified in the way proposed, with many people who are - going to produce a lot of noise and interference. r Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner = '"t!?t*tav ? °� King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden stated that she felt the problem here is that the structure was built within the setback and therefore violated those regulations of the City that were adopted to protect the ' privacy of neighbors. She added that covering the windows with louvres is not going to prevent a successive purchaser from tak- - ing them down and then having the same problem. She commented that there is no way Mr. Robbins' privacy can be totally pro - tected if this is granted as a guest house. Commissioner Laden moved to grant UP -514, on the basis that the structure be maintained for storage and garage use only. She added that the wall in which the window is now presently placed should be filled in to its prior condition, and if there is to be a window, it will not be on that wall. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the partitions that :y;;,, ^.< .,:,, - __•_._..••;. _..:,. , - have been placed, and it was determined that they' would not have to be removed. It was determined that additional conditions _ _...._..__....__ _. should be placed on the use permit, that the 220 wiring shall be .: ,� :x _,.;�:.„ ..�•,� �_: removed, and that any outdoor illumination will be no higher than 6 feet. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with _ Commissioner King dissenting. 17. V -567 - Richard Ohren, Request for a Variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30' to 15' for the con- - -^ struction of a single family residence at 21216 Bank ;dill Road Staff described the proposal. They explained that -a variance which had been granted previously due to the topography of this - site -.has been allowed to lapse, and.this application will reinstate it. They explained that the variance was originally granted because of input from the City Geologist that to place the home within the _ - setbacks would not provide as stable a location as that with the ^; variance. It was clarified that no new SDR is required because -- this is a lot of record in an approved subdivision. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern because the site has a slope of approxi- mately 430. The public hearing was opened at 1:20 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to approve V -S67 pl per the Staff Report and making the necessary findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. KlTCrFT.T.Ami nnc 18. V -541 - R. A. Maddalena, Big Basin Nay; continued from November 17, 1981 It was directed that this item will be continued to a future meeting. P d ` I RoPPINS p" V lid{.-'! �• kl I _.� Irvf E RM — qD -RM %� 111 �$ED�_ — t �• .r rw>.N r OFFICE. VING RM ' III i � ... � "'• �° co \� /, war�z vaaor JORDAN- HENRICKS �. .JIl LlY,NL 61Y,-5T fiO ViSE,'csn.'a) A[eA .�l,r (trulyAtfYArJ E nIN-1 543!<�I o NA ✓C `iEC.[v .N'ICr 11,111, ,<JiCJ•n•,a - .firs. d c nlnm BaJ o•"2 {__'.4 T! -r.rar n.J.rrr /' - GARAGE iiVl•f %•!!m; ' �5 PORCH F ssr F ooR 1 .QOJA:A'S W /A/CC•✓ F[,�✓r- h 1a %C'A no'✓ . 1 © R nO V A— . .,. co \� fi' /, war�z vaaor JORDAN- HENRICKS �. .JIl LlY,NL 61Y,-5T fiO ViSE,'csn.'a) A[eA .�l,r (trulyAtfYArJ E nIN-1 543!<�I o NA ✓C `iEC.[v .N'ICr 11,111, ,<JiCJ•n•,a - .firs. d c nlnm BaJ o•"2 {__'.4 T! -r.rar n.J.rrr /' - r+° i /r� iiVl•f %•!!m; fi' USE P1:1:II1T RESOLIM011 N0. UP - 514 - 1 CITY OF SAR,%TOGA PLAiiNI11G CD` \'IISSIO� STATE OF CALIFO1:4IA TILT., N0: UP -514 MIEPMAS, the City of Saratoga Planning CO.=.ssion has received the application of J. JORDAN' AND for a Use Permit to modify J. HENDRICKS • an existing non - conforming accessory structure over 6' in and height in the required rear yard at 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road IM REAS, THE applicant (has) - (harc=c) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; IM-7, T3I 1EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful' consideration of —:maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the - application for the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby (granted) =: ( subject to the follo;'ring conditions: THE STRUCTURE IS TO BE MAINTAINED FOR STORAGE AND GARAGE USE.ONLY. THE.FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY: (1) The window.:should be removed and the northeasterly wall :'.to its Prior condition; (2) The 220 wiring shall.be removed from the structure, and (3) Any outdoor illumination• will be no higher than 6 feet. BE 1T FnCEIITER REZOLVIM that the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to noL-ify the parties aifccted by this decision. P::SSrll AIM AD01 3TED by the City of Saratoga Planning Co~nlissio.n, State of California, this 13thday of Janudry 19 82 , by the following roll C,-dIL vote: ' AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Laden,,Monia, Schaefer and NOI'S: Commissioner King A13M;r: None ATTEST: 1 S retary,•Planning Commission 2' 12/ restored To: Members of the Saratoga City Council Subject: Use Permit UP 514 for Accessory Structure at FE8 111982 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road From: Charles and Sarah Robbins COMMUN11TY DEVELOPMENT REQUEST We request that the Council uphold the 6 -1 vote of the Planning Commission on UP 514 which granted a use permit subject to the conditions that the accessory structure be "maintained for storage and garage use only." The appellants want to modify the large existing garage - storage building for use as a dwelling. Such a drastic change in use would decrease our property value and would adversely affect our existing uses, especially of the swimming pool area which we use extensively. Moreover, it would create a harmful precedent in R -1 zoning for the entire community. Under the Zoning Ordinance NS -3, Sections 16 -1 -1 and 16 -6 -b, the use permit approved by the Planning Commission is proper. The request of the appellants should not be granted because of its potential for injurious and adverse effects on our property and other neighboring properties. Although a guest use is a permitted use in an R -1 zone, it must be a conforming structure. The structure in question here has always been illegal as to setback and height. If it were converted to a guest house, this would increase the nonconformity by intensifying the use of the structure. Under Article 15 of Zoning Ordinance NS -3, even a legal nonconforming structure cannot be altered so as to intensify the use. Our property rights are longstanding. We have lived at 19348 Monte Vista Drive for 25 years. Our swimming pool and cabana were designed and built in 1965, almost simultaneously with the building of the offending accessory structure. By contrast, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Henricks acquired the Saratoga - Los Gatos Road property in October, 1981. They do not live there or plan to live there and now have the property for sale. EFFECT IF APPELLANTS' REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS ARE ALLOWED If the appellants' request is allowed, the accessory structure would become a large dwelling with two very big bedrooms and a full bathroom upstairs. The downstairs would have a large living room, a two car garage and an "office" which could readily become a kitchen. A refrigerator and wet bar are planned. The total floor area exceeds 1800 square feet, which is larger than many single family homes in Saratoga. This structure, if so modified, could soon become a dwelling occupied regularly by a substantial number of people. The building would be very attractive as a rental property. Renting it would be illegal, but the City, in practice, does not and cannot enforce this law. Enforcement by neighbors would be extremely difficult at best. Obtaining proof that the occupants were renters and not guests would be very hard. Since Mr. Jordan and Mr. Henricks bought the property, there has been more activity around the building than ever before, and we have, for the first time, realized how much potential an occupied building has for invading our privacy. Because of proximity, use of our pool area would be adversely affected if the building use were changed from garage- storage. Our privacy would be disturbed by noise from occupants, by their being able to look at our pool area and by lights from the building. Our property value would decrease if the use were changed from garage- storage. The attached letter from Emmette Gatewood, the expert and respected realtor, supports this. He writes: "Any change from the current use of the subject non- conforming structure to that of a guest house usage or rental usage would, in my professional opinion, be a most gross injustice to the Robbins by being a specific infringement on their reasonable privacy and would decrease the desirability of their swimming pool and rear yard area and ultimately affect the value of their R1 -40 zoned property." ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOT AN EXISTING GUEST HOUSE The appellants frequently refer to the accessory structure as an existing guest house. This is not correct. The building permit under which it was illegally built in 1965 lists it as garage- storage. The building does not have a toilet or running water, both of which are essential to a guest house. Further, the real estate multiple listing for the property in August, 1981, reads "potential guest house ", not "guest house ". ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RARELY, IF EVER, USED AS GUEST HOUSE The appellants incorrectly claim that the building was used continually as a guest house, basing their claim on a letter by Mrs. Bolton. Probably, the structure was never used as a guest house, and, at most, it was rarely used as sleeping quarters. The following supports this conclusion: 1. Because we can see the entry area of the building from both our. living room and swimming pool area, we know that people have rarely used*the structure. 2. Walter Andrus does not believe the building was ever used as a guest house. He lives adjacent to the property on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and knew the Gladwyns well. (The Gladwyns built the accessory structure and owned the property until Mrs. Gladwyn died in 1979. The estate of Mrs. Gladwyn was the owner of the property until Mr. Jordan and Mr. Henricks bought it.) 3. The letter by Mrs. Bolton strains credibility by claiming that Mrs. Gladwyn's nurse /housekeeper used the building as sleeping quarters from 1977 to late 1979. Mr. Gladwyn was deceased then, Mrs. Gladwvn needed a nurse because of her poor health, and there were extra bedrooms in the house. Why would a nurse sleep away from her patient in a distant, separate building without toilet, running water, or permanent heat? K It is also doubtful that Mr. Gladwyn had an office in the building as appellants claim, inasmuch as he had an office in one of the rooms in his house. LEGALITY AND LOCATION OF OUR CABANA Our cabana, when built in 1965, was legal and met existing laws on height and setbacks. The cabana was located to best fit the terrain and preserve existing trees on our property. We first learned about the garage- storage structure after construction on it began. By then, the location of our cabana was fixed. At that time, Mr. Gladwyn told us he was putting up a building to work on antique autos, and we did not object because such a use appeared to be no threat to our privacy. SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORS FOR GARAGE- STORAGE USE Many neighbors want the accessory structure kept as garage- storage and oppose changes that might result in the building becoming a separate dwelling, which might be rented. A petiton to the Planning Commission, signed by 18 neighbors representing 11 different properties opposes any conditional use permit that might lead to attempts to be able to rent the structure illegally. All three of the immediately adjacent property owners signed it (Robbins, Chander Das, and Andrus). A second petition to the Council signed by neighbors from various properties urges the Council to support the Planning Commission in limiting the use of the building to garage - storage. Again, all the immediately adjacent property owners signed. Emmette Gatewood's letter to the Planning Commission also voices very strong support for maintaining the use as a garage - storage structure. Mr. Gatewood, who is a neighbor, was unable to sign the petition to the Council because he was out of town. DETAILED CONDITIONS OF USE PERMIT UP 514, as approved by the Planning Commission, required that: (1) The window be removed and the northeasterly wall be restored to its prior condition; (2) The 220 volt wiring shall be removed from the structure; and (3) Any outdoor lumination will be no higher than 6 feet. Each of these conditions is extremely important, but removal of the window and restoring the wall is the most important to us. The window was illegally built by Mr. Jordan without a building permit, as was the placement of the louver he added to ameliorate the problem. The window severely invades our privacy because of its height and location. The louver is not a satisfactory solution because it will not block noise and could be removed readily by subsequent owners. 3 Condition 2 on removal of the 220 volt wiring is desirable because its presence might help future owners try to turn the building into a dwelling. Condition 3 on limiting outdoor lighting to 6 feet high is also very important to our privacy. The present outside floodlights are near the top of the building and do shine into our pool. We believe Mr. Jordan removed a previous outside door -level light and installed the top flood lights, since they were never on before he and Pair. Henricks acquired the property. We also believe the Council should required the removal of existing incomplete walls intended to form rooms within the structure. The existance of partial walls when the building is sold would faciiltate any future efforts to make a dwelling out of the building. INVITATION FOR SITE INSPECTION We strongly urge each of you to inspect the property so that you can become familiar with it. Although we have attached copies of photographs (originals are in the UP 514 file), the pictures do not take the place of a personal visit. When you come, please be sure to view the structure from our pool area. We will be happy to meet with you at your convenience and that of appellants for an on -site inspection. Sincerely yours, CHARLES H. ROBBINS SARAH H. ROBBINS Attachments: Letter from Gatewood Petition to Planning Commission Petition to Council Photos of building from Robbins' property 4 EMMETTE GATEWOOD, INC., REALTOR® 290 Saratoga Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030 • 408 -354 -5174 14498 Oak Place, Saratoga, California 95070 • 408- 867 -3447 TO: Members of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, California Ladies and Gentlemen: January 11, 1982 Saratoga Office Re: UP - 514 Hearing Scheduled for 7:30 P.M., 13 Jan., 1982. Since I shall be out of town at the time of the subject Hearing before your body I submit this fee opinion requested of me by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Robbins, owners of the properly at 19348 Monte Vista Drive which shares a common contiguous rear property line with the subject property designated as 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and owned by Jordan and Hendricks. My ensuing objective professional opinion is supported by my experience for 31 years as a Realtor handling residential properties in Saratoga, and being myself a resident, home owner four properties away at 19384 Monte Vista Drive, where my wife and I have lived for 32 years as of April 1, 1982. I have personally visited and studied from the Robbins' back yard the effect upon their privacy by the subject existing non - conforming accessory structure. I consider the effect to be severe. One of the major reasons those who over the years have selected and paid premium prices for home sites in this general.Rl -40 zoned area is to assure ample space and zoning protection which the area gives.for minimal noise and personal privacy. Any change from the current use of the subject non - conforming structure to that of a guest house useage or rental useage would in my professional opinion be a most gross injustice to tie Robbins by being a specific infringement on their reasonable privacy and would decrease the desirability of their swimming pool and rear yard area, and ultimately affect the value of their R1 -40 zoned property. Even in its current garage /storage role the subject non - conforming structure looms adversely above the swimming pool and rear yard of the Robbins. To allow the structure to become a habitable. domicile for guests and /or paying tenants who could gaze at will down upon the Robbins' swimming pool and rear yard area and who could create noise nuisance would be against all past, present and future intents of R1 -40 zoning and would be disrespecting the reasonable enjoyment by an innocent neighbor of his property which he had originally purchased in good faith with the understanding that the zoning regulations of the City would give such reasonable and minimal lawful protection. To allow the requested modification of the existing non - conforming structure would in my opinion make a mockery of the existing zoning and its purpose in the daily life of a citizen of Saratoga. Sincerely, Emmette T. Gatewood, Realtor PAG t I B s► C_ NA1'u F, t; s F xo /Yj 1I FS30PF- A'1'1a5 W!Tfl)N Fer =l- TO SARATOGA PLANNING COrY1ISSION I oppose any conditional use permit for the.`accessory structure at 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road which might lead to attempts to rent the structure illegally. I am concerned because property values in the neighborhood would tend to be decreased if the accessory building were to become a rental dwelling with two family use in a single family zoned area. NAME ADDRESS DATE Q lQ.3 ..!�cv.r�.:.._...._.._... ; 1982. c73 2;7 TO SARATOGA PLANNING CMlISSION Pl }ca 2 6 Z I oppose any conditional use permit for the accessory structure at 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road which might lead to attempts to rent the structure illegally. I am concerned because property values in the neighborhood would tend to be decreased if the accessory building were to become a rental dwelling with two family use in a single family zoned area. NAME ADDRESS DATE _ 'ZG S ► GNA TUIZ GS FIB O M f 2 PRop e�rt�s w ► T,�r� TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 5'G o FF RE.- USE PERMIT 514 FOR PROPERTY AT 19467 SARATOGA —LOS GATOS ROAD Page 1 of 2 I support the decision of the Planning Commission on UP 514 to limit the use of the accessory structure to storage and garage. I urge the City Council to uphold the action of the Planning Commission. NAME ADDRESS DATE 6A- ;27 J f Z w �C� � �� ►Z �1CFl�e V tsTi� •D� � � � , , , \ S i 937 L i 4 g( Sa..e. 4'a* Page 2 of 2 TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REs USE PERMIT 514 FOR PROPERTY AT 19467 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD I support the decision of the Planning Commission on UP 514 . to limit the use of the accessory structure to storage and garage. I urge the City Council to uphold the action of the Planning Commission. NAME ADDRESS DATE 05 414 IV, Nd ill' 7i,A-%•► AV%, (tit 7 %; Me 1041, - I IV- v� Iry . ,Ate AW - ir I. I. 10, :11A 1 _104 ir r tl If r , Ir I t 14 �k 7 56 -Ok 4� R �.Wowt Fad!- V'. *r.- T .�Al Q — _1Lf__ , -!:.: _Z mwP57WAdMld71iA&%d —. , — 1.11im CHARLES H. ROBBINS 1974E MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 December 30, 1981 To: Planning: Commis.�i on, City of Saratoga REc -IV ED Su_jcc.t: Use Permit Request for Accessory Structure Located at 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (File UP 514) As the ne'_ghbor most affected, I am writing this letter to request that.certain cnnditions be a part of any use permit you may orant for an illee_al accessory structure at 19467 Saratoga - Lcs Gatos Road. General information The applicant, who has recently acquired the property, is prcposn_ to Take major changes to the accessory structure which would dra-tically alter the use of the buildino to a dwellino_ unit from gj.rape- storage. It would be a large d-,:ellino unit, over 1800 square f-et, as I1,ic as -,-,any home= in Saratooa snd nearly as large as the ngu =c on tnE site. Tr= ouil'dinc is extrsmely visible from my swimming pool, back yard, p =tio ,;g living roam which are beloy it because of the slope c: l=�nc. 5y coi:tra_t, tic acces =ory structure is a substantial d: G z-E IGe f r G'.'. an,` i S belo_: the exi-- ti no d:uellino on the same lot and is s`i el:jeu fro'^ it �iv tre!'S. and 1hrubbsry. r The 1=r7ie red born structure, althcuoh an evasore to Te through the years since it .as ille ^ally built in 1955, has not been a major problem because it has rarely, if ever, been used for other than a __rage or storage. These have been quiet, unobtrusive uses. The aoplicont frequr_ntly refers to the structure as an existing cuRst hour. This is incorrect. In the building permit issued in 1965 (copy attached) the structure is dc-cribed as ".garage and storage". Fur--her, the building does not now nor has it ever had facilities nosent_al to a nun:;t hou,e such as e tnilet, running.water, or a permanent hatinr_! systr.m. The applicant cla'_:,s that the building has n= :n used ,as 51_cpinc quarters. Ho::,ever, putting a bed in a barn or -araor do: not make it an exi_,tino cuest house. f•r. Jorcan has modific^ the accessory structure ihout a building prr;it. In particular he has added a window in th!; _7eccnd :Ory on thi nrrt.`1 side looking down on illy swimming pool, o.:tio o,nd livinn ra:-m 7n. t.!lr:-iugh 1:1 -`.ch loud noises could be heard by me. Th:: applic,::. -n far :j co ldi t c-31 uoe permit has come before the Plcnnin:= Conimis:; or, as 3 r::sult. of --ction taken by the City Council at i m= -,inc_ on Ji:o,,,;lLr: r �, 11?61. 4t that m=eting, City Attorney Puui Sm_th inf=r 7 :r] th:, C.;uncil th;?t the accessory structure is ll: 'I; it ' ll!':'.al : t :_leas guilt and is no:.1 and alt_1?ys has been �:!F, t =11 rind tco clgr.r to th:- rr-ar and side lot lines. The building . p::r it s.;ug'r; by the Ci tv in 1955 should not have been issued and off and th,, cxi,t7:lcr of a building permit does not rake the Smith fur "1.•r ,8i d that the City coulo order that the rc„ov:,d, but -uc!- uctinn would probably not stand up in court. A varianze, he said, was not proper, but the Council could require a use permit with conditions before the building could be modified. He also said that the conditions required by the Eity could be very broad regarding use and modifications and could limit use to oarace and storaoe. Reouested Cond4.tions for Use Permit It is my firm belief that under the laws the conditions for a use per it should be: 1. Limit use to garage and storage 2. Allow no modifications which would make the building more suitable as a d;.jelling than it has t=en. 3. Remove the second story window on the north wall facing my property and re=-tore it as nearly as possible to a blank wall in its previous original condition. 4. Remove existing incomplete work on interior walls intended to form rooms. 5. Specify rights of inspection to be sure that conditions of the use permit are oeing follo -jed. Pertinent S =--ti-ens of NS-3, Zoning Ordinance Two sectisns of Article lc Conditional Uses of the Zonino_ Ordinance f:S -3 ar. especially pertinent to .my position. Sccticn 16 -1 -1 states that "A conditional use is not a matter of richt and the planning commission may deny a use permit for a use listed E= a conditional use if it finds that r =.asonablc regulations would still not prevont the use from adv =r=ely affectinn existing us =s in the im-cdiote neiohnorhood, or, would not prevent the use from adversely affecting surrounding_ property and its inhabitants or its anticioat =d permitted use or uses ". Section 10.5 b statL-s that the planning commission may grant a use permit if the commission finds "that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or' maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity ". Justifications for Rc❑uests 1. I believe that if modified as proposed, this building will be rented and occupied bey a sionificant number of people. This would be detrimental to my property because of loss of privacy to me and would decrease the value of my property. The additions required to make a kitchen in the room labeled "office" on the dra..;ing are small. A soot for a refrioerator has already been mark ;.d cff in chalk on the floor. A hot plate, toaster oven ano micro:,�eve ,jv ^n ;:iuld require no effort, and a full stove, dishjasher and caCinets could easily be added. Th= buildino, nrcau -ze of its size, mould de very attractive .ns rental prourrty. Rental would be acainst the City ordinances, but the C_ty in pr-cticr cjnnot enforce this law. I, as neighbor, would 2 ` A varianze, he said, was not proper, but the Council could require a use permit with conditions before the building could be modified. He also said that the conditions required by the Eity could be very broad regarding use and modifications and could limit use to oarace and storaoe. Reouested Cond4.tions for Use Permit It is my firm belief that under the laws the conditions for a use per it should be: 1. Limit use to garage and storage 2. Allow no modifications which would make the building more suitable as a d;.jelling than it has t=en. 3. Remove the second story window on the north wall facing my property and re=-tore it as nearly as possible to a blank wall in its previous original condition. 4. Remove existing incomplete work on interior walls intended to form rooms. 5. Specify rights of inspection to be sure that conditions of the use permit are oeing follo -jed. Pertinent S =--ti-ens of NS-3, Zoning Ordinance Two sectisns of Article lc Conditional Uses of the Zonino_ Ordinance f:S -3 ar. especially pertinent to .my position. Sccticn 16 -1 -1 states that "A conditional use is not a matter of richt and the planning commission may deny a use permit for a use listed E= a conditional use if it finds that r =.asonablc regulations would still not prevont the use from adv =r=ely affectinn existing us =s in the im-cdiote neiohnorhood, or, would not prevent the use from adversely affecting surrounding_ property and its inhabitants or its anticioat =d permitted use or uses ". Section 10.5 b statL-s that the planning commission may grant a use permit if the commission finds "that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or' maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity ". Justifications for Rc❑uests 1. I believe that if modified as proposed, this building will be rented and occupied bey a sionificant number of people. This would be detrimental to my property because of loss of privacy to me and would decrease the value of my property. The additions required to make a kitchen in the room labeled "office" on the dra..;ing are small. A soot for a refrioerator has already been mark ;.d cff in chalk on the floor. A hot plate, toaster oven ano micro:,�eve ,jv ^n ;:iuld require no effort, and a full stove, dishjasher and caCinets could easily be added. Th= buildino, nrcau -ze of its size, mould de very attractive .ns rental prourrty. Rental would be acainst the City ordinances, but the C_ty in pr-cticr cjnnot enforce this law. I, as neighbor, would have to try and prove the property wa disturbances to me from the occupants were renters, not guests-. It would be least, to obtain adequate proof. 2. Existence of rental property would throughout the neighLr,orhood. s being rented and that of the accessory structure very difficult, at the decrease property values 3. The modifications proposed would result in a substantial change from its previous use and would be detrimental to me. The building has seldom, if ever, been used for other than garage and storage and the uses have been quiet and non - disturbing. 4. The modifications proposed are major and are not.a minor improvement to an existing guest house because it lacks a toilet, sewer connection,, running water, hot water, sink, and a permanent heating system, all of which are proposed to be added. • 5. If any modif'cations are made which would enhance use of the building as a d_jelling, 1 believe additional requests for modifications would come from successive owners. The line should be drawn now to avoid the possibility that the project could be completed piece meal. Mr Jordan and Ps. Hendricks say they do not plan to live at the site but plan to sell it after the modifications are made. Future buyers should not be misled by the building's appearance in to thinking the accessory structure can be modified and Tented. S. The illegally built second story window facing my property menaces my ;.-rivacy. The fixed louver proposed by Mr. Jordan is not an adequate solution because it does not block out loud noises which could emanate from the second floor. Also the louvers could easily be removed by some future owner. The proper solution is to remove the window and restore the blank wall to its former condition. 7. Public safety could be endangered if this project is approved because of the potential increase in the number of cars requiring direct access to th- heavily traveled Saratoga -Los Gatos Road where the speed limit is !+5 miles per hour. Approval of this project would set a precEdent for approving many other large "oue_t houses'' with two car oarc-,cs on property fronting Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Invitation to Visit Prooert I highly recoomend that you inspect the property so that you can become fully acquainted with it and the problems. I will b=: happy to meet with you at your convenience and that of the applicant for an on -site inspection. Sincerely ygurs; Charles H. Robbins Attuch-,ient: 19 �5 ;;uilding Permit cc: Robert Shook RE C.f" .v, Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, Calif. 95070 20011 Glasgow Drive Saratoga, Calif. 95070 December 30, 1931 Reference: Secondary structure at 19467 Saratoga /Los Gatos Road The intent of this memorandum is to provide the Saratoga Planning Commission with some background in the preparation of the final requirements for the conditional use permit. In this spirit, please note the following: 1. We do not understand, or agree, as to why the city is imposing the "conditional use permit" process on our plans to improve the structure in question. Being unfamiliar with the conditional use process and its requirements (as opposed to the complainant who early engaged an attorney), we now feel we did not adequately react to this situation, as per advice of our present legal counsel. The city attorney, and the attorney for the complainant, has-des- cribed the structure as 'illegal'. Our legal counsel, who has more than 15 years experience as a city attorney on such matters, takes issue with this description. Nevertheless, in an effort to expedite the handling of this matter and in the faith that the Planning Commission will treat us fairly, we are temporarily, under protest, going along with this approach. 2. The subject building was issued a building permit No. 2665 dated April 7, 1965. It was inspected and approved by a city official specifically for setback and size. Also, an electrical permit was issued and 220 voltage was installed in June of that year. 3. Since its construction, the structure has been used continually as a guest house as evidenced by the attached chronology signed by the deceased owner's sister. 4. There have been no complaints for 16 years about the use of the structure, which is not being changed. Further, neighbors on both sides of the property do not object to the continued use of the struc- ture as a guest house, as per the attached signed statement. NOTE: To us, it appears that the above items are the crux of the matter; namely that legally we should not be going through the conditional use permit process since the above data supports our contention that the structure was built legally, and used legally as a guest house - - -and there is no intention of changing this. f Additionally, 5. The property was purchased for resale by Messrs Gordan and Henricks. All efforts and expenses have been directed towards 'refurbishing' this property, including not only the second structure in question but also the primary building and grounds. All such activity has been to improve the property and layout of the buildings for the new owners, without altering.existing use. This second structure has actually been advertised as a guest house and was a contributing factor in purchase of the property. 6. The complaint (and the only one in the lifetime of this structure) submitted by Mr. Robbins refers to a number of objections dating back the 16 years to construction. As new owners we wonder why he waits until now to voice his complaints. Also, why did he choose to construct his own nonconforming structure so close to the property line and right in the shadow of our structure, given the size of his property. Both buildings are some 150 -160 feet from Mr. Robbins' residence. We do hope the Planning Commission representatives will visit the location to note these items. It will also be clear to the commission that the structure from the outside looks like what it has been used for - -a guest house. Inside, the living room has an open beam ceiling and the windows have a colonial treatment. 7. There are several statements in the letters from Mr. Robbins (Nov. 20) and his legal counsel (Nov. 17) that are inaccurate (false ? }. While perhaps not intentional, it is misleading and might have contributed to the city attorney and the city council reaching the conclusion to proceed through the conditional use permit process. For example; a) Mr. Robbins has stated that this structure has rarely, if ever, been used other than for garage and storage. This is contrary to the signed statement we have provided. It is interesting to note that he terms the use of this building as "quiet, unobtrusive uses" over the years - -which we do not intend to change! Perhaps this is because his residence is so far from the structure, and he was unaware of any activity there. b) There is 1300 ft of living space, plus garage; not 2000 ft as indicated by Mr. Robbins. c) We have never intended to put in a kitchen. This argument has been developed extensively in both letters, and this is in direct con- tradiction to our plans,- and more importantly, to what was comm- unicated to Mr. Robbins and his counsel when they visited the structure! d) The structure is less than 100 feet from our primary building, and some 160 feet from Mr. Robbins' residence; not, as stated, closer to Mr. Robbins' residence than the primary building on our property. Specifically with reference to some of the potential limitations that have been discussed or mentioned to us relative th this 'conditional ups permit': 8. There should be no question about retaining the existing 220 voltage for hot water and space heating installed in 1965. It has been suggested that we might be required to remove this. We do not believe this possibility warrants further discussion. 9. We understand Mr. Robbins' concern about the windowi;on the second story. The louvered design as submitted by Jerry Jordan in his building permit application addresses and resolves any problem here. The window will have permanent louvers preventing any line of sight to neighboring property, or to.the ground anywhere. The light and ventilation supply are quite necessary to better conditions on the second floor, and would be especially expensive and non - functional if moved to any location other than the end of the building because of the design of the roof structure. 10. It has been indicated that the building may be required to be insulated and the floor 'sealed'. Why, when the use is not going to be changed? 11. The same argument applies to the potential suggestion that a new heating system be provided. The existing portable heat has been sufficient. Would not items 10 and 11, if required, make it especially more likely to increase the use of the structure, including eventual rental? In summary, a. Our effDrts have been directed toward refurbishing the entire property; not changing its use as intimated. b. Use of the property as a guest house is a proven fact. c. The structure was built with all required permits and approved as built in 1965. d. We therefore do not understand or agree with the 'conditional use permit' process, but in the spirit of cooperation and trust in being treated fairly, we will continue with the process to avoid any further legal entanglements. e. We are beginning to feel a bit harassed by the significant time and attention this matter is demanding and the cost and delay it is causing us. f. We understand certain concerns that have been voiced, primarily the view from the window, and have corrected the situation by design of the exterior fixed louvre. g. It is our intent to contact Mr. Robbins directly as neighbors, and hopefully come to a common understanding. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jerry Jordan John Henricks November 30, 1981 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN The undersigned neighbors have no objections to the continued use of the second structure on 19467 Saratoga /Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, as a guest house. C(il%�� � �',� � `f(➢�vv(i/i'// KK.J/ � / , rj N/ � l� H.1 , c: CHRONOLOGY HISTORY OF THE SECOND STRUCTURE ON 19467 SARATOGA/LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA 1. Structure was originally built for the intention of being a residence for Mrs. Gladwin's mother. Permits obtained were based upon this; however, the mother did not move into this area of California at all. 2. Phone, lights, and portable heat has been installed and available in the building since it was first constructed in 1965. 3. The building has been used as a guest house many times during the recent years. 4. From original construction in 1965 to 1976, the structure was also used as an office and as a workshop for Mr. Gladwin. Temporary partitions were installed to make space for office, living quarters, and storage space. 5. In 1976 and 1977, it was used as a guest house for Mrs. Gladwin's nephew and a friend, as well as for an office workshop. 6. From 1977 to late 1979, it served as sleeping quarters for the nurse /housekeeper for Mrs. Gladwin. 7. After Mrs. Gladwin's death in late 1979, the space has been utilized by Mrs. Bolton, the sister of Mrs. Gladwin, for storing the personal property of the deceased until the estate is settled. a t` Matteoni cC Saxe /Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 Mr. Paul Smith Saratoga City Attorney Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Smith: c Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Lynn C. Belanger November 17, 1981 Re: Accessory Structure, Required Rear Yard 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road I represent.Mr. & Mrs. Charles Robbins of 19348 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga. They are the people who have complained to the City Council about the conversion of the above - referenced structure to accommodate a second dwelling on a lot in an R -1 -40000 zoning district. The subject structure was built for storage and a garage in 1965. It is 20 feet or more in height, and is located 6 to 8 feet from the rear property line. The Robbins' are calling upon the City to abate it, or, at the very least, to prevent its use from being changed. For your consideration, I call attention to Article 15 of NS -3 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, passed November 19, 1975, and ask you to refer in particular to the paragraph following section 15.9(f). As I read the last sentence of that paragraph, it says that the foregoing amortization provisions for non- conforming uses or structures are in no way intended to permit continuation of such uses and structures if they were commenced or constructed after a change in the regulations of a district. Going on then to section 2 "gg" of section 1.5, which was also changed by NS -3.32 (amending Article 15), a non- conforming structure is one which, at the time it was constructed, was lawfully constructed in conformity with the regulations of the zoning district in which it was situated, but which has subsequently become non - conforming. It is my clients' position that the subject structure was not lawfully constructed in March and April of 1965 inasmuch as it exceeded the height limitation for a detached accessory structure located in a required rear yard under ordinances already in effect at that time. Ordinance NS -3.7, Mr. Paul Smith which became effective such structures to 14 at least 20 feet high l November 17, 1981 Page Two in January, 1965, limited the height of feet. As I mentioned, this structure is and always has been. Although the building received a building permit in March of 1965, and received final inspection in April of 1965, the issuance of such a permit does not make this structure lawful, and the permit is void. See Article 20, Section 20.1. Further, it is a public nuisance under Section 20.3 and such a nuisance shall be abated by the City Attorney instituting legal proceedings requiring its removal. These sections were part of the zoning ordinance passed in 1961. I emphasize that we are not questioning the fact that the ordinances do permit a conforming accessory structure to be used as a guest house in R -1 district. What we do question is the non - conformity of this structure as to height and location combined with the alteration of the structure and the intensification of its use. Mr. & Mrs. Robbins have not objected to the structure hitherto, because it has always been used for the purpose for which it was built- -that of storage and a garage for classic automobiles. Although the height of the building did impinge on their light and air, there was no noise or noxious activity related to the use. Now, the new owner seeks to convert this structure to a two -story residence. Until his activities were inquired into by the Robbins, he had proceeded without a building permit to remodel the inside for habitation, and his layout on the site clearly shows his plans to include a full, although small, kitchen. He now claims that the kitchen area will be a "wet bar ", with sink and refrigerator. -He wants 220V wiring to the site, ostensibly for water heater and furnace. This could, of course, be used to operate an after - installed stove. Even if wiring to the building were conditioned not to exceed 110 to 120V, gas appliances could be used to accomplish the same unlawful end. The purpose c this structure has the independent dwelling on car garage. In no way would it be possible to conversion is allowed. f this discussion of kitchens is that capacity. to be converted to a second an R -1- 40,000 site. It does have a two does it resemble a "guest house" nor limit it to that use, once the proposed Mr. Paul Smith C. November 17, 1981 Page Three It is 6 to 8 feet from the rear property line, depending on who is correct about exactly where the property line is. Right now, it has a window at about a height of 18 feet which overlooks the Robbins' patio and pool and completely destroys their privacy. In addition, its proximity to the rear lot line puts the potential activity of an independent dwelling closer to the Robbins' residence than it does to the main residence located on its own site. For that reason, I believe that Article 15 on Non- conforming Uses and Structures is applicable. At maximum, Section 15.9 requires removal of the building forthwith. At minimum, if any interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance can be said to grant a legal non - conforming status to this structure, it must then fall under Section 3.2(d) (Permitted Uses) , subject to the prohibitions of Section 3.7.1(b)(1) requiring a use permit under Article 16. The only use such. an offending structure can be allowed is that of its originally stated passive purpose- - garage and storage. Any other use of the structure, even if permitted in the zoning district, increases the non - conforming character of the building and would require abatement under Article 15. Certainly, the new owner has no vested right in any alteration he may have. made in violation of the Code requiring that a building permit be obtained before the commencement of construction. I know that you will give a careful reading to the codes that I have mentioned here before you advise the City Council as to their appropriate action. I apologize for not addressing these matters to you before this; I was under the impression that we would be receiving a report from Mr. Shook, and would be able to react to that. If the press of other business keeps you from forming an opinion today on the matters discussed here, I would appreciate that your recommendation to the City Council be that no building permits should be awarded forthe conversion of this structure until such time as you are prepared to advise the Council on the appropriate procedure for handling the matter. Mr. Paul Smith C. November 18, 1981 Page Four I attach a copy of the 1964 version of Ordinance NS -3.7, especially Section 2 thereof, as well as a copy of the building permit awarded thereafter in 1965. Very truly yours, LYNN C. BELANGER LCB:md Dv C CHARLES H. ROBBINS 19348 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 To: srs of the Saratoga Ci ty Counc 1.1 RECEIVED HN 2 0 SuDjsct: Proposed Modifications of Acc_srory Structure at 19467 Saratoga -Los Gate Road and Complaint of Charles H. RobLins i a-,.�riti.,g this letter to help you understand my proble7s with the accessory structure located on neig_hboring property recently bought by Jerry Jordan. You Will recall that i :ayor Callon raised my complaint at t-;e C_u:�cil meetino of November 4, 1Sal, it was discussed under Ural Com: lu- ,izations on ?0Vemt=r 16, and you are schedul =d for a st_ ff report at the Dece.,b =r 2 meetino. T`,e acces =ory structure has two stories, is about 20 feet tall, and is a--'out 40 fe -t lono and 25 feet wide. .T e Ground floor has a full caraoe and space for a lar ^e room and a small room off of it. A stairway leads to the second floor. There are no wator, :sewer or oas connections. The total floor spice of 2000 square feet is as b10 as -:any si.nole fa -ily dwellings in a_rat�:ga and clo .-e to that of the dwelling- on tho site. Th=e structure is located a_•out 6 feet from the rear p_'omrty line dividino the lot on which it sits at 19467 Sarat._ga -LcC Gatos Road any the lot with my home at 1934 r�onte V -_--ta Drive. Both lots as well as the surround.n; neichb-�rhosd are zoned R -L 40,000. The location of -he barn red acres -ory structure is such that it is extre- -ly vi -.`_ le fro: my sw.T7min- poul, -jack yard, patio and livin ^room which re below it because of t`'. slop Q of the l7-nd. By contr =..t, the accessory structure is a substantial distance fro_ and is below the existino dwellino unit on the sa --e lot and is shielded from it by trees and shrubtary. Tne accessory building was built in 1965 under a iuildinm permit, is_ued-by the City, which des -cribes it as "oaraoe and stora ^e ". The buildinc was ill- ^ally con-tructEd under the codes of 1:65 and is ill cal under current la-:s becaus^ of its heinht and proximity t:: the rear lot line. The Uuil_ing,although an eyesore to me throw -1, the y.=.ars, ha., not been a -ajor pro:._lsm bRCau e it nas rarely, if ever, rein used for other than a gara ;e and storaoo. The h2ve b=-en quict, unobtrusive uses. Tne croparty hc- recently been bought by J =rry Jordan who prop =-s tc : iodify F;Utstant_ ally the acces =v = tructure to -;cke a "ouest house". He proo:,ses to n:odifv the interior to crovide two larc,e bedrooms and a bathro_!m on the second floor. i7 the first floor he Mans to keep the gar_oe and create _ li vi nn_.room ant .an ad jar n t ;ro 7 "i W:`1 t . 1S t0 have a sink, counter, cabincts and a r= frigerator. He is proposin❑ to add 220 volt power, i•'r. Jordan says he does not plan to live --t tnn property cut intends to sell it af1cr he has iada nod_ficat_ons. i °y concerns are these: 1. If the pr000sed r;odifi;ations' are :lade, the bu;.l -;.n.9 will to extensively u.-ed a ._;e' i.no .r.,ausinn F3ut-tant_al decrFa-.n in my privacy over what it ha:- been. I think it is - ,:ronn to ­:edify an .illecal bu -ldino to make it more offensive to a neighbor. or 2. I Lelieve tnet if -.odified as proposed, tni:3 �.-uild;nq wall be rented. The e:�- itio -s recuirsd to -ako a k'_tchen beyond tho-;? pr_po -ed by hr. Jordan are s-all. A hot plate, toe-tcr oven, microwave oven would require r,o effort and a full stove and oven and a dishwasher could easily be added. The building is really too big to qualify a- a guest hou_e but would be very attractive as rental property. Rental would be againn-t the City ordinances but the City, in practice, cannot enforce tha law. I, as a neighbor, would have to try and prove the property was beino rented and that the disturbances to me from occupants of the accessory structure were renters, not guests. It would bp very difficult, at the least, to o tain prtof that the property was being occup_ed by renters. 3. The second story window recently installed by (;r. Jordan ( without a building oer:mit) menEces my privacy because it looks down on my nearby swim7ing pool which with the caban ^'are legally located nearly as clo;;e to the rear lot line as possible. The second story window also looks out on my back yard, patio and into my liv'ngroom. If the law allows, _ request that: 1. Thy. buildin , ba removed. 2. If the building cannot be re- moved, I could like to see the use 1* to gara: __ and storage and no mod =f iCat- cns allo�!ed ll`l' ch would make the structure sU- tatle as a %U°:,t house an ouiell' no un' t. 3. If - ,odificat'ons allo:Z ne a oue --t hou e cannot ce denied, I request that the u_= ns den- gn be condi ti onod tr.y a use per-,*- t to -7 n` r' ze '_ts annoyanc_ to me a,,d t!,e possib' l;. ty of its beeomiro a rental un= t. As a r.imu , _ r=tiu;2st a hear; n.; on th- s �,atter e ther by tea Counc'.1 or the Plan„in_ Com•r,ission before a build n- oerr-it, if any, is isEueL. City Attorney Paul smith, who will most proZEbly advise you on the legal as has received a lett:-.r from my attorney in this matter, Lynn ela�:::�r. Finally, :. would like to invite you to come :nd in_,pect the property so tha you ca- 7=7 fully unc'erstand Ty probler:s. You arc weldom-n to lcok at it from my property any time whether or not I am at hors. I will be aw;iy for a period starting before and.endi_no after thank _aiv=no but have chan.ed -.y travel plans to oe back for the Dgcsrn_er 2 Council meet_ng. Thank you for vour con i der.-ti.on. cc: 'lore= D-rn-tz io�ert Sh;iok Sincerely, Charle H. Robbins The Lucas DealershipGrOLIP VU �i February 18, 1982 i-� FEg 19 1982 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL and MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL City Hall Saratoga, California 95070 V Aw-o-t RE: Use Permit UP 514 for an Accessory Structure at 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Dear Members of the Council: I would prefer to present my position in person, however, because I am out of the state, I would like for this letter which represents my position entered into your records. It is apparent that the highly regarded Planning Department has reviewed Use Permit UP 514 and has rendered a very fair and unbiased opinion. The facts are very clear regarding the existing nonconforming structure. To allow the applicant's request would only intensify the negative impact due to the nonconforming existing structure in our neighborhood. My home is located approximately 300 yards from the proposed nonconforming structure and would certainly have an adverse effect on my property as well as other property owners within our section of Saratoga. Therefore, I respectfully request the Council uphold the 6 -1 vote of the Planning Commission and deny the requested use permit. jSincerel Don Lucas DL: is cc: Mr. Charles H. Robbins 1,10 Rut C kliter Haza, Sall �ax�, C A11fi�r-nia 9511; PIx -AkW 44,�8-19;-9911 REALTOR lhelley Williams 4ssociates, Inc. EALTORS AND CONSULTANTS? Argonaut Place Shopping Center 12960 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, California 95070 'hone: (Area Code 408) 867 -3414 March 2, 1982 Honorable Linda Callon, \"ayor and City Councilpersons 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal of Use Permit No. UP514 Conditions, 19467 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Garage and storage building /Guest Cottage Dear Mayor Callon and Councilpersons: Have been requested by Mr. and Mrs. Jack Henricks and Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Jordan to write this letter. The Council has the power to make the findings that the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the Purpose of the district in which it is located, that the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare , or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the use, with conditions , will comply with the zoning ordinance, per the Staff Report of December 31, 1981, page 3. Or, the Council has the power to deny the appeal. The decision is ours to make. Mr. and Mrs. Henricks and Mr, and Mrs. Jordan ask you to grant their appeal. This is not a fee or a paid opinion. Our office was involved in the listing and the sale of the property. Mrs. Elizabeth Henricks was both the selling salesperson and one of the purchasers. She was affiliated with our firm for several months last year. I believe Mr. Jordan is also a licensee, and possibly Mr. Henricks. Los (iatoc-j :iruo,G.i Ifo:vd of RcaItorc Quality Homes Home Sites Trades Exchanges sa )r»e Real I:,l. � Bo.od Honorable Linda Callon, Mayor and City Councilpersons iVlarch 2, 1982 Pa de. 2 Our Urrl�`s SL,iff was Co(Aiorned, in sales meetings, and in person, to take prospective buyer's to the city to make ingciiry as to the proper procedure to follow in the event the purchaser wished to use or remodel the accessory structure on this property . It /irs . Flenricks visited the city hall with ,-It least one of her prospective, customers. I note that a copy of .i Uan Jose listing has been circulated vvhich states " guest cotLoc -je." The listing broker had a c0!iiputuF choice of "storage sired" or "guest cottage" on the San Jose form. He underlined the latter. He also said in the remarks, "Note the 2 story, 40 ft x 25 ft building for hobbies or ? . " The comments under "remarks " normally supersede other items in a listing. This is copyrighted and is not circulated to purchasers. The brochures or fact: shcuL which is circulated to buyers state -,'s, "...Lhc?rc is I scp,.3r,iLe `10 COOL x 25 foot workshop that reseriib.les a "little, red barn." The second floor is finished sl-reetrock, NA unp<iinLcd. (Permit on file at S..iratoga City Ruildiny lac partmcnt) . " The property was not advul Lise.'d 4s having a guest cottage , to the best of my knowledge . The Buyers (llenricks) Were cautioned, independently and in writing on August 29, 1981 , by the Sellers , "We also advise you to discuss with your attorney any plans you have to use or remodel the 40' x 25' two -story building on the rear of the lot, as it does not meet current setback standards." The contract for purchase ,-vas r(itified September 3, 1981, to close on Le cc ill bL,r 3, 1981. On October 3, 1981, the ban1�, for the estate, halted the b,.iyers from painting, termite work, and yard clearance. Escrow closed Nove.mb,�r 2, 1982, a month earlier than s cneduled . Honorable Linda Callon, Mayor and City Councilpersons March 2, 1982 Page 3 I first saw the property in June 1980. The main house was dated and needed a new kitchen and redecorating. The yards were overgrown. There were a lot of car parts , wheels, hub caps, batteries , tools , and tires in almost every storage area - -- plus several Cadillacs , a "Marantz" (a fiberglass - bodied Cadillac ,built by the former owner) , and a big black Cadillac sedan (1946 c.) in the rear of the two -story garage - storage building. That rear building was one of the most impressive garage - storage buildings I have ever seen! It was, and is, a handsome design. The building was set far to the rear corner, apparently to allow room for septic lines, a garden, tennis court or pool. The lister explained the permits on the main house and the nature of the permit for the rear two -story garage and storage building. The rear building seemed ideal for a hobbyist, home mechanic, ceramics studio (220 volts), photographic work, artists studio, model railroad enthusiast, sewing center, computer room, office, or den - - -and with the proper city permission, possibly a guest cottage. The primitive "shell" of the interior was carefully noted, without water, sink, and toilet, as well as the need for same with most uses, with proper permission, of course. Mr. Charles Robbins graciously extended me an invitation to view the "red barn" from his property. This was after I told him I had been asked to write a letter to you. I visited his home. He allowed me to read his correspondence, reports, permits, and results of Council and Planning Commission action, and allowed me to take pictures ... the red barn with white trim is quite visible, even with the sun behind it, from the Robbins' living room. It must have been even more visible when it was first built, a month before the Robbins' pool and cabana were built, and the trees were just saplings. i Honorable Linda Callon, Mayor and City Councilpersons March 2, 1982 Page 4 I noted that the new "window" facing the Robbins' home had a newly installed heavy wood louver, unpainted at that time. Mr. Robbins felt that noise would still penetrate easily, and that new buyers might take down the louvers. The Robbins' pool and cabana are built very close to that property line.. This past Sunday, I viewed the Robbins' property from the Henricks -Jordan property. The grounds were carefully maintained, and the underbrush cleared away. The two -story building is quite handsome, although it needs a coat of paint. The brass on the front doorknob is tarnished. Inside, the temporary plastic partitions had been removed and some studs installed. Upstairs, the new window facing North does let in light, but not a great amount. I slid open the glass and moved the heavy painted louver out. "The top is hinged, but the bottom is open as a safety factor," explained Mr. Jordan, "so people can escape in case of fire." A window could be put in the rear, or in the closet over the front door. I felt where the window is now is probably the best location for it, in spite of the fact it was installed without a permit. It might be made opaque, but I think the louvers do the shielding quite well, from noise, looking down, and of distracting lights which might spoil the Robbins' night view. As I walked around the building, I noted that the setback of the Robbins' cabana and the red barn were about equally distant from the "probable" property line, under the power lines, about 10 feet each. The side of the barn may be 5 or 6 feet from the property line. However, this was not staked. I feel that fencing the barn , planting fast growing trees (redwoods' ?) that will Permanently block the new louvered window, and painting the barn a light green (without white trim, nor on the front posts), would mute it so it would be less objectionable from the Robbins' property. (Would recommend the Robbins also plant fast growing trees on their side to protect their privacy even more.) Honorable Linda Callon, Mayor and City Councilpersons March 2, 1982 Page 5 The objections raised by the Robbins can be mitigated by the use of sensible measures, if desired by the Council. There is, in addition, a strong need for housing in our city. There is a good demand for properties that are reasonably priced for quarters for a grandmother, grandfather, an aunt, uncle, nurse /Nanny, or for college age young people. This is for a use without a kitchen, of course, in compliance with our zoning laws. These are conditional uses that you have the power to grant , Mayor Callon and Councilpersons . Mr. and Mrs. Charles Robbins have helped Saratoga grow into the city that it has become. He served on the Planning Commission, the Council, as our Mayor, and continues to serve on the Saratoga Good Government Group. We are all grateful for their contributions to help make our city a better place to live. They have reacted quickly, thoroughly, and with good counsel in their presentation to a perceived threat to their property and to the neighborhood. I understand their reaction. I feel mitigation measures can offset the disadvantages. I am glad they brought up the matter so it could be discussed thoroughly, analyzed, and a proper decision made for all parties concerned, including a new neighbor, for the best long term good of all. Mr. and Mrs. Henricks and Mr. and Mrs. Jordan respectfully request your earnest consideration of their appeal. You have the power to grant such an appeal and make the necessary findings. Yours truly, l 4eley S. Williams, Jr. G/ . .� SS W: ps June Carlwright 19521 Tweed. Court ,Saratoga, California 95070 cbr, -ary 2'7 1902 .. __ - Da1 ra.,..oga ncil Saratoga, California Lear Sirs: Re: Use Permit 514 t . Sw� } >t't�A`Oa'f•.,?} r� ,!''�'�2^ ~M', K.�.�- �d"' -�� +tc' � � :5�.3';y _ At the reques'u of 'harles and Sarah Robbins-, I ars offering the following information. In January 1931, as a .Realtor ;associate in the Sara toga off ice of a— me tte uatewood, Inc. , I showed the Illolton property at 1946'.7 Saratoga — Los ' a -tos road, Saratoga. 'T'he property was listed with Shelley 11illiams Associates. in the MLS' description, ti).e structure in the rear of -the property was rioted as "separate 2 s ory bldg." : ^;lien I showed the building, one area of the lower floor had boxes and various pieces of furniture piled about. As I remember, the rest of the building was er:.ipty and my impression is of an unfinished interior. It' appeared as if it had never been occupied.. Ily understanding was that the building had been built for a workshop and garage for antique cars. Sincerely, i RESIDENTIAL COPYRIGHT 1980 SJREB 3AO12 RECIPROCAL - SEE REMARKS RFLOV RP- 867 -3414 CR -3X LP- 285000 LN- PATTEN AP -R67 -2521 POSS -COF. 1L- OC -R /8OLT0N OP -354 -2143 If- BY -0 CA- EL—SARATOGA LP -23X13 MR -13X12 MP- JR— REDWOOD OR -10X13 TR— TX— 951 MS— SARATOGA FR -18X10 LD- 06 /AP /81 XD- 01 /OC /81 HO- --SNELLEY WILLIAMS /LOS- 00902.LOC- AMONG MORE EXPENSIVE HMSR W /EXTENSIVE— MATURE LNDSCPNG TO PROVIDE PRIVACYvFXPAND OR UPDATE W /OUT FFAR OF ±•F M OVERIMPROVING.NOTE THE 2 STOkY94OX25FT BLDG FOR HOBBIESOR4 MANY LG TREES G� CL I t TTPF - SINGLE FAMILY NOW_ -CALL 1ST /LR WE_R- N&CONNE 0 F_ -SH FUTN -CC PERIMETER LQQR -OTHR TYPE WD H_uR -ONE STALL HWR__ -OVER TUB FXTLR- STUCCO XTLR_RRICK xTLR -HOOD INE_-LR /DR COMBO H.PUL -TWO CAR ARQL- DETACHED Ln_L_- FORCED AIR - F .LN -CLFAR FeL U-IN LR LHE —PART CARPETED QT__1 -2 112 A APP j�c_-UTILITY ROOM -ALL WNDW CRVG IJC_ —PM BOAT /TRLR IlL —CVRD PATIO jSC_ —PATIO NOT CVR Mj�L_ —GUEST HOUSE 111 _— SPRNKLRS FRNT j §.�_— SPRNKLRS REAR QUIP —BI DISHWASHER — — E_OU1P -TV ANTENNA ,_— -EP CROSS STREET GEO AREA MAP KEY LOT SIZE ZONING APPROXIMATE FINANCING FRUITVALE SAR 25- 13-ISA 1.05 AC R1 S °'FT' 1976 C ADU14FSS CITY MLS NO. STONIES BOR HATH AGE PRICE 14467 SARATOGA -LOS GAT SARATOGA 38012 1 1 03 2.00 7 285000 uuVuu •^•"^ - 'w^— cm— �- L— LC ■u1Nv-uuARAN1eEUru 11 CORRECT— SAN JUSE RE A L ESTATE BOARD. i r i . note 1 - — (0 S' CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING DEPT. Permit Issued to Build, Alter, Repair =LI=LT. plFl/t L Address 1 [r 6 - S -4 4F rI 7,'-,6't7 a - ZeS (;t; i c S _ _ Lot Tract Owner C-48 1) c.i iekl _ Phone Value CONTRACTOR PERMIT NO. FEE RECEIPT NO. General Electricals 4-' _C =1-7 1-3 ? !_ 9 Es'y,3 Plumbing Heating Elect. Fix. 4 INSPECTION RECORD t Sewer No. Insp. Date FOUNDATIONS PL -CH INSP, DATE RETAINING WALLS PL -CH INSP. DATE ROUGH PLUMBING PL -C INSP. DATE FIREPLACE FIREPLACE HEIGHT HEIGHT WASTE LINE WASTE LINE SIZE SIZE RETAING EARTH RETAING EARTH CLEAN OUTS CLEAN OUTS _ PIER SIZE PIER SIZE FOOTING FOOTING FITTINGS FITTINGS BEARING WALLS BEARING WALLS ENGINEERED PLAN ENGINEERED PLAN VENT SIZE VENT SIZE _ RETAING EARTH RETAING EARTH GIRD GIRD SUPPORTS SUPPORTS _ ENGINEERING ENGINEERING POST SIZE POST SIZE WATER TEST WATER TEST - STEEL STEEL 1 (T GIRD SIZE GIRD SIZE WATER PIPING WATER PIPING GRADING GRADING GIRD SPACING GIRD SPACING ,. ROUGH ROUGH CUT CUT JOIST OR T & G JOIST OR T A G TYPE TYPE FILL FILL NAILING NAILING 4EATER SIDE HEATER SIZE FLASHING FLASHING FOUNDATION VENTS FOUNDATION VENTS PIPING PIPING SET BACKS SET BACKS y BRIDGING BRIDGING SUPPORTS SUPPORTS NOTES: 6Date 3'ge-% CITY OF SARATOGA Permit Issued to Build Alter -Repair ]r! f �e S {� Xy Address q '%' �50V e a h+c-5 �t fci �c/ _ Lot. Owner ✓ �� el o, 1,4 — Phone CONTRACTOR J PERMIT NO. General l -4 �ti �o { 21 L j - Electrical Plumbing Heating I F' BUILDING DEPT. Tract _ Value y-1 C "' FEE RECEIPT NO. 1g-- C Lc Q E ect. X. INSPECTION RECORD Sewer No. Insp. Date FOUNDATIONS PL -CH INSP. DATE RETAINING WALLS PC-CHI INSP. DATE ROUGH PLUMBING PL -C INSP. DATE FIREPLACE HEIGHT WASTE LINE _ SIZE T —/ BLS RETAING EARTH CLEAN OUTS _ PIER SIZE FOOTING FITTINGS BEARING WALLS ENGINEERED PLAN VENT SIZE RETAING EARTH GIRD SUPPORTS ENGINEERING POST SIZE WATER TEST STEEL 1 (T / -LAS GIRD SIZE WATER PIPING GRADING GIRD SPACING ,. ROUGH CUT JOIST OR T A G TYPE FILL NAILING HEATER SIZE FLASHING FOUNDATION VENTS PIPING v SET BACKS y -G� BRIDGING SUPPORTS NOTES: February 3, 1932 Mrs. Linda Callon 12593 Fredericksburg Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Subject: 1946; Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Dear Mrs. Callon; Summarized below are the main elements we sish to emphasize to the Counil in memo form. We also believe the discussion period at the meeting will have an important bearing on our case. Finally, we feel that a visit to the premises by each council member is critical, and we shall be in touch with you shortly to arrange such a visit. 1. We would like to note that this entire controversy seems to center around the opinion by the city attorney that the second structure in question is 'illegal'. We dispute this based on the existence and use of this building for 17 years. If the structure is not illegal there is nothing preventing a non,- conforming building; from having guest facilities. We understand you must 'Oeigh the city attorney's opinion, but we are seeking legal advice on this. In the spirit of open communication we wish to make known to you this effort and we will be in touch if our advice turns up anything to support our contention, or otherwise. 2. Privacy is a big element in this issue, and rightly so; it is probably the biggest issue. In this connection, please note: a) the second story window is covered; it is impossible to view anything from the window but sky. Its only function is to allow light and air into the second story. b) we must ask why Mr. Robbins located his cabana and pool so close to the building in question and so close to the property line. There was an entire acre to work with; however, he now complains about the closeness of our structure, waiting 17 years to do so! c) we are anxious for you to visit the location and note the relative distances between building and houses in the vicinity, giving special attention to this in relation to our second structure. We think you will find this interesting and enlightening. It is worth repeating that we appreciate the privacy issue, but we do not appreciate or understand the great hullaballoo in this case, and feel that your own visit to the premises will be helpful to you in forming your own opinion. 3. In a followup with the Planning Commission members it became apparent that the matter of prior use of the structure as a guest facility was not fully appreciated. We are aware that there are current efforts to give the im- pression that the building was never used as a guest house. Based on the previously submitted signed statement, the use as a guest house goes back some time, and in several different time frames. We must raise the question -2- of how someone can authoritatively state to the contrary. We are exploring this further and will have more on this at the meeting on February 17 or before. Given this, it is to be emphasized that we are not changing the use; but rather maintaining and upgrading the structure at considerable expense. This should give more value to the property and surrounding property. Yet Mr. Robbins says that property values will decrease if our application is granted! During your visit, please note the inside and outside appearance and construction of a building to be used for 'garage and storage' only; we think you will be somewhat surprised. 4. We do not understand why the Planning Commission completely reversed the recommendations of a professional staff report or why they imposed the conditions indicated. We cannot change this, but we do request the council to take into consideration in its deliberations and decision the practical impact of the conditions imposed and the significant differences between them and the staff report. 5. The building has existed for 17 years, apparently without prejudice or problem. It is our plan to maintain the status quo in that sense. Of course there i`s always the risk of new owners. After an unusual period of tranquility due to the age and health of the prior owners, whoever moves into the property is likely to change this somewhat even if the building was not there. A new property owner has rights, doesn't he, and why should a neighbor, beforehand, be permitted to meddle in another property owner's rights in the manner now being attempted. Please consider this. o. Fgllowing on from 5, we feel the city has some responsibility in this matter. First'a permit was isued, the building inspected afterward and approved. And 17 years went by! Then in June. of this past year we made a visit (this can be documented) to City Hall for the purpose of determining whether`there were any problems associated with the property and structures. We were informed every- thing was in order; the inspections cards were produced. With this background, does not the City of Saratoga bear some responsibility for today's Catch 22 situation? We believe there is a moral obligation at the least, and respectfully request that you take this into consideration in your deliberations. Finally, but as mentioned before, we feel most strongly that each member of the council should independently visit the premises and form their own opinion, especially as related to privacy and whether what we are proposing creates a problem in terms of upgrading guest facilities. The following items might prove helpful to note in your inspection tour: 1. Outside appearance 2. Inside construction -- frontal columns - -look through the louvred window -- window construction - -the open beam ceiling construction - -entry way - -the panelled ceiling -- closet doors 3. Surrounding area - -there is a telephone (extension - -the natural screening between of main house) properties -- extensive foliage, minimizing view to and from neighborhood area - -the distance to neighbor's dwellings - -the nearness of the later -built cabana to our building - -the 3 cabana windows - -the outside lights that cannot shine on pool area Also attached for your general information is a real estate listing showing the building described as a guest house. -3- As a gesture of good faith and goodwill, we are willing to agree to the following: - -add a no -rent clause to the deed that satisfies the city j( O/C_ - -paint the outside to provide a better appearance -- removal of bar sink from plans - -plant additional shrubbery, although please note that there are a lot of trees and shrubbery already in place, especially in direct line of vision with other buildings We shall. be in touch with you shortly to arrange a visit to our premises. J y t -46CKz Sincerely, John Henricks VLF Z ?�/4' G d�� CHARLES H. ROBBINS - ,- - 19348 MONTE VISTA DRIVE LN, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 March 16, 1942 6 1982 To: Saratoga City Council Subject: UP 514 Request for Clarification of Plumbing Restrictions Reference: Letter to City Council by John Henrick and Jerry Jordan, 3 -10 -82 Please clarify UP 514 to specifically exclude a sewer connection for the following reasons. 1. A sewer connection is the sine_le feature most likely to determine whether the building is used for garaqe- storage or a de facto guest house. There is no sewer connection or running water in the building now. 2. Use of the building would tend to be intensified, c ntrary to the law on non - conforming structures, if a sewer connection were added. 3. Further changes toward making the building into a dwelling are likely if a sewer connection and toilet are allowed. A wash basin would be necessary for a toilet. Additional modifications could be made easily. Enforcement of the conditions of the use permit will probably depend on neighbors who could readily notice construction of a sewer connection but would have difficulty detecting illegal work inside the building. 4. A toilet or sewer connection is not essential for a garage - storage building. How many detached garages in Saratoga have sewer connections? In summary, please don't permit the first step in what could become piece meal conversion of the accessory structure into a dwelling. Keep the nose of the camel out of the tent. Thank you, (2/10- r Charles H. Robbins CHRONOLOGY HISTORY OF THE SECOND STRUCTURE ON 19467 SARATOGA/LOS GATOS ROAD,'SARATOGA 1. Structure was originally built for the intention of being a residence for Mrs. Gladwin's mother. Permits obtained were based upon this; however, the mother did not move into this area of California at all. 2. Phone, lights, and portable heat has been installed and available in the building since it was first constructed in 1965. 3. The building has been used as a guest house many times during the recent years. 4. From original construction in 1965 to 1976, the structure was also used as an office and as a workshop for Mr. Gladwin. Temporary partitions were installed to make space for office, living quarters, and storage space. .5• In 1976 and 1977, it was used as a guest house for Mrs. Gladwin's- nephew and a friend, as well as for an office /workshop. 6. From 1977 to late 1979, it served as sleeping quarters for the nurse /housekeeper for Mrs. Gladwin. 7. After Mrs. Gladwin's death in late 1979, the space has been utilized by Mrs. Bolton, the sister of Mrs. Gladwin, for storing the personal property of the deceased until the estate is settled. C M File No. UP -514 FINDINGS: a. That the proposed location of the conditional use in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. With 'the issuance of a conditional use permit for this use, along with any imposed conditions of approval, the location will be in accordance with the zoning ordinance and purposes of the district in which it is located. b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public helath, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff does not.feel that the use of the structure as a guest house without a kitchen would be detrimental or materially injurious to the surrounding neighborhood. C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Through the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit, the use will comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this staff report, Exhibit "B ", and the following conditions: 1. The window facing the rear property line shall be covered with fixed louvers which do not permit visibility to any adjacent properties. 2. The structure shall be used as temporary guest facilities only, without a kitchen. Approved: Nancy Ho man,'Ilanning Assistant NH:lt P. C. Agenda 1/13/82 RESIDENTIAL COPYRIGHT 1980 SJREB 314012 RECIPROCAL - SEE REMARKS RFLOW RP- 867 -3414 CR -3% LP- 285000 LN- PATTEN AP -R67 -2521 POSS -COf 1L- OC-R /BOLTON OP- 350 -2343 11- BY-0 CA- EL-SARATOGA LP -73X13 MR- 1.1X12 MP- JR- REDWOOD OR -1n %13 TR- TK- 951 MS- SARATOGA 1R -10X10 -LO- 06 /AP /81 XD- O11OC181 HO- - SMELLE( WILLIiM57CGS�00907.LOC AM- 0-N6—MORE EXPCNSIVC'HMS6 W /EXTENSIVE- MATURE LNOSCPNG TO PROVIDE PRIVACY,EXPANO OR UPDATE W /OUT FFAR OF OVFRIMPRnV1NG.N0TF TIIF 7 STONY.4OX25FT FLOG FOR HOBBIESOR7 MANY LG TREES TYPE - SINGLE FAMILY HG V_ -CALL 1ST /LA EWER- NLC NNEC 0" SHKWr V�1TN -CC PERIMETER EQQR -OTMR TYPE WO H11R -ONE STALL OVER TUB EXI[R- STUCCO )I TE?_SRICK XTER -WOOD LR /OR COMBO ¢PUP -TWO CAR MliL- DETACHED [A1_- FORCED AIR CLFAR FF F_eLL[ -1N LR LQQA -PA 147 CARPETED QI__1 -2 1/2 A APP UTILITY ROOM MI �C _ -ALL WNOY CRVG 1�,C� RM flOAT /TRLR I�,C -CVRD PA T[0 PATIO NOT CVR AMjJQ_ GUEST HOUSE l .U_- SPRNKLRS FRNT j,,C_- SPRNKLRS REAR 81 DISHWASHER EQUIP -TV ANTENNA CROSS STREET GEO.AREA MAP KEY LUT SIZE IONING APPROXIMATE FINANCING FRUITVALE SAR 25 -13 -IRA 1.05 AC Al eD'Fr. 1976 C ADUHl Si CI TV MLS NO STOIUESUW IIATM AGE PRICE 14467 SARATOGA -LOS GAT SARATOGA 38012 1 O1 7.00 7 285000 CAF I lily( ✓�--e— .� �C��.� -f ' .ems .� -ems/ _ -�-� .�La.�c% >�u-uJ i'�. -�--�- .,�,�- �.a.J• T�4� /7 0 v /J /1 T a C a Gts-�► m c� / Ifc el A- dlel'ge 4�1 Cal 'o Ile c- �,,L, 70111 7461 Ito a-e Id �j i C-bD � 1� -ice "' �C. �1.�.L��," ci__�• ,�_LC�Q� �� ��- L.r -L-� Imo" �.L�' h- . -L..�. /�'_L ��• -Gt./ ��"f/ Aila- To:, Saratoga City Council March 1, 1982 I have stayed with Mrs. Gladwin on several occasions while her regular housekeeper, Beth Peters had the night off. On many of her nights off, she had no place to sleep. Mrs.. Gladwin told a her she could sleep in the guest house which.she did. Also, Mrs. Gladwin's nephew, Steve, had slept in the guest house for a long period f -��� Mr. Gladwin's death several years age. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Karen Roth Telephone 408 -378 -3897 Note: Karen Roth, in her discussion with me, also indicated that she was certain that the Andrus' (neighbors just to the east) were aware that the second structure was used by other people, especially Steve Christianson. 1 Vp LP L- t k 4-�� 41 6) / 97� / 11 ��; ••,LAG _"'_ y_ i 1% Junice Bolton 2319 Broadway East Seattle, Wash. 98102 2o6 325 -2668 DID YOU KNOW -- 1. that the Gladwin property we purchased was probably the most run -down property in the area? 2. the main house has been completely refurbished? 3. that Robbins' elected to build their pool house and cabana where it is now located next to our structure after our building was in place? 4. that we have documented evidence that the second structure was designed as a guest facility and has been used as such intermittently by the owner's nephew, at least two housekeepers, and Mrs. Gladwin's nurse? There may be others that used the guest facilities that we cannot document because the owners are deceased. 5. that with this use the City of Saratoga has never received a complaint about this building during its entire 17 years of existence, until now? 6—that the window Robbins' have complained about is covered by fixed louvres and that sky is all you can see through it? 7. that the Robbins' pool house has three windows that face our building? S. that the Robbins' have homes 50 feet from their residence, while our second structure is more than 150 feet away? 9. that we never planned to put a kitchen in the building (it is against city ordinance and told Mr. Robbins that from the beginning? 10. that we made the following conciliatory offers to the Robbins': - -to put a NO RENT clause in our deed to warn any future owners of the illegality of that action. - -to paint the building a color of their choice. - -to plant additional shrubbery. - -to construct a fence between the properties. The Robbins' have rejected all offers, maintaining the stance that there is to be no use of this structure at any time by anybody as a guest facility! In addition to the above, you might be interested in knowing that: 11. in the city of Saratoga a guest house is a legal use for an accessory structure, even if it is non - conforming. 12.:.that the accessory structure was advertised as a guest house before we bought it. 13. that all necessary building permits were applied for and granted by the city in 1965• 14. that the city building inspector specifically checked the size and set -backs for the building, and approved them. 15. the Robbins' pool house is non - conforming to today's codes. 16. it ie legal to rent a garage and storage area (to any person) while it is illegal to rent a guest house as a second dwelling. AN APPEAL TO REASON Listed below are a number of thought - provoking statements from our viewpoint that we feel will be of assistance in identifying and understanding the major difficulties facing us in this matter. Most of these are included in previous correspondence and u discussions, but stating them in.a simple format might help in your appreciation of our position. Please accept them in this spirit, and please give them thought and attention: 1. Why does a building that has had the same uses for 17 years need a use permit now? 2. Does it make sense for a governing body to call a building illegal after 17 years; the same body that gave it legality by collecting fees, checking and approving plans as submitted and inspecting it? 3. Does a negative environmental impact report mean anything? 4. Does a positive staff recommendation mean anything? 5. Isn't it very unusual for a staff recommendation to be totally reversed with no discussion, and then adding very onerous additional conditions to an existing use? 6. Is it legal, much less moral, to require something be removed (220 wiring) that has been in the building since it was constructed? And, for what practical purpose? 7. Does electing to locate a pool and cabana close to a neighbor's building and then complaining that the building is too close make sense? 3. Why is a guest facility 150 feet away more offensive than a next door neighbor's home just 50 feet away? 9. How much credibility is there to a complaint about size, color and closeness of a building after 17 years? 10. The contention has been that the building was never used as a guest house; this contradicts the several written statements we have submitted that indicate the contrary. There is no proof submitted that supports the opposite contention. The useage as a guest house has had no apparent ill effect to the neighbors during this time, who were evidently not even aware of this activity. 11. Do you feel a neighbor, who has enjoyed years of tranquility relative to the structure in question due to the age and health of the previous owners, has the right to impose his conditions on the new owners, i.e. preserve the status quo? In change of ownership (as happens to almost all property), doesn't the new owner .have frights, and why should a neighbor, beforehand, be permitted to meddle in another property owner's rights in the manner now being attempted? 12. Because Mr. Robbins believes that the City of Saratoga is not or cannot enforce rental codes on a property, does that make it right to disallow a legitimate and long standing use? 13. Why not let us continue to improve the value of the property without violating city codes, without changing past useage, without outside interference, but to include the specifics of a no rent clause, painting, and planting of shrubbery for this second structure? �D•t• - 3''�`l . i' '� 1 "'`� CITY OF SARATOGA d tr5i� f.t, v S Permit Issue to Build, Alter Repe �• Addr•ss�v 7 !v tcJ C. i fry Ail Lot Owner h I✓ I .zz CONTRACTOR General h (t��- (•� Electrical Plumbing Heating Elect. Fix. INSPECTION RECORD Sewer No. _ Phone PERMIT NO. 12 10 BUILDING ULPT. Tract _ _ Value .1 L't FEA RECEIPT NO. Insp. Date FOUNDATIONS PLICH INS►. DATE RETAIN LS Z N!►. DATE ROUGH PLUMBING WASTE LINE CLEAN OUT$ PL-C — INSP. - -- DATE • —. fIRVLACE _lIEE c .� v;Z ��� l• �grl'G Plumbing 42,FA S PL A3 4,1-7 1 �',�LS rA.�A RTH PIER SIZE Elect. Fix. Jr INSPECTION RECORD Sewer No. - FITTINGS BEARING WALLS CLEAN OUTS PLAN PIER SIZE VENT SIIE FOOTING RETAING EARTH FITTINGS GIRO BEARING WALLS SUPPORTS ENGINEERED PLAN ENGINEERING VENT SIZE P T SIZE RETAING EARTH WATER TEST GIRO STEEL I: -16J GIRO Z[ ENGINEERING WATER PIPING POST SIZE GRADING WATER TEST GIRO SPA STEEL ROUGH TYPE GIRD SIZE CUT WATER PIPING JOIST OR T G G FILL GRADING NAILING GIRO SPACING NEATER SIZE FLASHING CUT FOUNDATION VENTS JOIST OR T A G PIPING TYPE SET BACK$ FILL Yr BRIDGING NAILING SUPPORT! HEATER SITE Date `4--GS� CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING DEPT. Permit Issued to uild,, Alter, Repair CAQf�N /� Address �1 4 ti7c.: ✓TE I/is T/i Lot Tract Owner .� —�[i d r3 iN _ Phone Value .y ou (`1\v CONTRACTOR PERMIT NO. FEE RECEIPT NO. General A4 f• No12/"A4 A/ �-� z/7 5 `^ �f � 90 Electrical •S ,4nP7"d -5*7 c .� v;Z ��� l• �grl'G Plumbing 42,FA S PL A3 4,1-7 Heating Elect. Fix. Jr INSPECTION RECORD Sewer No. Insp. Date FOUNDATIONS PL -CH INSP. DATE RETAINING WALLS PL.CH INSP. DATE ROUGH PLUMBING Ptej INSP DATE FIREPLACE f h- G )-'HEIGHT WASTE LINE SIZE RETAING EARTH CLEAN OUTS PIER SIZE FOOTING FITTINGS BEARING WALLS ENGINEERED PLAN VENT SIZE RETAING EARTH GIRO SUPPORTS ENGINEERING POST SIZE WATER TEST STEEL GIRD SIZE WATER PIPING GRADING GIRO SPACING CUT JOIST OR T A G TYPE FILL NAILING HEATER SITE FLASHING I FOUNDATION VENTS PIPING SET BACKS BRIDGING SUPPORTS NOTES: 11D c P1 a NsR @t1 S.. ., .�?1G'"i �.. 't�:' .. I;'�i �,�+'�%d:"fgt?'41'e °. �. i .+ :�, -�.! .�. _ '' _ � 1'. 1• m FIXED O e5c uRC c..OV✓ 2e1 d On �M pQO QOi e-T.) W t vbOKV M.OD t F %dA,- t O +-, Fort 20011 Glasgow Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 2, 1982 To; Members of the Saratoga City Council; Thank you for visiting the property and spending time with us. We hope you now have an excellent appreciation of the matter. Enclosed are copies of letters we have received from people who were familiar with this property, and structure, and -who used the facility. These letters result from a necessarily limited sample due to the fact that the previous owners are.deceased, and the short time frame and limited scope of our investigation; but which leaves no question about the prior use of the structure. More copies are in the mail, but may not arrive in time for tomorrow night. Mr. Robbins' letter of February 5 has just come into our possession. As usual, he has misrepresented us and a number of facts, and our discussions at the meeting will focus on some of these items, especially relative to our intentions of renting the property. Jerry and I look forward to seeing you at the meeting tomorrow night. Sincerely, j-,-� ?_.e,� John Henricks November 30, 1931 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN The undersigned neighbors have no objections to the continued use of the second structure on 19467 Saratoga /Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, as a guest house. x, De V March 1, 1982 To :, Sarato:ga City Council I have stayed with Mrs. Gladwin on several occasions while her regular housekeeper, Beth Peters had the night off. On many of her nights off, she had no place to sleep. Mrs.. Gladwin told a tier she could sleep in the guest house which.she did. Also, Mrs. Gladwin's nephew, Steve, had slept in the guest house for a long period fgll� ing Mr. Gladwin's death several years ago. If you h,-;ve any further questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Karen Roth Telephone 408 -378 -3897 Note: Karen Both, in her discussion with inc, also indicated that she was certain that the Andrus' (neighbors just to the east) were aware that the second structure was used by other people, especially Steve Christianson. of 9 I Zd Z4 //Aell Z- All e tv& /5�6P 7` dam' Cf,4- 74ei�r C� C/ L%1' � 7 �? � ®mot 7�,�G! / �G /y �j' �l� ��� <�� -j el .017 -rer Z- 7 Z��- /yam �' / %.;� 7z/c0;7 7o -,� / `17 JL Z Y-e 1/9 A�L CC) C") "-di —O ,f & 1 It cC �� �xl tj fl oe, tv z � - 0' 1) Z�/- V Nil le L-5y) Q �! lln C-f kJ Junice Bolton 2319 Broadway East Seattle, Wash. 98102 206 325-2668 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF COUNCIL MEETING OF 3/3 JORDAN APPEAL , ITEM V. C. The public hearing was closed at 10:10. Clevenger: Now we have to take this problem up. Jensen: Madam Mayor, I would like to make a motion on this and move to uphold the Planning Commission recommendations and add to that one more item and that is that if any plumbing has been installed since the time that this first came to the Council that that also be removed. Clevenger: OK. Is there a second? Watson: Before we move for a second I wonder if we might have scm discussion unless Mr. Mallory would like to second that. Clevenger: In order to get this motion going, is there a second to it? If not, it will die for lack of a second. OK. Mr. City Attorney, we don't need to vote on a motion without a second, isn't that what we've decided? All right. You want to talk about it first before we try a motion? Watson: Yes I do. And I want to talk about it for the factor that every one of us has devoted a lot of time to this. I want to go back to the initial instance and address the factor that I, too, was concerned that there might be some focus on cronyism because of Mr. Robinson's previous service to the City. I find that the opposite factor might be equally applied. But for that reason I think that all of us have done diligent examination of this project, and I know that I have been deeply concerned that it is not an easy issue. I an empathetic to the fact that you bought a property that has extraordinary potential and appeal for a guesthouse, not a storage shed. I am equally empathetic with Mr. Robbins in that regardless of your good character and determination, the factor that in resale of the property there is no - -I don't think that we can concur that there is absolute determination that it would be - -a changed situation would necessarily pass, but I think there's a good possibility that he has; a right to be concerned that in fact we might not have a quiet senior citizen living in those.quarters that would not intrude on their area. So I think I personnally have had concern with both your positions, but passing that, then I'd like to cone back just solely to the issue. The issue, I think, is this. The permit was issued for garage and storage.. As I examined the property, unfortunately, it was being designed to be a very appealing guest cottage, possibly second house, but let's restrict it to just a guest cottage. That was not the intent of the original factor. Looking at the listing sheet it was projected and promoted to you as a guest house, a guest cottage, and I can understand your initial determination, but I think clearly looking at what my perception of what your intent was was to make it a very desirable additional appurtenance- -not storage and occasional guest housing- -but really to enhance it for that reason. I have to cone back and submit that the only reason that I didn't second the motion at that moment is that I'm not sure that I would rescind the plumbing. I hate to see any effort which had gone to have to be undone because I think you really were proceeding with good intent. But nevertheless I think we have to deal with the situation that in fact the initial purpose, the licensed purpose, if you will, is for storage and garage structure which in your determination can P. 2 , be used for a guest house, as we've heard defined, but I would have to protect the original intent, I think, and assure the neighbors that that would continue. Clevenger: OK. Mrs. Jensen, would you like to indicate where you're coming from on this? Jensen: Yes. I'll speak to whatever motion comes up, I guess, right now, although there's no motion. I feel that this cottage .is a beautiful little cottage - -a nice little second home- -and perhaps we should tell Mr. Neale about it and you could make him a deal. But problem is that it doesn't meet the height and setback requirements of the ordinance. And while we're not asking- - I don't believe we'll be asking anybody to remove the building because it has been there a long time and this is the first time we've heard an objection, I feel that the best mitigation for the neighbors who are very concerned and have a right to be concerned- -that of planting a dense forest of trees - -would impact on Mr. Robbins severely by cutting down his solar access. And I can't think of another mitigation measure other than just finding a way to make use of that lovely little building, and perhaps there is a place, a lot someplace in the city that could use it as a dwelling. And barring that, the place where it is right now really isn't adequate. It's not the right height and it's not the right setback.- - So that's the way I feel about it. I don't want to .see it used a s a dwelling, and in order to prevent it being used as a dwelling I feel that the plumbing needs to be removed. It was a permit granted by the Planning Commission for storage and garage, and that's what I feel it should be used for. Clevenger: OK. Mr. Mallory? Mallory: (inaudible.reference to a motion.) Clevenger: OK. Do you want to try another motion? Let's see. Jensen: I move that we uphold the Planning Commission's determination. Clevenger: Is there a second? Watson: Second. Clevenger: OK. I'm going to vote in favor of the motion because it seems to me that we can talk about this house having been used as a guest house, but the fact that there were no bathroom facilities in that dwelling must have meant that the use had to be restricted, and it couldn't have been in the current terminology of•a guest house. Also, the report mentions that if there were a conforming guest house on this property it would be 854 square feet, so this structure does exceed the allowable square footage which the guest house would be allowed to have. The original permit does talk about it as a storage /garage facility. And I think that it looks like a house, and it's hard to think that it's a storage and garage, but nevertheless, that's what the permit was for, and I think that we have to abide by that. Mallory: I'd like to ask you to consider an xnendment to the motion. Clevenger: All right. Mallory: I feel that it's completely wrong to require taking out the 220 wiring which has been there for 17 years. It's not related to sleeping quarters, but apparently it's related to, perhaps, work on antique cars or equipment. If this is a garage, that's a power which is associated with garage use. p. 3 Mallory: (continued) Second, accept the fact that the illumination has been there for three years, and it is certainly not part of the current modifications, so I feel that requiring someone to arbitrarily take down some illumination which has been there for three years and which has not been a problem doesn't seem too consistent. Jensen: I'll be happy to modify my motion if you'll help with a little bargain. I feel the most important thing is the plumbing, and I think that's what makes it into a dwelling, and that's the danger of it. And I agree with you that a use as a garage could really be important to someone- -220 wiring could really make that a useful hobby place. And the lighting.is not as much of an issue to me, so if you'll go for the plumbing, I'll remove the requirement for removing the wiring. Clevenger: So what we have, then is an amendment which asks that if there had been any plumbing connections made, that they be taken out, that we allow the 220 wire to stay, and that the lighting on the outside of the house be allowed to stay. The other condition that wasn't addressed was the window. Is there anyone who wants to speak to that? Mallory: Before you get too far, I still am only concerned with two items at this point. Mrs. Jensen has proposed something here. I'm not sure if the other two (inaudible). Clevenger: I can support your amendment. Mallory: You second that. Clevenger: Right. Watson: I can support that amendment. I still am concerned about jerking out plumbing because if you can find reason for power for hobbies, the hobbyist needs a little concern too. I don't want to remodel that building any further. I'd like to just plainly make sure that it is not encouraged to be a second dwelling. Mallory: It is part of garage use that the drain be there, but not part of - a bathroom facility. Clevenger: What are.the practical problems in having a drain and a bathroom. Is it possible to have a drain without a bathroom? Mallory: That is the third item. Would you second that? Clevenger: I'm not sure. ' Shook: I might point out to. :the Council.that there has been - -I'm not sure that there has been any work done relative to plumbing, but there has not been any permits issued for any such work. As far as the drain without a bathroom, I could see a sink facility for washup, for cleanup, something like a washtub or something like that. Watson: So that we can move on this, let's see if we can clean this up, and that is, you're suggesting the power, . you're suggesting the outside lighting, and the factor that there be no approved bathroom facilities. Clevenger: OK. As far as I can tell, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. We have agreement that the 220 line should not be disconnected. Is that correct? p. 4 Clevenger: (continued) We have agreement that the lighting in the front should not be changed. We have agreement that there should be no bathroom facility but that a sink facility is acceptable. Is that right? Jensen: On the lower level. Clevenger: On the lower level. Is that what I've heard that you've said. And was there anything else? Watson; There was a question of a window, and I have a concern about this because if in fact it's occasionally used as a guest house, that could be a stifling situation, but I don't want to run from that. Perhaps we'should address it and clear that up once and for all if that window should be removed and returned to original condition, I think we should address that. Jensen: That was part of the Planning Commission condition. Watson: That it be closed, isn't that correct? Jensen: That it be removed, yes. Mallory: I believe the reccam- endations called for that. Clevenger: So you were going to have them take out that window. Is that the way you want to go on that? All right, then the window should be taken out. The Robbins also asked that the inside two by fours which delineate . the walls should be taken out that. You're not in favor of that? How about that? Jensen: I wouldn't request that. Clevenger: All right, so we're going to leave that. Are there any other conditions that were raised -that we need to address before we finish with this? Ok, then we need to vote on the main motion. Jensen: OK, that's the main motion as stated by our mayor. Clevenger: All those in favor? Opposed? Notion passes and so ordered.. �w AGENDA BILL NO x 4 f DATE: February 19, 1982 DEPART=: Administrative Services CITY OF SARATOGA -------------------------------------------------- SUB.=: FY 1982 -83 HCDA Funding for the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) ----------------------------------=--------- - - - - -- Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Su Tniary As part of its discretionary HCDA funding for FY 82 -83 the City Council allocated $1.0,000 to the SASCC to fund a Senior Aide position and another $10,000 for the provision of senior programs. At the time the Council made this allocation staff understood that the $10,000 for programs was to be matched dollar- for - dollar by the SASCC. Members of the SASCC present at the study session question whether the Council included the matching requirement for the program money. During their first year of formal operation it may be difficult for the SASCC to develop additional funding sources. The $10,000 allocated by the Council could be used as seed monies to begin pro- gram implementation with the generation of additional funds to occur subsequently as the SASCC. increases its own capacity to identify senior need and to develop and fund programs. Recommendation If staff's understanding of the matching requi- rement for program funds is correct, it is recom mended that the City Council delete this requirement. Fiscal Isnraacts No fiscal impact to the City. Exhibits /Attachments Letter from President of SASCC Council Action 3/17: Consensus to discuss use of HCDA funds at study session when more concrete information on avaiability of funds is obtainable..., 4S�� col REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 3/11/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 3/17/82 SUBJECT Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating, Council ( SASCC) Request for Deletion of Matching Fund Requirement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The Saratoga City Council took action at an adjourned regular meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 1981, to, among other things, allocate the sum of $10,000 in HCDA funding ($20,000 requested) to the SASCC for a Senior Activities Coordinator position, and the sum of $10,000 for the provision of direct programs to seniors, this latter sum to be matched. (See attached minutes) Members of the SASCC present at this meeting did not understand that the $10,000 for direct programs was to be matched. They are currently requesting that the City Council clarify this requirement, and if, in fact, the Council intended that these funds for programs be matched, that the Council delete this requirement. Staff recommends deletion of the matching requirement in order for the SASCC to gain experience in the provision of senior programs; gain organizational independence that will enhance their service to Saratoga Area elders; and provide them with time to develop alternative sources of funding,,, i.e. grants and foundation monies, etc. J S tan Xrnekie HCD Coordinator ck 0i-11ullY SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, November 24, 1981 - 7 :30 p.m. PLACE: Meeting Roan, Coi-anunity Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting I. Roll Call - 7:33 p.m. Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson and Mayor Callon present II. Review of Proposed Use of Housing and Community Development Funds City Manager explained that this item was a public hearing continued from the regular Council meeting of 11/18. Housing and Community Development Coordinator explained how staff had prioritized projects and the difference between designated and non - designated funds. He also explained the criteria for those receiving rehabilitation loans as resident owners and as investors. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the Council should move ahead; it was not known whether the City would receive any competitive funds, but each city would probably receive some funding in its rehabilitation program. Housing and Cormunity Development Coordinator recommended that the Council indicate tentative priority for non - designated funds and set a dollar amount for rehabilitation. When the funds are made available, he said, the amounts could be readjusted. In response to Mayor Callon, he replied that funds probably could be used for solar energy projects. The public hearing was opened at 7 :51 p.m. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Drive, spoke as a representative of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, requesting a one -half time person to help with senior activities such as a nutrition program for the frail elderly. Co.irmnity Center Director listed programs now being conducted for seniors and those which could be implemented with additional funding. Dave Moyles, 13179 Paseo Presada, spoke in favor of using funds for improvements of streets and storm drains in the Quito area. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. Councilmembers discussed priorities for use of funds. Housing and Community Development Coordinator noted that priorities could be changed even after the funds are allocated, but they must be fixed by 30 days before the beginning of the fiscal year. He also explained the certifications needing to be trade to justify use of the funds. Consensus to keep Saratoga ?busing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program as first priority for non - designated funds. Consensus to authorize $10,000 for a senior activities coordinator and $10,000 for direct programs for seniors, funds to be matching. . III. Review of Status of the Projected Development of Saratoga Inn at Northern Terminus of Third Street Commmity Development Director explained that conditional approval had been granted by Planning Crnmission and that certain conditions were being appealed, including requirement for 47 parking spaces and acceptable fire access. Councilmembers discussed issues, including possible provision of public meting rooms by inn; rationale for number of parking spaces required; impact on nearby businesses; redesignation of spaces in Village Parking District #3; removal of trees. Warren Heid, the architect for the project, submitted a petition signed by Village merchants favoring the project, as well as a parking study irdicatirc the number of vacant spaces in Village Parking District #1. Fe explained the history of the application and asserted that sufficient fire safety precau- tions had been taken so that fire access concerns were not a problem. He also stated that the proposed number of rooms could not be reduced without making the project econcanically unfeasible, but number of parking spaces could be increased by restriping certain spaces in Village Parking District 01. SAS cC SENIOR CENTER FURNISHINGS FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMITTEE A. J. Beverett, Chairman Ernest Card, Jr. Margaret Corr Richard Drake Mildred Gordon Betty Hunter Rudolph Kanne Mary Jean Van Peborg, Ex Officio HONORARY COMMITTEE Frederick S. Armstrong, Physician Gladys Armstrong, President League of Women Voters Los Gatos - Saratoga Helen Brazil, President Saratoga Foothill Club Linda Callon, Mayor City of Saratoga John Cantlen, President West Valley College Board of Trustees R. Range Conklin, Supt. Odd Fellows Home of California Lois Pitts, President Saratoga -Los Gatos Soroptimists Kevin Kyes, President Kiwanis Club of Saratoga Martin H. Le Fevre, President Saratoga Rotary Club Ann Louden, President Los Gatos - Saratoga Branch American Assn. of University Women Mary McAbee, President Saratoga Sunset Seniors Club Margaret McGowan, President AmericanAss'n. of Retired Persons Saratoga Area Chapter 760 William A. Murphy, President Los Gatos- Saratoga Board of Realtors Willys Peck, President Saratoga Historical Foundation Jack Rohan, President Saratoga Lions Club Eunice Stark, President Good Government Group of Saratoga Sandy Taylor, President Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Dona Tobiason, President The Summit League Saratoga Area SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. O. Box 123 • Saratoga, California 95070 March 1, 1982 Mr. Stan Carnekie, Coordinator Housing and Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Carnekie: On behalf of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council I would like to thank you for the $10,000 for the Senior Aide and the additional $10,000 for Senior Programs from the HCD funding. Those of the Senior Coordinating Council who attended the City Council meeting came away with the understanding that there would be no requirement of matching funds. We believe that we are not in a position to provide matching money and would respectfully request the City Council reassure us on this. ss Cordially yours, Mary Jeal n Peborgh, Presiden Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council aD% ,t C � 20? ON ITY o = ' A TOGA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CI'T'Y COUNCIL DATE: 2/19/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 2/23/82 SUBJECT: Manufactured Housing Ordinance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached to this memo is a copy of the Manufactured Housing Ordinance and background information. A letter from Edward Hicks, who is a manufactured housing consultant that has discussed manufactured housing issues with other local governments, is also attached. Brochures from Mr. Hicks will be passed out at the meeting. Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /mgr Attachments CONSULTANTS- MANUFACTURED HOUSING 607 SiUNNYOAKS `VEST P.O. Box 1469 CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95009 408 - 866 -9518 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1982 'PLANNING POLICY ANALYSIS February 16, 1982 Mr. Rob Robinson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Robinson Thank you for the invitation to speak before your City Council on the evening of Febuary 23 at 7 :30 pm. I enjoy working w1-th city governments regarding manufactured housing opportunities. While I don't think you need fear that there will be a.rush by lot owners to install mobile homes on their lots as the result of the passing into law of SB 1960, there are a few items that you may want to condider in your implementing ordinances. It will be my pleasure to work with you at no charge for this initial session. I have enclosed several of my marketing bro- chures which may help some of the Council members to get some perspective on the overall growth and change of the manufactured housing industry in the past few years. I am looking foreward to meeting with you and the members of the City Council on the 23rd, �In �erelyjours 7 Edward Nicks President • . rt;A REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Addendum to Mobile Home Ordinance As a result of the January 5, 1982 staff has modified the Ordinance to only R -1- 10,000 vs. all residential direction. However, staff finds it factured housing in all residential the City Council. RECOMMENDATION DATE: 1/6/82 Commission Meeting: 1/13/82 Zommittee -of- the -Whole Meeting, allow manufactured housing in districts per the Council's appropriate to allow manu- districts as discussed with Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution which recommends that the City Council approve an Ordinance which allows manufactured' units in all'residential districts. RSR /mgr Attachment . S. Robinson, Jr. Dire for of Planning & Policy Analysis CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. * �' Dept. Hd. DATE: 1/18/82 C. Att DEPARTMENT: Planning and Policy Analysis C. Mgr. - - SUBJECT. Manufactured Housing Ordinance Issue Summary Effective July 1, 1981, SB 1960 went into effect. The Bill clearly stated that all cities will allow manufactured housing within their City. The law stated that a City may not discriminate against manufactured housing but may select specific districts in which they will allow manufactured housing. In September 1981, staff presented the law to the City Council at a study session at which time the City Council directed the preparation of the ordinance to have manufactured housing in all districts. 'The Planning Commission conducted a study session and the public hearings and there was some question as to whether or not the City Council had indicated a willingness to put them in all districts. However, the Planning Commission reccumnded that manufactured lanits should be allowed in all residential (R -1 current HCRD and new zoning designations for the hillsides) districts within the City. Recommendation 1. Direct staff to set this item for a public hearing at the next possible regular meeting. 2. Conduct the necessary public hearings and introduce the ordinance by title. Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action Staff Report- Exhibit A Ordinance (Draft) - Exhibit B Resolution- Exhibit C Negative Declaration- Exhibit D Minutes - Exhibit E 2/3: Consensus to set for study session 2/23. nV l s 0 Exki6i� A REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/2/81 Commission Meeting: 12/9/81 SUBJECT * GF -334, Manufactured Housing Background of Report: Under the provisions of SB -1960, all cities within the State of California must allow manufactured homes within the city limits. SB -1960 went into effect on July 1, 1981. The City Council conducted a Committee of the Whole to discuss this particular Ordinance in or around September 1981 at which time staff was prepared to recommend certain zoning districts. The City Council felt that it was more appropriate to place manufactured housing in all the zoning districts within the City of Saratoga, where single family residential units are allowed. Specifically those zoning districts would be the R -1 Districts, the current HCRD, and the proposed NHD District. The City Attorney has drafted the following Ordinance which has been reviewed by the Department of Community Development, and the Building Inspection Department to insure that they can adequately deal with the requirements of this Ordinance. State Law clearly indicates that no requirements or conditions can be added to manufactured housing that are not added to single family dwellings within the City. This clause gives the City of Saratoga a great deal of latitude. However, as indicated in the Ordinance on page 2 under Section 3b3, Development Standards, there are certain development criteria which we have included and which are consistent with other ordinances that staff has reviewed from other cities in the Bay Area. Specifically, those development standards state that all manufactured housing shall have; A) exterior siding as approved by the Planning Commission extending to within 18 inches above the finished grade and consistent with conventional building materials; and B) have ashingled, pitched roof with eaves or a roof with alternative materials and design acceptable to Commission; and C) have an enclosed garage or carport with minimum GF -334 - ManufacturEWousing December 2, 1981 Page 2 40 square footage of 20 x 20 to provide for off - street parking. The exterior material of the garage shall be compatible with the exterior siding of the structure. The manufacturing homes must have all the necessary permits from the Department of Community Development and they are not allowed any special treatment because of SB -1960. Recommendations: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Ordinance and the attached Resolution GF -334 which recommends the said Ordinance to the City Council. In making such a recommendation it should be noted that if an applicant came in today and requested to place a mobile home in the City of Saratoga that we would really have no controls and this Ordinance would give the Planning Commission the authority to review any structure. S. Pobinson, Jr. irector of Planning and Policy Analysis RSR /mgr Attachments The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby adopt an ordinance which will permit the erection of manufactured homes in all residential districts of the City in accordance with SB -1960 (Chapter 1142, Statutes of 1980). SECTION 2: Section 1.5 of Ordinance No. NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, is hereby amended to read as follows: "dd -1. Manufactured Home. A structure, including a mobile home, as defined in Section 5402(6) of the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 55402(6))." SECTION 3: Article 3B of Ordinance No. NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, is hereby enacted to read as follows: "Article 3B. Manufactured Homes in Residential Districts. Sec. 3B.1. Applicable Zoning Districts. Manufactured homes shall be permitted to be erected in all R -1 (one - family residential) and HC -RD (hillside conser- vation residential) zoning districts within the City of Saratoga, provided that said homes are erected in compliance with the regulations established in this article. Sec. 3B.2. Applicable Regulations. All manufactured homes sought to be erected pursuant to this Article shall: (a) Conform to all the requirements of Article 3 and Article 3A of Ordinance No. NS -3 (the Zoning Ordinance), and Ordinance No. NS -60 (the Sub- division Ordinance) of the City of Saratoga; and (b) Be subject to the same design review approval process of Article 13 of- Ordinance No. NS -3 and Ordinance No. 3.47 of the Saratoga City Code as applies to non - manufactured homes; and (c) Possess the necessary building permits as required by the Saratoga Department of Community Develop- ment. Said permits shall include grading permits, building permits, plumbing permits, electrical permits, construction permits and mechanical permits; and -1- SY 7�J�.''4S_ .`1 "�`'(y�•S`�k'�C�.�"�.'rH^! ~'d 1� �.M. {?"' -�.0 _...... <� .r.. a: ? { -ti�1� r ..r.. ='� G 4• .. . s :'?.,, �.> ...t .:, .; ..- - _ AYSJ 10 f 19/81 f ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ERECTION OF ^} MANUFACTURED HOMES IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby adopt an ordinance which will permit the erection of manufactured homes in all residential districts of the City in accordance with SB -1960 (Chapter 1142, Statutes of 1980). SECTION 2: Section 1.5 of Ordinance No. NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, is hereby amended to read as follows: "dd -1. Manufactured Home. A structure, including a mobile home, as defined in Section 5402(6) of the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 55402(6))." SECTION 3: Article 3B of Ordinance No. NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, is hereby enacted to read as follows: "Article 3B. Manufactured Homes in Residential Districts. Sec. 3B.1. Applicable Zoning Districts. Manufactured homes shall be permitted to be erected in all R -1 (one - family residential) and HC -RD (hillside conser- vation residential) zoning districts within the City of Saratoga, provided that said homes are erected in compliance with the regulations established in this article. Sec. 3B.2. Applicable Regulations. All manufactured homes sought to be erected pursuant to this Article shall: (a) Conform to all the requirements of Article 3 and Article 3A of Ordinance No. NS -3 (the Zoning Ordinance), and Ordinance No. NS -60 (the Sub- division Ordinance) of the City of Saratoga; and (b) Be subject to the same design review approval process of Article 13 of- Ordinance No. NS -3 and Ordinance No. 3.47 of the Saratoga City Code as applies to non - manufactured homes; and (c) Possess the necessary building permits as required by the Saratoga Department of Community Develop- ment. Said permits shall include grading permits, building permits, plumbing permits, electrical permits, construction permits and mechanical permits; and -1- :YM' - .A;�+ -�- �.� :fCyYfliY { 5... R 4h._')Li. T h. � NT"~ 'd� 1 iv Y. .i� 4. �f+T��C.�yA•K 'L•f .1'." ihJ 1... -�. .- ._ (d) Bl laced on a permanent foun(tion as approved by the Department of Community Development. Sec. 3B.3. Development Standards. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the erection of a manufactured home on a permanent foundation pursuant to this Article, all such homes shall receive design review approval and shall meet the following development standards: Mayor of the City of Saratoga ATTEST: s Clerk of the City of Saratoga -2- (a) Have exterior siding as approved by the Planning Commission extending eighteen (18) inches above finished grade and consistent with conventional building materials; and (b) Have a shingled, pitched roof with eaves, or a roof of alternative materials and design acceptable to ''- the Planning Commission; and (c) Have an enclosed garage or carport with a minimum square footage of twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) _ feet to provide off - street parking. The exterior . material of the garage shall be compatible with the exterior siding of the structure." - SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would.have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,.sentences, clauses or - phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This ordinance shall effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced and after waiting the time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1981, upon the ~= following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor of the City of Saratoga ATTEST: s Clerk of the City of Saratoga -2- , 7` r , Exi b I T' - I RESOLUTION NO. GF -334 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ADDITION OF MANUFACTURED HOMES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, SB -1960 was approved by the State which stated that all cities shall- allow manufactured housing within the City limits, and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed SB -1960 at a regular Committee of the Whole, and directed the City Attorney at a regular meeting to prepare the appropriate ordinances,:and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and place to wit: at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 9th day of December, 1981, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and WHEREAS, after careful consideration the proposed amend- ment as it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the General Plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of the staff report and the attached Negative Declaration the Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked NS 3.,-.--shall be formally recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of the City. 2. That the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same as hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this resolution of recommendation with attached proposed amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 13th day of January 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti NOES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia ABSENT:None ATTEST: C-ilaii"man, Planning Co re a y C-ilaii"man, Planning Co r. F YT4TRTrP R Findings: 1. The proposed Ordinance. NS 3...---will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. 2. The amendment would not be injurious to property and improvements.from the standpoint that the current Design Review Ordinance will be applicable to all proposed manufactured housing projects. 3. That the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the actions of trying to provide some alternative forms of housing within the City of Saratoga. 9 ?,7A- 4 41;a1..Z:t'oga DECLARATION TIIAT ENVIR01-411 ENTAL I1,11'2'iCT REPORT NOT . RI?QJIRI.D (Negativc'DcclarL tion) Environmental Quality Act of 1970. File No: GF -334 ExhIh�� D The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environ�ent�l Control of the CITY OF SA1ZATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after "study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmcntal.Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to allow manufactured housing within the City of Saratoga in all residentially* zoned districts. Under SB -1960, all Cities are required.to develop an ordinance which will allow manufactured housing within the City. The current Design Review procedures will.be utilized for all.manufactured housing proposed within the City. NAME AMIL ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will have no signs scan impac on the e e�nvironment and is in accord with State Laws SY -1960. The current procedures already enacted within the City of Saratoga (Design Review Ordinance) will be utilized to ensure that any proposed project is consistent with the aesthetics of the ajoining neighborhood. Furthermore, any project which is proposed within the City of Saratoga for manufactured housing must have a.separate environ- mental clearance at which time the appropriate forms and determination will be made on that project. Executed at Saratoga, California this 4th day of Robert S. Shook November Director of Community Development DIRECTOR'S TXTIIORIZED STAFF 1,101BER , 19 81 Planning Minutes ss io� ( � J I I � `� Ileetingg ?tinutes - 1�; 9/81 \ Page n V -564, SDR -1510 and A -801 (cont.) and the Staff Report dated November 30, 1981 as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -801, per Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated November 30, 1981 as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. 5a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1511 - C. Neale 5b. SDR -1511 - C. Neale, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the R -M -4,000 Zoning District at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnvvale Road It was noted that this item would be continued in order to have an on -site visit. The public hearing was opened at 11:04 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this matter be continued to an on -site visit on February 16, 1982 and the regular meeting of February 24, 1982. The applicant was asked to submit a letter of extension. 6a. Negative Declaration - V -566 - M. Chan 6b. V -566 - M. Chang, Request for a Variance to construct a tennis court on a slope greater than loo in the HC -RD Zoning District at 21200 Chiouita 14av Staff described the proposal. It was noted that a letter had been received in opposition to this tennis court. The public hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m. Melvin Hill, civil engineer, described the lot and discussed the trees on the site. Mr. Hong, representing the applicant, discussed the findings. He stated that he feels this proposal would improve the view of the area and there would be no aesthetic impact. He noted that none of the other properties in the area have room for a tennis court. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the findings could not be made to grant this variance. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny V -566, on the basis that the findings cannot be made, per the Staff Report. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstain- ing. 7. GF -331 - Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga adding Article 24 (Appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repealing and amending various inconsistent and superseded sections of the Zoning Ordinance Discussion followed on the ordinance. It was the consensus that this item should be continued to a study session. The Public hearing was opened at 11:21 n.m. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on January 5, 1982 and the regular meeting of January 13, 1982. �8._ GF -334 r Consideration of an .Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance J Authorizing Manufactured Homes in all Residential Districts Within the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance Required Under SB1960 Discussion followed on the ordinance. It was the consensus that this item should be continued to a study session. Restriction of the ordinance to R- 1- 10,000 zoning districts only was discussed. - 6 - Planning Commis 1 Page 7 Meeting Minutes N ./9/81 GF -334 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 11:28 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on January 5, 1982 and the regular meeting of January 13, 1982. 9. GF -335 - Consideration of an Ordinance Adding Article 11A to the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, Relating to Control of Adult Entertainment .Facilities Within the City of Saratoga Discussion followed on the ordinance. It was the consensus that this ordinance is not needed in the City of Saratoga. The public hearing was opened at 11:35 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to request Staff to forward a memo to the City Council, expressing their feeling that this ordinance is inappropriate and is not needed in the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. It was noted by the Commission that they feel to institute such an ordinance may be more detrimental than not having an ordinance. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. nCCT(_ \T DC{ /TCW 10. A -800 - Blackwell Homes, Lot 19, Tract 6526, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the current proposal. Discussion followed on the deisign. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -800, per the Staff Report dated December 2, 1981. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. MISCELLANEOUS 11. John Zavoshy, 14081 Pike Road, Request for Modification to Site Develop- ment Plan for Fence s Mr..Javoshy stated that he was requesting to enclose his property, as others have done in the area. Discussion followed on the project. It was determined that Condition 2 of the Staff Report should read: "Fence to be constructed a minimum of 25' (front yard setback of HCRD) from edge of easement of Pike Road, outside of the site distance area for Pike Road and the adjacent driveway, where possible, but to allow the entire orchard area to be fenced in. Exact location is to be approved by Staff." Commissioner Bolger moved to approve the request for the Modification to the Site Development Plan for the fence, per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981 as amended. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter dated November 4, 1981 re A -725, from Neil Boman. Staff explained that the applicant was requesting modification of an approved mason- ry wall, in the Quito Shopping Center. Discussion followed on the proposal. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the modification for A -725, per the Staff Report dated December 2, 1981. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Oral 1. Commissioner Zambetti was appointed by the Commission to serve on the Heritage Commission, An TnT 71)NrV1 GATT Commissioner Zambetti moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned - 7 - .'i�i =3i}*. ear. ;,.i:�,s,,4Y;:��.�,r ✓rc ::�,r -. �:: ,, Plannin g Commissions Meeting Minutcs 1/13/ ^2 Pale 2 A -805 (cont.) Court, with the condition that the applicant sign a hold harmless clause in regards to the construction of this deck over the swale. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. GF -331 - Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga ad�ing - Article 24 (Appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repealing and amending various inconsistent and superseded sections of the Zoning Ordinance; continued from December 9, 1981 Staff reported that this item had been reviewed at a study session, and the City Council has requested that the Commission review it again. The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission,_ and it was directed that this item will be continued to a future study session. 7. GF -333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC -RD District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line Formula; continued from December 9, 1981 Staff suggested that this item be continued to January 27, 1982, in order to hear it concurrently with the Specific Plan Implementation Ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this be continued to a studv session on January 19, 1982 and the regular meeting of January 27', 1982. 8. GF= 334 " -) Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Authorizing Manufactured Homes in all Residential Districts Within the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance Required under SB1960, State of California; continued from December 9, 1931 Staff renorted that the City Council has indicated their feeling to allow the manufactured homes in all residential zones. The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis stated that he has revised the ordinance per the Commission's direction at the last study session, to specify only allowance in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Commissioner Crowther questioned whether there was a consensus at the City Council meeting to allow manufactured homes in all residential zones. lie stated that he strongly believes that it should be restricted to R -1- 10,000. He added that otherwise people may make applications that are impractical and nrobably would not be approved. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the ordinance, specifically the definition of manufactured homes and temporary use. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the City has every right to impose the same restrictions and requirements as they would on any other type of housin;, but can not put excessive or additional restrictions on manufactured housing per se. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve Resolution GF -334, recommending to the Ci.ty Council that this ordinance be approved, allowing manu- factured homes in R- 1- 10,000 zoning districts only. Commissioner xlonia seconded the motion. Cormm.i.ssioner Laden stated that she disagreed with limiting it to R -1- 10,000 zoning districts only, since she feels that all citizens should have the rights and privilege of having a manufactured home and should be governetl by the same laws and under the same ordinances. Commissioner \Ionia indicated that he would like to see this as a slower process under direct control of the Commission and Council in this community, rather than just opening it up in every area. Fie added that the Citv does control the size of houses and lots, depending upon r Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1/13/82 Page 3, GF -334 (cont.) area, and he feels this would be consistent by initially starting off and seeing what the impact might be. The vote was taken on the motion to approve GF -334, limiting it to R -1- 10,000 zoning districts. The motion failed, with Commissioners Zambetti, Schaefer, Laden and King dissenting. Commissioner Laden moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the ordinance to allow manufactured homes in all residential districts within the City of Saratoga. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. 9. GPA 82 -1 -A - Saratoga Union School District, Consideration of Changing the General Plan Designation from Community Facilities - Elementary School to Medium Density Residential on the 10.588 acres designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 391- 04 -11, located at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela and Glen Brae Drive The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis described the proposed change. He indicated that the Staff Report mentions various options which can be considered and that Staff is recommending Medium Density, which is R -1- 12,500 zoning for the site. The public hearing was opened at 8:29 D.M. Glenn McNicholas, Superintendent of the Saratoga Union School District, spoke on behalf of the district and stated that they support the Staff's recommendation. Paul Friedl, 13240 Via Blanc, indicated that he felt this site should be reserved for open space and recreation for the children of Saratoga. He suggested leasing the building to pay for the upkeep of this land. Dr. McNicholas discussed the issue of alternate financial considerations. He indicated that, without the sale of some of the district's property, it is very possible that in the near future the district will be com- pletely bankrupt. He commented that if they cannot get the site rezoned and they have to abandon it, they will have to board up the windows. Dr. McNicholas commented that they needed revenue from the site, and if they could lease it for approximately $500,000 to $600,000 a year, they would never sell it; however, that has not been feasible. He discussed the declining enrollment and indicated that probably within eight years there will only be one school in this district. He added that young people are not moving into Saratoga because of the cost. Commissioner Crowther suggested that possibly the financial pro - blems of the district could be solved by the citizens, since Saratoga presently has the lowest open space of any city in the County. He added that the general consensus at the General Plan review meetings = ti.+• <y� =: >_: was that the citizens wanted these sites kept in their preselit status with use of t-he buildings permitted for various uses to gain somo financial income. Dr. McNicholas commented that that was not bein; realistic; very little income would be made by doing that. He noted that, under the new laws and regulations, the City could bur' the site for 25� on the dollar at todays' market value, if they wished. William ''dolf, Via Escuela asked for clarification on the zoning nronosed. Staff clarified that they were recommending 11- 1- 12,5110, which is the present zoning of the area. They added that multinle housing is not being recommended; there will not he a condominium t;:ne nroioct. Mr. lioIf stated that lie was concerned about the statement rogarding the PD designation in the Staff Report. Bert Toevs, of the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated that their area had come up with a minority recommondation that at least a por- tion of the Congress Springs School site be considered for multiole development because of its location. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View, stated that she had the feeling that possibly the Comrission felt that the trustees of the Elementary - 3 - r V � f February 19, 1982 To: Members of the City Council and Planning-Commission From: Ginny Laden, Planning Commissioner I will be unable to attend the joint meeting on February 23, 1982, due to a business committment. Since you are scheduled to discuss manufactured housing at that meeting, I would like to express my concerns. At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, Mr. Monia questioned whether we had received complete information about SB 1960 in conjunction with the request for changes in the zoning ordinance. I share Commissioner Monia's concern of possible variations in interpretation of the bill, and, therefore, request that we receive in writing from the City Attorney an analysis of the bill. In particular, we should have complete information on what requirements may be imposed by our city in the areas of foundations, building permits, and design review, and to what degree our subdivision and zoning ordinance standards are applied to manufactured homes.