Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOM AG MA BILL NO. /0 DATE :_ April 22, 1981 Wes: Planning SUBJBC7r: Composition of the Land Development Committee Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Attv.. , C. Mgr. Issue Summary Several months ago the Planning Commission moved to have all items involving the Land Development Committee transferred to the Planning Commission for a nine -month period of time. The Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which would temporarily suspend the Land Development Committee. Recommendation Approve the ordinance and schedule a second reading on May 20, 1981. Fiscal Impacts No direct impacts Exhibits/Attachments 1) Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting 2/11/81 5-- 2- 0 2) Report to Mayor and City Council dated 3 -04 -81 �,GGLf 3) Sections from Subdivision Ordinance 4) `ordinance Cc -cil Action P, • Plainling Commission 2 A-7SS (cont.) di.rcctly hchijid it. Marty Oakley, the designer, stated that the owners wish to have a single Y area story ]ionic, and basically With the 4,700 sq. ft. living ji it is going 1, V -o that. 'ro minimize the grading, he to toke ZL F.1il long ng ]ionic to acquire explained, they' liz1vo to maintiiii a shallow low depth as far as the dimension Cron, the front of the house to the real.-, and if it were in a 1, shape, it would CO[isti'tUtC additional grading. Commissioner 'Monia stated that he felt that Mr. flans has done an excellent job in trying : , to address the concerns of the Commission, but he feel,-; that the length will cause an intrusion on the neighbors. Commissioner (:rowthcr commented that the lot is only 41,000 sq. ft. lie stated that [E this I.ir.(,c a home is going to be a single-story on that lot, and if )•oil consider problem,; for the lot Curther to the south, he would question, from an engineering standpoint, if much can be done unless the FIOLISC i; MJdC SIBUI.I.Cr. - Chairman Laden stated that she did not think any of the Commissioners truly like seeing that Icilgith for a 11OUS0, but the compensating factors to the neighbors were somewhat of an offset, as Car as moving the house towards the street and in, t making sure it was rio a two- story. B i 11 Linder, Life Oak Realty, agent for the proposed I)LIN-cr of this property, stated that lie had shown his clients many properties, and this one is perfect for their purpose. He indicated that they live a particular life- styLe, and they do a lot OF entertaining and need this design. Chuck - Allen, representing Mr. and Mrs. Berman, the proposed buyers, stated that they have taken pains in the dosi-il Of this 11OLISC. 110 Commented that the,\, are at retirement stage, and it is important to them not to have the elevation drop of the 11OLISC, b\- that, of i stairs. lie explained th, 1)0(:JLISC turning the house Or putting an I a . into the house . ril going downward into the c I c v a t i. o i i i. t would p r o 1) a 1) 1 y cause a nL1MheF Of St:lil'S to he J)Llt into the 1101ISC. lie added that tile)- arc very cogni:ont of the screening that wil I be done. Mr. Allen commented that tile), have taken out an exercise room to bring this house down to the present scIttire footage. lie, add tliat they want to llior.ntaln the tree cover as much as they can and are very w-i I I - ing to add to the quantity of trees that exist. all honest attempt Nlnncuso, Chester Aventic, stated tllzlt 110 bclicVOS that 10 t has been made by everyone to try to work the problems out. lie coninlolitcd in i., -in be done, that if the Commission feels til:lt everything has been (lone that c. he cannot stand ill the W11\' of these people building what they want to build. Dr. Mancuso stated that 11 if. the}' would c would lot the Commission decide .,lppj-ovc this design otherwise, he will not object to it. it was noted that there wi 1 1. be an arl)(li, along the drivway, , and Exhibit "B" show, this, but Exhibit "C" does riot. It was determined that Condition 1: should he added to the Staff Report, stating "17xll ibi t "('." shall be modified to reflect the dri.vowny design show" in [:Xh ibi t "B". Commissioner Kill& commented that lie feels thOt this is a legal -i I lot d a and legal application, and the applicant has worked with the (:011111lissioll to deal with most of the concerns. lie moved to approve A-7SS, per the Staff Report as eg" kl 11, the 15 ft. �1111olljed, %Vitil the addition 01 COnditi011 1: r , 11' it , and d addition or Condition F, plantill" strip, previously mentioned, the c , 1 1 regarding the modification of 1: x 11 i 1) i t "C" - Commissioner Mon i : seconded the motion, which w � l s Carried unanimously. Staff' note(] that there w i l l be 11 study session concorliillg impci-vious surface, ill Conlicction with tile Two- S to ry Ordinance. (:O\ 10 NS Ora I D*scus,-,ion of Land Development Committee The composition of the 12 `1 • , Planning Commi ss ion Min tit es 211 1/31 LDC (coat.) CPage 1.1 Land Development Committee was discussed. Commissioner Monia noted that two of the three people on the Land Development Committee arc not residents of Saratoga. He stated that ho was aware that the Subdivision Ordinance specifically dictates who shall sit on it; however, he is concerned ahout having two different planning associations going on at the same time. Ile stated that he feels it would he in the City's best interest to have all the planning decisions handled within one common agency. He explained that he feels this would provide a continuity in our planning process and would also ensure that we have a quality to the process. Commissioner Alonia stated that this is a %volt advertised meeting, which is agendized, and people have an opportunity come in and express their views. lie indicated that he feels the. Plannino Commission meeting is also a better form in which to )ort.rav that the Coninissi.on is going to he very responsive to the community and will also ensure that there is as much input on every process that comes before its as possihlc. Chairman Laden stated that her concern is where do we put those items currentLy hein� handled by "the LDC.,do wve continue having the daytime meetings as in the past, or do wcf pr\• to add it into the agenda for this cveniIII, nice tinl,. Commissioner Crot tiler commented that before 1976, 1111 1011 JIIbd IClS toil Ordinance was changed, there was no Land Development Committee, and these issues came up hcCore the Planning Commission. tic states that in man\• cases on the small SuhdiCiS.iolls, there weren't major issues and they did not take very much of the. Commission's time. Commissioner Monia commented th;tt a lot of the subdivisions now are more sensitive, and lie felt that there will he better attendance in the evening. 'File Dcputy City Attorney suggested a trial period. Ile stated that possibly the Plxrtning lommission, as it finds its workload is increased hc\ond the rcasonnble hounds, may find it too hurdensome. Ile stated that at a mininunn there would have to be some action recommended by the Commission to the City Council to either modify the existing ordinance or suspend its opera- tion, pending a stud. of how it is going to work with all matters ,ping through the Commission, and either rcpcali.ng those provisions altogether, or coming up with a different alternative. Staff time and preparation was discussed. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the key consideration is having a meeting that the puhlic can conic to on these sensitive issues and express their views. COnlm iss lOil er Monia moved that it he reI.011nneilded to the City CotntciI that the pow°crs and the duties delegated to the Land Development Committee. under Article I. of' the Subdivision Ordinance, paragraphs 1.2, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, }; he revoked, ;Ind for the time hcing these. duties and powers he doict ga trd to the III ;Innin;, Commission. Comm Ii si one r Crowther seconded the motion. ` A trail period was diSCLISSed. The depot;• Cite Attorney commented that they could prepare a superseding 0rdin;utcc Which simply provides that, for the time hciliv" al I matters ,o through the I'lannirtg Commission; it does not necessarily repeal the existing ordinances you refer to. There could he a further 1)rovi.sion that the Pia1111i11g Commission shall report hack to the City Council alter a suitable tI- iaL period, determined by the Planning Commission, for such further action as may he necessary in or.ler to finalize the procedure. Chairman Laden expressed her con :eTn that, when the Ilanning Commission gets into sonic len,;thv General Plan .I r;l:sions and a lot of other agenda items, they may not he the most effective. Commissioner ling commented that lie would hate to hart people with a minor lot split sit through a lengthy meeting hcfore that item was heard. The Deputy Cit)..Attorney stated that he could prepare a proposed resolution r 13 r: • 1r 1 J C I'l:euiing Conunission, Page 1.1 LLiC (cont.) _. for adoption by the Commission at its next mccti.ng. Commissioner Monia stated that he would accept a change to hi.s motion, to state that it be recommended to the City Council that the powcrs and the duties delegated to the Land Uevclopmcnt. Comm ittce under the S h division Ordinance he repealed, rather than revoked, for a nine -month trial period, and for the time being these duties and powers he delegated to the Plannino Commission. Commissioner Crowther, who had seconded the previous motion, also accepted this change. The vote was taken on.the motion, and it icas carried unani.mouSly. 2. City Council Report - Commissi.oner Monia gave a brief report on the City Council niecting of 2/4/81. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the Ci.ty Administration Of.fi.ce. 3. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. 4. it was noted that the Committee -of - the -Whole meeting on March 1', 1981 is cancelled because of a lack of quorum. i\11.111UR \MI:NT Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unculimousty, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m. RSR:cd RespectfuL.ly submitted, 15. 12 o' i.nson Jr. — -- Sccrctary FA f+•.- :��.yC.•i� ?J.r.:+. :?f+ !`- ?�'z�:+�.'�',t. �� "`�4 :::y's� at%; ".' , =i':c _..- .-f^ttiu on3r,.• x� >n.Ft_ -ro:. x....�.:.: ?s.x�;- - -Y:.. ..,� ;,`t:. � `t REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 2 -26 -81 COUNCIL MEETING: 3-04-81 SUBJECT Composition of the Land Development Committee SUMMARY: At the February 11, 1981 directed Staff to prepare modify the composition of Commission indicated that • ing the ordinance, rather period. RECOMMENDATION: Option #1: i Planning Commission meeting, the Commission a memo to the City Council which would the Land Development Committee. The they would be willing to consider repeal - than revoking it, for a 9 -month trial Direct the City Attorney to modify Article 1, Section 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and have all actions of the Land Development Committee directed to the Planning Commission for a 9 -month trial period. Option #2: Leave the Subdivision Ordinance as it currently exists and the Land Development Committee intact. Option #3: Maintain the Land Development Committee, but change Section 2.1 as it relates to the members participating on the Land Development Committee. Have the Land Development Committee composed of three (3) Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission recommended at their February 11th meeting • that Option #1 be considered by the Council. BACKGROUND OF REPORT: Under the provisions of the State Map Act, the legislative body of a community has the authority to delegate the responsibility of Report to City Council RE: Composition of the Land Development Committee February 26, 1981 Page 2 • hearing minor subdivisions (four (4) or less lots) and major subdivisions (five (5) or more lots) to an advisory agency. The City Council has designated the Planning Commission as the advisory agency for hearing major subdivisions and the Land Development Committee as the advisory agency for minor subdivisions. The Land Development Committee is responsible for complying with all ordi- nances of the City of Saratoga, as well as the General Plan, to include required public hearings which are announced and posted in accord with the City ordinances. The Land Development Committee traditionally will consider modifica- tions to building site approval (a desire of an applicant to add a pool in HCRD or lots greater than 10 %), and all minor subdivisions. During the period of July through February of this year, the Land Development Committee dealt with tentative building sites which resulted in the creation of thirteen (13) new lots, nine (9) exten- sions of tentative building sites, ten (10).modifications to build- ing site approval (addition of swimming pooi,"'etc.), and two (2) expansions over 50 %. BODY OF REPORT: Discussion of Options • Option #1: If the City Council were to direct the City Attorney to modify Article 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance, it would be necessary that he return to the City Council with the appropriate ordinance changes. Staff has had an opportunity to analyze the various options as it relates to potential fiscal impacts to the City of Saratoga. It is difficult to place an exact estimated cost as it relates to this option, since the additional cost will be related to additional personnel attending a Planning Commission meeting at an overtime rate, and the additional length of meetings, which is an unknown factor at this time. At the present time the meetings are conducted during normal working hours, and the technical staff is available for questions. The normal staff in attendance at the Land Develop- ment Committee includes the Grading Inspector, Department of Inspec- tion Services, Assistant Public Works Director, and the Assistant Planner. One of the very desirable facets of the Land Development Committee is the fact that the applicants, neighbors, staff and mem- bers of the Land Development Committee can review a map in the Crisp Conference Room and engage in meaningful discussions as to the pros and cons of the project. Option #2: The Planning Commission expressed some concern that the current hour of the Land Development Committee (Thursday morning) does not encourage public participation. Several members of the Commission felt that if the meetings were conducted in the evening, • then there could be increased participation in the approval of the land development projects. Report to City Council RE: Composition of the Land Development Committee February 26, 1981 Page 3 Option #3: Instead of changing the entire Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to the advisory agency and the.-Land Development Committee, the Council may wish to remove the two staff members from the Committee and add two additional Planning Commissioners. Under this option, the Planning Commission then could determine the most appropriate manner in which to set the time and place of the meeting to increase public input. It should be noted that, prior to ment Committee as it is presently used to utilize what is known as a Subdivision Committee consisted of the appropriate Staff representati would act in the same exact manner but would be recommending approval sion. The Subdivision Committee w Planning Commission. The time and strictly up to the Planning Commis the formation of the Land Develop - known, the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee. The three Planning Commissioners and on. The Subdivision Committee as the Land Development Committee, or denial to the Planning Commis - ould be a subcommittee of the date of the meeting would be sion, with -:the formal hearings at the normal Wednesday meetings. / , wyvSubmitted by 0 - City Manager S. R inson, Jr. Tanning Director 2 Staff hours RSR:cd Attachments Date: February 26, 1981 Preparation Cost: • $30.00 Total Cost .apex. A, Art. 1, § 1.1 Subdivisions Appx. A, Art. 1, § 2.1 The city council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: ARTICLE ONE. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Section 1. Purpose and Application. Sec . 1 . 1 . [Purpose; applicability; short title . ] This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and general welfare, and to regulate and control the design and improve- ment of land in the City of Saratoga. It is applicable to divisions and subdivi- sions, and to single lots and parcels. It is designed to implement and supple- ment the Subdivision Map Act, contained in division 2 of title 7 of the Govern- ment Code of the State of California as to subdivisions as that term is therein defined, and as hereafter defined in this ordinance, and also to regulate single undivided sites under the provisions hereinafter set forth in article three of this ordinance. It shall be known and referred to in its entirety as the "Subdivision Ordinance." Sec. 1.2 Structure of ordinance; when article 2 a cable to four or less lots . li- This ordinance is in three parts. The provisions of this article one apply to the entire ordinance. The provisions of article two, except as hereinafter noted, shall apply to subdivisions of five or more lots. The provisions of arti- cle three, and sections 12.5 and 13 through 17 of article two insofar as they are made applicable by article three, shall apply to all single lots and parcels, to subdivisions of four or less lots and to subdivisions of five or more lots other- wise exempt under Government Code section 66426 (a) , (b) , (c) and (d) . Anything to the contrary above notwithstanding, whenever in the opinion of the planning commission the intent of the subdivider is ultimately to subdivide into five or more lots, or wherever it appears reasonably necessary in order to maintain uniformity of building site design or improvement, article two of this ordinance shall .be applicable to four or less lot subdivisions which otherwise would come under the terms of article three. Section 2. Designation of Advisory. Agency. Sec . 2. 1 . [Planning commission; land development com- mittee. The planning commission of the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as the advisory agency under article two of this ordinance (governing subdivisions of five or more parcels) , and the land development committee is hereby designated as the advisory agency under article three of this ordinance (governing sub- divisions of less than five lots, single unsubdivided sites and parcels and more than five lots otherwise exempt from article two) . 169 Supp. #10, 9 -75 r \( Appx . A, Art. 1, § 2.2 Saratoga City Code Appx . A, Art. 1, § 3.2 Sec . 2.2 . [Delegation of powers and duties to advisory agencies. ] There is hereby delegated . to each advisory agency, respectively, the power to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove tentative maps, the power to determine consistency or lack of consistency of the proposed subdivision to- gether with the provisions for its design and improvement with the general plan and all applicable specific plans, and without limiting the foregoing, the respon- sibilities set forth in Government Code sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the State of California. Sec . 2 . 3 . [Composition of land development committee. ] The land development committee (hereafter sometimes called the committee) shall consist of the director of planning, the director of public works, and one member of the planning commission as from time to time designated by that com- mission . Section 3. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the definitions hereafter set forth shall control. Terms not herein defined shall be as defined in the zoning ordinance of the City of Saratoga. Terms neither defined herein nor in the said zoning ordi- nance shall be as defined in the Subdivision Map Act. Sec . 3. 1 . In general . "City" means the City of Saratoga; "planning commission" means the plan- ning commission of the City of Saratoga; "city council" means the city council of the City of Saratoga; the terms "health officer," "health department," "planning department" and "city engineer" mean the respective officer, department or engi- neer of the City of Saratoga, save and except that during any period of time where- in such services are being performed for the city by these respective officers or departments of the County of Santa Clara, then the same shall mean such officers or departments of the County of Santa Clara; the term "flood control district" means Santa Clara Valley Water District; the term "sanitation district" means the Santa Clara County Sanitation District or the Cupertino Sanitary District, which- ever has jurisdiction; the term "director of public works" means such director of the city. "Alap Act" means the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California (Government Code sections 65000, et seq. of the State of California). Sec . 3. 2. Subdivision . "Subdivision" means and includes the division of any improved or unim- proved real property, shown on the last equalized Santa Clara County assess- ment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, financ- ing or construction of improvements thereon, whether immediate or future, by any person, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other entity, private, 170 Supp. #10, 9 -75 0 .=:: fan :,;.•�..,�.a:�xuwY�:i�:.""�. 1 , r` — .y.AR.. • ORDINANCE NO. NS 60.11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TEMPORARILY AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -60, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, BY PROVIDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL HEREAFTER BE THE ADVISORY AGENCY UNDER ARTICLE THREE OF SAID ORDINANCE. The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Section 2.3 of the Saratoga Subdivision Ordinance NS -60 establishes a Land Development Committee consist ing of the Director of Planning, the Director of Public Works, and one member of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of Ordinance NS -60, the Land Development Committee is desig- nated as the Advisory Agency having the authority to approve sub- divisions of less than five lots, building site approval of single undivided lots or parcels, and other subdivisions processed under Article Three of Ordinance NS -60. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to temporarily transfer all of the responsibilities and functions now performed by the Land Development Committee to the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga in order to determine whether such responsibil- ities and functions should be performed by the Planning Commission on a permanent basis. Section 2: For a period of nine months from the ef- fective date of this ordinance, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga shall be designated as the single and only Advisory Agency under Section 2.1 of Ordinance NS -60, with author - ity to exercise powers as set forth in Section 2.2 of Ordinance NS -60, and all responsibilities and functions now performed by the Land Development Committee, including, but not limited to, the review of subdivision maps and applications for building site approval processed under Article Three of said ordinance, and the authority to determine compliance or to waive or modify any condi -' tions as may be set forth in a tenative man or building site approv- al, shall hereafter be performed by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga. Section 3: 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 portions 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 or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. ` _2 k }L ........ ............... Ilk NA 1M X 10V -'-P N-M This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of May 1981, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson, and Mayor Callon NOES: None ABSENT: None MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK OEM L. N F, f r ' RAGE TDA BI1L NO % DATE: April 22, 1981 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial Dept. F. C. Atty *PAR=-T: Planning C. Mgr. ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------- SUaTECr: UP -483, Saratoga Federated Church, 20390 Park -Place ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 Issue Summary At its meeting of March 25, 1981, the Planning Commission denied the request of the church to expand its parking lot since four low to moderate income rental units would have to be removed. The church maintains that more.park- ing is needed because.of high attendance which impacts neighboring properties and­the safety of church members. The church has indicated that the units will no longer be rented regardless of the outcome of the use permit. The applicant has requested a de novo hearing to present new information to the City Council. Recomnendation Staff recommends that the City Council set this appeal for a de novo hearing at their next regular meeting, at which time Staff is recommending that the Commission's decision be overturned. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments 1) Appeal Letter 2) Staff Report dated 3/17/81 3) Exhibit "B" ( Sim 4) Negative Declaration dated 3/17/81 5) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3/25/81 Council Action On 5/6/8111'set de novo hearing date of 6/17. • Mallory /Watson moved to grant appeal, overturning Planning Commission decision and permitting removal of four units on condition that the Church file a plan with the City within 6 months to address parking problem and that trees be preserved. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). • PHILLIP G. SVALYA ATTORNEY AT LAW 155 CASTRO STREET, SUITE B MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041 (415) 961 -3300 April 2, 1931 Saratoga City Counsel 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Federated Church Use Permit, UP433 Gentlemen: This letter is to inform you that I represent the Saratoga Federated Church in the above ref erenced� matter. On March 25, 1981, Mr. James Day appeared before the Saratoga Planning Com- mission on behalf of Saratoga Federated Church requesting a 12,300 sq. ft. expansion of existing church parking at 20390 Park Place, Saratoga. The Planning Commission on said date denied the church's request. Saratoga Federate,= Church desires to appeal this decision and requests a de novo hearing before the Saratoga City Counsel. Enclosed please find my deck for $30.00. The reasons for the appeal are as follows: 1. A number of years ago the City of Saratoga requested that the church provide additional parking for its members. 2. The Appleby property at One Park Place, Saratoga was purchased by the church because parking spaces were desperately needed. The church had no intention of being a landlord. X21 • � L!/� � /}�fi'L G' Saratoga City Counsel April 2, 1931 Page Two 3. Because of the present lack of parking, mem- bers are required to walk two to three blocks to attend the Sunday morning services. When church attendance is high, members are turned away because of lack of parking. 4. Inadequate parking has caused an potentially dangerous situation because ni the sidestreets exist and it is necessary and their children to walk in the streets tances. The church fears the possibility and lawsuits resulting therefrom. i% unsafe and D sidewalks on for members for great dis- of accidents r: 5. A public nuisance exists on Sunday mornings because of congestion in parking: Neighbors complain of parking in front of their property and difficulty in exiting their driveways. • 6. The four rental units in question are in a de- teriorated condition and require substantial repairs to make them habitable. One house was originally built as a toolshed and has no foundation. 7. Saratoga Foothill Club has no parking of its own and uses the church parking for its members. This has caused considerable problems with weddings and other func- tions at the church. 3. If the City of Saratoga denies their request for additional parking, the church does not intend to continue using the four units as rentals. Because the church has continued to grow and needs additional space, the units • Saratoga City Counsel April 2, 1951 Page Three • will be used for expansion of the Sunday School. For the above - mentioned reasons it.is requested that the Saratoga Planning Commissions's decision be appealed and that a de novo hearing be granted. Respectfully submitted, IG. : SVALYA l/ Attorney for Saratoga Federated Church JAMES W. DAY Treasurer , Saratoga Federated Church • PGS:vld 1 t ' STANDARD STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL INSPECTION REPORT '`',• ��' I' ,++;"?,w"` "`"r?"ErS""'- "S`^.,'` (WOOD•DESYROYING PESTS OR ORGANISMS) This Is on inspection report only riot o Notice of Completion. DDRESS OF BLDG NO STREET city S.Ut.1TOGA •UI'ERTY DATE OF INSPECTION +SPECIED #1 PARK PL'kCE CO CODE 43 6 -3 -81 IRM NAME AND ADDRESS Q•i O'�SSJGI�LCCS Affiw stomp here on Board copy only I A LICENSED PEST CONTROL 3scrov l•' 299f S '"Bascom tAve. 1 OPERATOR IS AN EXPERT IN /' p •} HIS FIELD. ANY QUESTIONS CaTnpbeCC, C0. 9Q000 RELATIVE TO THIS REPORT r7--'''\\�/ _ SHOULD BE REFERRED TO HIM. .ht url N'.1 Nn "'062 (;Q RI- .I'rjHl tdtl of .' -) .V U IAMI N; 1—I I 1 U J ;.Pecnon Ordered by (Name and Address) JIM DAY tTJU i r' 2Jhft 1TED CHURCH 20390 PARK PIACE SAR9TOGA port Sent to (Name and Address S(ME :15 ABOVE .vner's Nnme and Address ___ S�'rt21+rI'QGA FEDERATED CHURCIi 20390 PARK PLACE SARATOGA, Cel. Ime and Address of a Party In Interest_ NONE r ecru Pv v r. ,i7 nk' I Ir FNS" r:n gQIOI Onamol Reoo,l IB Supale,renlol Report 1"I Number of Poges CODE ',EE DIAGRAM BELOW rES COi)C ;F.F .')!ACRAM EsF OY: YES CODE 5EE DI-CRAM BELO'✓✓ YFS CODE SEE DIAGRAM BELOW ,,,h•r n B,n•I�cs Olh- Wand F` "t, X EM- F,cvsswe Mo,slure Condition { R D,v wood Tr,m. FG Fo IIy Grade LeY «IS 51 Sn „veer L.r,4S }[ IA Inacu sslble Arens EFu-,,u, or DryRO, �( EC Ennh wood C :on'nrsj( CDCellulase Debris FIFurrner Insxa�on Recom SUBSIHUCIUHE AREA (soil conditions, occesslo,iity, etc.) tiNN ISISL)W Wns S,a!l Show— venter tested9 NONE; Did floor ('avr :,rrrlgS rndlrare !eoks? YES SEE BELOW I rOUNI)ALIONS �Tyce Relation to Grade etc ! CONCRETE FLND WOODEN SEE BELOW "OP'HFS ... STEPS ..PATIOS CCNCRE.n AND WOODEN SEE �13 BELOW VENTILATION 'Amo.int Relation to Grade etc 1 'DE6QLTf; G ABUTMENTS . Stucco walls. columns, arches. etc. SEE BELOW ATTIC SPACES !accetislblloy, Insular on etc.) NOT ,T.CCESSTRT� T.aCK OF CLEaRrkNCE S� BET_!_1W GARAGES (Type, accessibility, etc) 01HCk SI {F. RF.TI)W� Di'AGRAM AND EXPLANATION OF FLNDINGS : or ,l, :,c•ures stiown on imgrnm l nerol Descrlptlon�2 �'00D� ^F�TtkST??r y TQ71. ".T_T_FRAMF ,AND TlJC('.0 TITITUTNIG.- FURNISF•ED & OCCiJPIED, Company inspection tag posted on the date o. inspection: UNDER THREE UNIT BUILDING. NOTE: The roof was riot inspected b•; this cumpany and not included in this ieport. If inspecti0n of the roof is demrr.d, it will be at the written request . of the owner at additional cost. All plumf)iug leaks evident at the time of the ' inspection are nosed On this report. This rcn)pany cannot be held liable for any hidden leak., or leaks that occur after the date of , original inspection. Since no authorization has beer, graded to nnen inaccessible Closed wall areas, this company assumos no respon; ability for infection, or adverse conditions in inaccessible and closed areas. NOTE: All carpeting and chattels in a residcnco are nut moved during the time .- o( insper.tiun. Further inspection nF those treal will he made upon written request of the ownDr at nu additinnal cost. .. NOTICH . ACCEPTANCE OP USE OF THIS REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDIT1GNh PERTAINING '1'() OUR SERVICES: (A) This report is simp'y It sCltement of bias reLltive only to woad destroying _ posts and urgani,ms as could bu determined by a visual inspection of the readily erces >iblc areas ml Ihi, date only. No warranty or guarantee is made against infestatio ;is. Iuaks, or other mlver ;c conditions which may develop or l,ocumc visibly evident aftt r this date. (B) We have rendered service with the understanding that, as a condition of accepting and utilizing this report, all interested parties hereto agree . that, should, any legal action arise over services we provide, the pre- vailing part; shall be entitled to recover from the other party a reasonable allowance. for attorney fees and costs, IF ANY OF THE INFERESTi;D PARTIES DU NOT AG °EE WITH FOREGOING, DO NOT ACCEPT OR USE THIS REPORT FOR ANY PURPOSE. PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ' ` 4 NOTE: d. IF WORK IS DONE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THIS COMPANY, AND A REINSPI CTION IS NECESSARY, THE PERSON ORDERING THIS REPORT MUST REQUEST A 1(EINSPEC'FION WITHIN' POUR MONTHS OF THE DATE _ OF THIS INSPECTION AND THERE WILL BE .A REINSPECTION FEE OF $65.00 FOR EACH RF.INSPECTION ORUERED. YOU MUST CONTACT OUR OFFICE BEFORE. ANY WORK REQUIRING REINSPECTION IS RF.GUN. , WE GUARANTEE ALL CH17MICA1. TREATMENTS DOVE BY THIS COMPANY FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE LATE 017 COSIPLETION. WE MAKE NU GUARANTEE AND ARE NOT LIABLE FOR INFESTATIONS. INFECTIONS, OR ADVERSE CONDITIONS IN CONCEALED OR 1NACCFSSiBLE ARIAS. WE MAKE NO GUARANTEE AGAINST FUTURE INFESTATIONS. WE GUARANTEE. A1.1. PLU`d31N0 REPAIRS COMPLETED BY THIS COMPANY FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAPS FROM CIOMPLETION. YOU ARE tNTITSED TO OBTAIN COPIES Of ALL REPOTS AND COMPLETION NOTICES ON THIS PRO' FILED WITH THE BOARD DURING THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS UPON PA•MENT Of A S- n0 SEA7; — TO SIRUCTURAt PEST CONTROL BOARD 1130 HOw'E AVENUE SACRAMENTO CA 158:5 SECOND PAGE OF STANDARD INSPECTION R> -=PORT OF THE PROPERTY LGCATrD AT: Address of Property =' Inspected _ PARK PLACE SARATOGA - Bldg- No. st. «t c tr 2446uLJ h -3 -d1? 8 0 �iport ' stamp No. .t., 1—p Von o. STRUCTURE: h�� s .. FINDING: THIS RESIDENCE IS BUILT ON THE GROUND AND THE S11B ARE'+ IS NOT ACCESSIBLE V tea` �w FOR INSPECTION. INDIC+:TED LAT I :A ON THE DLAGRAM. ;COM IEPND.;TION: JACK UP THE BUILDING TO ALLOW PROPER CLEUTANCE. INSTALL NEW GIRDERS, FOOTINGS, FAIND PIERS TO MEET MUNICIPAL CODE. BREAK ALL PLUMBING CONNECTIONS D REPLACE THE PLUMBING TO MEET MUNICIPAL CODES. MAKE ANY ND ELECTRICAL CHANGES NECESSARY TO M hT MUNZCIP:IL CODES. !CESSIVE MOISTURE CONDITION: FINDING: THERE WAS WATER DAMAGED FLOOR COVERING SAND SUBFLOORING NOTED IN us BATHROOM. INDICP lv'D AT -EM -F ON THE DI,,GRAM. SCO100MATION: R&IOVE THE TOILET AND B:ATT1 1M FROM THE BATHROOM. CUT OUT ALL INFECTED OR D'1 AGED SUBFLOOR "LNG AND INSTALL PT SW LUMBER. INSTALL NEW 3/8" - s ,y UNDERLAY111ENT AND INSTALL NEW VINYL LINOLEUM THROUGHOUT. REINSTALL BATHTUB AND RESET `.COII.ET ON A NEW WAX SFAl . 2A.: FINDING: THERE WAS WATER DAMAGED FLOOR COVERING AND FLOORING NOTED IN THE LAUNDRY PORCH. INDIC/'.TED AT EM -F ON TYr DIAGRAM. 'COM+l END,,.TION: REMOVE THE APPLIANCES FROM THE LAUNDRY PORCH. CUT OUT ALL ROTTED BUBFIAORIIQG AND INST ,LL NEW LUMBER AS NECESSARY. ST.- NyFf 3/8" UNDERI AYMEVT 'ND LtiSTALL NEW VINYL LINOLEUM THROUGHOUT. Gp i OUNDATION : 3.: FINDING: AS W,S DTDIC,.TED IN FINDING;�I, THIS RESIDENCE IS BUILT ON THE GROUND AND TRY: WOODEN" ffiJDSILLS REST ON THE GROUND AND SHOW EVIDENCE OF lNFECTICK . AND INF:E'ST'TION. In, IC:,T.'^.,'D AT EC .APr'D ECFS ON THE DIAGRAM. _ SCOMIEND, "ION: AFTER BUILDING HAS BEN J ;'.CitT.D UP KNOCK OUT ALL WOODEN FOUNDATION FR.,i;MING. INST.?LL �`. NEW STEEL REINFORCED CONCRi;TE FOUNDATION AROUND THE PERII1.ETER OF THE RESIDI24CE WHICH MEETS MUNICIPAL CODES. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE ENTRY STOOP ? ST PS AS N=EDED. oOF: 7.: FINDING: CCU: +_TdhND;TZON U3STRUCTU E: 1.: , FINDING LECOMf ENDATION: `1.'..: FINDING {ECO'102ND..TION =i3.: FINDING: ,dCOI MENDATION: THE ROOFING IS BADLY DLTERIORATED AND SHOWS LVIDEN F LEAKAGE AND FUINUUS XTVlITY OLT THE ROOF kRA LING. INDICATED AT ON THE DIAGRAM. REMOVE TI!✓ HOOF SHINGLES. REPLACE THE INFECTED ROOF G iM INSTAI.L NEW ROOFrNU. NOTE:IT IS 7-lE OPINION OF THIS INS1`T °. THAT THE COST TO BRING THIS RESIDENCE UP TO STRUCTU_,AL FEST COI.'RUL. BOARD STANDARDS AND TO MEET MUNICIPAL CODES WOULD EXC.ED 'Ph2 VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE- TFRE'- UNIT BUILDING THE SUB AHE,k HAS BEEN EXCAY -011D P.ARTL,LLY TO ALLOW FOR OBSERVATION BUT NOT FULL :ACCESS FOR PHYSICAL INSPECTION AT UL:A INDICATED AT IA. THESE ,+RE.;S LACK SUFFICIENT CT - `,R,kNCE BETv.MN FLOOR JOISTS AND THE SUB AREA SOIL. EXCAVATE A SUFFICL'24T AMOUNT OF E?.P.TH FROM THE SUB AREA TO INSURE FUL.I. PHYSIC: =.L TTSt'ECTION AND TO MEET U1TI7ORM CALIFORNIA CODE. THERE WAS EVIDI-'ICE OF EDCTENSIVE DRYROT -ANN) FUNGUS ACTIVITY NOTED IN TIE STRUCTURr'L FRAMING. INDICATED ;AT F ON THE DIAGRAM. THIS INFECTION P.PPE -'M TO EXTEND L':TO —HE WALLS OF UNIT A. REMOVR SUFFIDLE NT , MOJNT OF FLOORING _ND SHEETROCK FROM THE WALLS TO EXPOSE ALL OF TILE INFECTED FRAMING. CUT OUT ALL INFECTED FRAMING :S>D INSTI'.LL NEW WALL ?RAML`iG AS NZEDED AND INST ALL NEW FLOORING. RECOVER Tn' WALLS WITH SJE' -MOCK AND PREPARE FOR PAINT. ANY PAINTING, FLOOR COVERING, OR C,IRPETING PTOT INCLUDED IN THIS WORK. TIiERE WAS CELLULOSE DrBRIS NOTED ON THE SUB AREA SOIL. INDICATED AT Cl ReAIOVE AND DISPOSE OF :CIS, CELLULOSE DEBRIS FROM THE SUB AREA. xv, t PAGE OF STANDARD INSPECTION RE?OR-i OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT: , Address of Property Inspected /�I • k' :IRK PL:'+CE m Bldg No — -- -� c tv 20160hi 870 Sf.mP No. *to o InlpKt—' o• .POrt o. (It enV) EXCESSIVE MOISTURb: CONDITION: y� % . "z S • : FINDING: THE Rc WAS WATER DAR AGE ..tiv`D DRYROT Vi :7 IN 7E BATHS OF ALL UNITS. nr . INDICATED AT EN, -D �tND EN, -F ON THE DIAGRAM. RECOMIBND.tTION: RR40VE TIM TOILETS. CUT o, ,Ti, ALL D ;",K. OED KOOR COVERINGS AND UNDERLAYMc1IT. REPLACE 'ANY D.(NAGED WOOD M&MBERS AS NECESSARY, TREAT THE ADJACDER AM11ENT. WITH A REGISTERED FUNGICIDE. INST,!LL �,Zw UNDERLA`LtiIENT ANDLNST:iLL N-- FLOOR COVERING T'HROUCHOu . Z:S2T THE '01LETS ON riF,n• WAX SE LS, FINDING: THERE WAS WATER D 1d t. . �. F'LCOR CO VERli'G AND UNDERLA7QT NOTED Iri THE KITCIiENS OF UNITS A & C. INDIC:I'F'L AT EM -D CY THE DIAGRAM, RECOMMENDATION: CUT OUT THE D- uMAGED FLOOR CCVs'R!NTG iAND UNDERLAY ITT. CUT OUT AND REPLACE ANY D.: M,,GED OR INFEC -D SUBFLOORING. INST;iLL NEW WiDERLAYMFyT !ND INSTALL NEW FLOOR COVERING TMOUGHOUT. FINDING• THERE WAS MOISiU z D =ViAGE NOTED TO Try SiTBrIAOZTtiC I i THE REAR S i�VI r PORCH OF UNIT ;?iC. iNDIC:IIBD :li^ M- D ON TIM DIAGRt114. RECOMMENDTION: CUT OUT :ILL D- !hLAGED FIAGRItvG SAND INSTALL NEW F1OORiriG. TRE„T THE EXPOSED FLOORING WITH 1 REGISTERED WOOD PRESERVATIVE. ABUTMENTS: 6.: FINDING: THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF DRYWOOD I MITE ACTIVITY IN -HE IT^iACIED LAUNDRY PORCH AND THE COVEPED POF.CItrS. _INDICATED AT K ON THE DIAGRAM. RECOMMENDATION: FUMIGATE THE STRUCTUti, WITH AN APPROVED LET 1L G: IS TO ERADIC;Ty THE INFESTATION OF DRYWOOD TER:AIT:S. REMOVr OR MASK :?L AC SSIBLE PELLETS, TERMITE OPER,TOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE KR ANY DiV, AGE TO THE ROOF, PLLNT . 't ^ LIFE AROUND THE BJILDIiNG, OR THE Tr AY'7E -NNA DURING TiE COURSE OF FUMIGATION. ALL REASONABLE C:kRE WILL BE TAKEN TO .-tVOID "D:IMA ROOF: GE OF ANY TYPE. 7.: FINDI?TG; THERE WAS WATER DAMAGED :'uND RCTTED ROOF EAVaS NOTED AT F ON THE DIAGRAM. RECOMMENDATION: CUT OUT ALL ROTTED EAVE LUMBER AA-M INST,kLL A-'W LU1f3 NOT INCLUDE PAINTING. THIS WORD DOES OTHER: FINDING: THERE WAS EARTH CONT, +CT :,ND 7r JNGUS NOTED TO Tr'TM ' BASE OF THE ACCESS DOOR TO THE AS -REA. Z :DT.0 iTED AT EC -F ON T:-TE DIAG?L',M. RECOMMENDATION: CUT OFF THE B,iSE OF THE DOOR JAMBS AND FILL T'%"r VOIDS WITH CONCRETE, EIC FS ML y 1. E(+ -D 7 t J CM It '� .1�'fHdSi�`i�0'Y,•.4Y;l Yr'�OFt+.�i.7(ni rp'f:�id .4 ;.•rn?f�: zc 1Q -D O KI F IA IA • U EM B Ki IAF IA F I EM-F . K. I F O L��' -F K K F • Qq no�� �0 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT UP -483 Saratoga Federated Church 20390 Park Place DATE: 3/17/81 Commission Meeting: 3/25/81 REQUEST: Allow the expansion of an existing church parking lot. ZONING: R -M -3,000 • SITE SIZE: 32,172 sq. ft. BACKGROUND: On May 25, 1977 the Planning Commission granted approval for Use Permit UP -335. This use permit allowed the con- struction of 22 parking spaces for church use. This is the darker shaded area shown on Exhibit "B ". This parking lot also provides tenant parking for the rental units on the site. To the south of the site is another church parking lot. However, during church services, many of those attending must park on the street. The:.... purpose of the proposed expansion is to alleviate this problem. STAFF ANALYSIS: Approximately 12,300 sq. ft. of additional site area will be paved to create the 43 spaces( +) of the new parking area. Also, a portion of the existing parking Yot will be repaved. Most of the proposed parking stalls will be 9' X 20' in dimension as approved under UP -335 and the one -way aisles will be 16' wide also as approved under UP -335. However, these dimensions do not comply with City (Public Works) minimums for parking lot design. Staff would recommend that the new portion of the parking lot be designed to meet minimum City requirements (i.e. minimum aisle widths - 18'; minimum stall size of 9' -6" X 22' with double striping). It should be noted that some compact parking spaces might be created but this would constitute only a few of the spaces. The new parking lot will provide egress onto the alley between the post • office and this site. The applicant has indicated that all major trees on the site will be preserved including the oaks and large cedar tree not shown on the plan. The applicant must submit revised plans showing how these trees will be preserved. Report to Planning C� mission 3/17/81 UP -483 Page 2- The most significant impact of the proposed parking lot will be the • removal of structures containing 3 low to moderate income rental units. It should be noted that this further reduces the already limited supply of rental housing in Saratoga. The applicant has -indicated a willingness to assist the current tenants in relocating but this assistance will be limited.. The remaining dwelling units on the site will be preserved. The proposed parking lot expansion will help alleviate the parking congestion during church services. No adverse visual impacts are anticipated due to construction particularly since the major trees will be preserved. FINDINGS: 1. 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 particularly in terms of providing adequate off - street parking. 2. 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. The proposed conditional use, if modified as suggested in this . Staff Report, will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. It should be noted that some compact parking spaces may be created but these are expected to be minimal. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated March 17, 1981 and Exhibit "B" subject to'the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit a revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department showing revised parking stall and aisle dimensions in conformance with City requirements. This plan shall also show those trees that will be preserved and how they are preserved. 2. Tenant parking for the remaining rental units shall be preserved. Cdr 515VII1 ! 1. This item was advertised by posting, publishing in the newspaper and by mailings to 51 nearby property owners. 2. This project required a negative declaration also on this agenda. Approved: Michael Flores, Assistant Planner MF /clh P.C. Agenda: 3/25/81 11100 '/ i% Er Sr i ! /�-. // EX�Sr BV /cO /•VG / / I COLIC. i r A'� i /C7i=G'' r`.%�Y _ �'� NECGE .. 4_ _ - -- �•�•I /asRHocr oeivE L !L I 7 eY 1 '��— � Z �/ rL .•� • � / to y� !it • f"— °r.Ylt /G •FP .4 • � � i � _ ,1 �- // f V r71 F . T...'A$ ' •' 9 'off � r°•••��� . Burc D� G / / �� : /�fr: •: . .t a N'°. �Q-,t c. a / 4'E.2 A C. F Z'i I • s f7R 9- ' aena / - •£w ed \ _ \ \ --- • -- � �- ��'• 'r �� EXHIBIT r as FILENo. (�j3 CITY OF SARATOGA EIA, -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) • Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: UP -483 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080 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 Expansion of an existing church parking lot which would cover, eventually, about 22,900 sq. ft. of a 32,200 sq. ft. site. Three rental units in fairly poor condition will be removed. Most major trees will be preserved. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Saratoga Federated Church 20390 Park Place Saratoga, CA • REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project can not have a significant effect on the environment. City codes and ordinances will control all construction related impacts. The applicant will be encouraged to assist current renters in relocating. Executed at Saratoga, California this 17th day of March . 19_8_1_. R. S. ROBINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRO F THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED'STAFF MEMBER ( (" 0 "D - .ti..iawJ4�•N'�n �l :..r_ii.�If \ }�':` .r ?'n ..w .nsr ��i .« ..._� .a, �... ..1 • . -T 1. .. �.� .� Y • -.."•v Uri. '�: .�.... .. ... .. -. ... T �._.. r.....- ti'��+r.�wgY�.�fAi- 4.+�r' ! H. 3Y� }LiaN.1.w.LLM1 /�f1.lM•fl�l4�., �i]I•Y�w -�.-�. Planning Commission - page 7 Minutes - Dleeting 3/25/81 4a. Ne�,ative Declaration - UP-133 - Saratoga Federated Church 41. 11P -453 - ,aratoga Federated Church, Request for a Use permit to allow the 3,3tm sq. ft. expansion of an exist ins; church parking lot at _0390 Park place Staff descrihed the proposal, stating that one of the major impacts of this expansion is that three rental units currently occupying the site would hare to be removed to accommodate the p -rking lot expansion. They explained that the proposed expansion does comply with the standards of the original UP -335. However, Staff has recommended that the design of the parking lot be chin .ged to comply with current City ordinances. It was noted that egress from the lot will also he allowed on an alloy wav .hetween the Post Office site and this site. The alley way was discussed, and Staff indicated that the applicant has stated that they have no pro - hlcm with not using that as an egress and would be willing to shut that off and use a loop system in the parking lot-. The nublic hearing was opened at 9:20 p.m. Patty ]irunn, 1 Park Place, stating that she has lived there for V'.years, and silo questions the validity of tearing down these houses and the grccnery for 42 parking places. She stated that there are other residents there who have grown up in Saratoga, who, without this hoU5in„ have no place to live. Ms. Brunn commented that she thinks that housing like this 00 is needed in Saratoga and feels there are other alternatives that could he considered. She su.gcsted car pooling, having an extra church service, or renting extra spaces from the post office. Staff explained that the applicant could add S or G parking spaces and still maintain the residences; however, they did not think it would be sufficient to make it worthy for the church to continue with the parkin;, lot esp;r:ision. They added that, to expand into the center courtyard area, prubahly two of the large trees in the center would have to be removed. Raisa Kocher, IS139 Park Drive, commented that, little by little, without reali zing it, we are getting all of our young people out of town. Silo stated that she did not feel we can live without them, and the City should think about it very seriously. Silo added that the), do have to live some- place, and why not in Saratoga. Mrs. Kocher stated that if the Commission won1J give it a lot of thought they will feel. that they are more importar:t than this parkin". .tier Day, representing the church, discussed the parking. Ile stated that vszaox*,uad they had purchased the property because they are desperate for parking. Mr. D ;ry indicated that they do intend to retain the two houses that are in reasonably good shape; however, the other two structures would have to be rebuilt if retained, since they are in very poor shape. lie noted that the' tenants had been informed before they moved in that it was only an interim place to live. Mr. Day indicated that they have man)- eomp•laints from church - goers, and they now use blebs Fargo's parking lot across the street, the antique store's parking, and some of the Post Office parking lot. Ile added that he did not think that busing is a feasible possibility Check Ilubey, it resident of 1 Park Place, indicated that there arc 4 units ..rY instead of 3. lie stated that he felt that it is a shame to consider four - Hours, one day a week, as a major criteria to take clown some existing homes, when finding a place to live is a real prnhlem right now. Ile indicated that there arc S tenants affected by this expansion. Putt:• Brune Commented that this 0xpansion will only he a partial solution C� to the problem, and she did not feel it was worth it, to tear down the :... >_, houses to partially solve the parking problem. She stated that she is happy with the condition of her house, and she did not Eeel there were that many "t'`'`�Z improvements needed for the houses involved. LV� - .- J.I�VJ'�- R..y'ARiw�v`�� � \Y �4+.ar..r �a���..- �._�.a� .�. \ .. ._. . .. 'i .. . __ �.�.c �r ar ?.YS•��\`:fr.._. - .. Planning Commission Minutes - bicetinu .i /2SIS1 Ull -483 (cont.) Page 8 Dennis Schaller, Los Gatos, stated that lie was a friend, and his mother has gone to two churches in the past where busing is the only way they can handle the overflow. Ile commented that maybe a small van could be used, and the income the church gets from the residences would be used to maintain it. Commissioner Zamhetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he feels that, at this time, it is improper to allow these units to be destroyed, since there are only 96 rental units in the City. lie stated that lie feels it is more important that these people have a place to live, and the people who attend that church can find a place to park within the Village area and walk to and from the church. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she felt the units are/vcry important and appreciates the comments from the people who live there. However, she feels that people who own property and meet the criteria have a right to do with that property as our codes and laws permit. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she did not feel that she could vote against this an plication, and suggested perhaps the Commission could make anon-site visit and see is tu,crc is some other Solution. Commissioner = <ur -hetti moved to deny the Negative Declaration for UP -483 and also to deny UP -483 for the expansion of the church parking lot. Com- missioner i3olger seconded the motion. Commissioner Monia stated that he will vote for the motion, primarily because oC the fact that he does not think the destruction of these particu- lar rental properties will really relieve the problem. lie commented that he feels the problem is going to continue to grow as long as the membership grows, and he feels that some progressive means of dealing with this has to he thought about. Commissioner King stated that he supported Commissioner Zamhetti's continents, and feels that we do not have adequate low -cost housing in the City. He added that he feels the Commission should do everything possible to both preserve and create some additional housing for people of moderate income, -� for both young and older people. Commissioner King commented that lie felt this was -cry important, and the Commission seldom gets a chance to do much '''.out that. 'Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like clarification of the motion, asking if the Commission is saying they want to maintain low or moderate - income housing, which she agrees with, are they also saying that . people Mio buy a small home are not allowed to add an addition to make it adequate for their family because they are taking away the future resale of a moderate or lower priced home' Commissioner Zarnbetti stated that there is such a need for rentals around the Village, and there are just a few. Ile stated that he feels it adds to the character of the community, and the City does have a social service to the whole county to provide., at some time, its fair share of moderate hour- ing Commissioner Schaefer stated that she does want smaller homes here, but she wonders if we have to ask private parties to sponsor these homes. She added she felt this should be considered before the vote is taken on this use permit. Chairman Laden asked if the rental units are maintained, are they to he maintained to code and do we require the landowner to bring them up to code, or do we just ignore that and have the church allow them to he u, maintained on site. i q 'A \ 7-72-1'.., .'V'1 ....- ..._- .G1rr....w� .�- .w.--- �.-- LY✓•�. - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes Mceting 3/3s/31 UP -43.i (coat. ) Commissioner Crowther commented that lie felt that is a totally separate issue, and the decision the Commission is making at this time is to approve or deny a use permit to allow expansion of the church parking lot. lie stated that the Commiss ion 'Should ask themselves whether they think it is in the community's best interest to expand the parking lot, and he thinks most of the Commissioners are saying that they agree with some of the comments that there are other issues that are higher priority, and it is not neces- sarily in the community's best interest to permit this expansion. Commissioner Monia stated that he would prefer not to have his vote mis- construed with all the rest of the conversation as to whether or not we are going to socialize the City, or whether or not it is the Commission's n intetion to do something else with private property in the future. lie indicated that he would like his vote strictly to be viewed as an expression of his opinion based on 1111-433 as it is presented here tonight. The vote i:as taken on the motion to deny UP -433. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 10 -day appeal period. Break - 9:35 - 9:50 p.m. +A►sgkt{;io�e�WLXQ S. Discussion of the Specific Plan for the Northwest Hillsides; Continued from March ll. 1931. it • It was noted *hat the public hearing had been closed at the last meeting. The Commission discussed and added revisions to the draft Specific Plan. ;I ;irin <, the discussion regarding the. Williamson Act Contract lands, the Deputy City Attorneyexplained that the Williamson Act, as it now reads, does not allow automatic cancellation in any event. The City is required to make certain findings, specifically, that it is consistent with the ohjec- Lives oC the Act and that it is not contrary to public policy. The Deputy City Attorney di.scusseda recent court case, stating that in that particular case the court ruled that the City of Hayward had not made certain findings, or that the findings they did make were not supported by subst:uttial evi- dence. The court held that the Wi.iliamson Act contemplated that expiration would be the normal way by which lands are taken out, and not cancellation; that cancellation would only be appropriate in emergency unforeseen situa- tions. Ile noted that as soon as the decision came clown it was immediately followed by steps being taken to initiate legislative change to override the opi11 ion.0f the court. lie stated that he thinks it is entirely appropri ate for the purposes of the Specific Plan to set forth a policy that it is not the intention or desire of the City to encourage cancellations; that renewal. of' Williamson Act Contracts is determined to be the policy of the City. However, he indicated that lie did not feel the Plan should make reference to the Williamson Act as interpreted by the court, since that interpretation might he changed on sul>scqucnt legislation or on later decisions. 1 Commissioner Monia stated that, after going through the Plan again and looking at the number of things that the Citizens Advisory Committee is reeomnendiny; with concerns to restrictions of excessive public costs, he would like to sec the percentage, with regards to grading on page 19a, be chant ;ed from 30' to '0'�. He suggested that the sentence should then read: "Grading should he minimized (by grouping homes) and by locating - roads and homesit_es on slopes less than 20" unless given prior approval by the governing hodics.11 Commissi.oncr Monia explained that he thinks it 'would be wise to change the percentage to 20'., since there continues to be dis- cussion about minimizing risks, and he thinks there is a risk when there is development on any slopes, and the Plan specifically states that the major factor in risks is building on slopes. lie stated that this would not dis- allow building on a slope of 30%, but it would require a closer review of governing bodies. Discussion followed on a letter from Leon Pollard, the - Planning Director for the (:ounty, wherein lie mentions the percentages "'Sst r of slope suitable for development. The criteria for selecting the 30. slope factor was discussed, and Dianne Bolger, of the Citizens Advisory 1 FU=R MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY JIM DAY L 0 R E N D. DURR, A.I.A. ARCHITECT 162 SARATOGA AVENUE • LOS GATOS,. CALIFORNIA 95030 June 4, 1981 Saratoga Federated Church c/o Mr. James W. Day 12901 Saratoga Ave., Suite #1 Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: INSPECTION OF CHURCH -OWNED RENTAL UNITS #3,4,5 & 6 Located at #1 Park Place. Attention: Mr. Day Yesterday's on -site inspection of the above -named Rental Units belonging to the Saratoga Federated Church revealed the following A. Units #3,4 & 5 housed within a common frame-and stucco structure: 1) Concrete foundations and the frame and stucco work are in good state of repair. 2) Ceiling heights meet current minimum Code requirements. 3) The more than 20 year old composition roofing leaks. Replacement recommended.. 4) All electric work fails present -day Code requirements: a. Inadequate, ungrounded service. b. Fuses in lieu of breaker switches. c. Inadequate convenience outlet distribution. d. Knob and wire wiring installation with same exposed on the exterior. 5) Exterior wood fascia trim and Porch pergola members sufficiently rotted to require replacement. 6) Vertical clearance between finish grade and wood members of exterior walls falls short of 6" minimum Code requirement. 7) Kitchens are extremely small and quite sub - standard. 8) No wall or attic insulation. 9) Baths and plumbing need up- dating. B. Unit #6: 1) No foundation, structure sets on wood plate and cripple studs only. 2) Portions of Unit's wood flooring and floor framing members hug the ground, allowing for no crawl space or Code required finish - grade -to- framing seperation. 3) No studs in walls which are composed of batt and board only. 4) No wall or attic insulation. 5) Ceiling heights do not meet Code minimum requirement of 7' -6" for living spaces. 6) Wood shingle roof is rotted and needs replacing. 7) Electrical work fails present day Code requirements in like manner of aforemen- tioned units. C. Old on -site sewer system is poor with frequent maintenance servicing required. -1.- 354 -4412 D. Conclusions: 1) The structure housing Units #3,4 and 5, with considerable expense, could be brought up to Code with removal of all plaster wall surfaces (probably ceil- ings also) to allow for electrical revision, then drywalled, re- trimmed and painted. The Kitchens need gutting, partition revisions and new replacement of all cabinetry, appliances, etc. Grade -to -wood clearance deficiencies re- quire a reworking of finish grading ground a portion of the structure's perimeter and revised methods of storm water drainage relating thereto; all of which is further complicated by existing walks and mature plant materials. Further add the expenses of insulation, a new roof, replacement of exterior trim work and up- dating of Baths and plumbing. a. This structure is moveable. 2) Unit #6 is non - redeemable for either improvements for habitability by today's standards and remaining at its present location or for moving to another location. Yours very truly, Loren D. Durr, AYA Architect cc: File. -2.- N GIRDE & A�OCIATES CONTR. LIC #338828 "Garde against Pests" PEST CONTR. LIC. #3301 AUTHORIZATION The undersigned herewith authorizes, requests, and orders GARDE & ASSOCIATES TERMITE CONTROL AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION to complete all work recommended in INSPECTION REPORT ftU. 1370 , dated 3 -81 , a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, covTring that certain structure or structures located at y ] -. "�itK l' (, "�: S:'J;;,TGIG,, CA. The total cost for recommended work and services rendered by GARDE & ASSOCIATES TERMITE CONTROL APD GENERAL CONSTRUCTION will be the sum of $ 42,500.00 • IECOMMDED WORK SINGLE RESIDENCE: T IU2- UNIT. BUILD:; N!', : REC. �#1..... .$8350.00 _ aEc. '-1 ...... s4gq o.UU REC. #P2R.....$865.00 REC. W2. ... .$1250.00 RFC E •.L �h7`�.OU REC, ,#6. .,..$285o.00 REC. W2H.. 870.00 REC._f B_ . ,$11o,')o REC.}�7.. a�.OU _RE'C, i� ........ 17850.00 REG. f2,,,$i465,00 F.QC. /'-2 ....... $120,00 REC. 47.. ..tyyoo.UO _ RAC. Jt21. ., ,�E _0 $15��)$0.00 :.. - 26,520.00 If any of the above recommended work is to be deleted, please list below: The cost for the remaining work to be completed.is $ Funds for work shall be held in escrow and disbursed upon receipt of Certification of Completion by GARDE & ASSOCIATES TERMITE CONTROL AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION. In the event an Escrow or Holding Company is not involved with this work, the total amount for completion of work recommen- ded is due upon completion, or unless other arrangements have been made. Should suit be commenced, or any attorney be employed to enforce payment of completed work or any portion thereof, I /We agree to pay the attorney's fees in addition to the amount of the obligation. Payment past thirty (30) days is past due unless otherwise agreed upon. A 1 1/2 per month (18% per annum) SERVICE CHARGE will be applied to all past due accounts. DATE LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZED AGENT 1645 -B SO. BASCOM AVE. . CAMPBELL, CA 95008 . (408) 371 -1061 CITY OF SARATOGA A, AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 4 -22 -81 J Planning Initial: all- C. Dept. Hd. Atty. C. Mgr. SDR -1491, Dean & Susan Nowacki, Glenmont Drive, Tentative Building Site Approval - SUB=: 1 Lot (over 50o - expansion) Appeal of Site Approval Condition Requiring Water --------- for Fire Protection of 1000 .0z for 2- Hours_ -__ -__ ----------------------- Issue Summary The application appealed involves expansion of a residence by over 50% which requires building site approval. A condition of the subject site approval, per Section 4, NS -60.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance as amended in 1977, calls for 'a fire hydrant within 500'_of the residence charged with 1000 gpm of water maintained for 2 hours, A precedent of grant - ing-a deferral could jeopardize the coordinated water system for the"Western Hillsides. However, an appeal was granted in November 1979 to Perry West (SDR -1413 1 lot, Via Regina) by the City Council for a similar condition. Earlier requests for deferred improvement agreements on the water system had been denied by.the City Council. The applicants have appealed, stating they only wish to improve their property and that the cost of this con- dition is excessive. Recomnendation/Options Staff recommends that the Council approve the appellant's request. • Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attacinents i conduct a public hearing and either deny the appeal or 1) Staff Report with NS -60 -4 2) Tentative Building Site Approval Conditions 3) Letter from Saratoga Fire District (including San Jose Water Works calculations) 4) Appeal Letter 5) Minutes of LDC Meeting 4/2/81 Council Action • sR)IE;c REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 4 -28 -81 COUNCIL MEETING: S-6-81 SDR -1491, Dean & Susan Nowacki, Glenmont Drive, Tentative SUBJECT: Building Site Approval 1 Lot (over 50% expansion) Appeal of Site Approval Condition Requiring Water for Fire Protection s----=---- - - - - -- The Nowackis are applying to expand their existing single -story 1700 sq. ft. residence to 3350 sq. ft. by adding a second story. Their 500 sq. ft. garage would also be expanded to 900 sq. ft. The subject site is located on Glenmont Drive in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district and has an approximate slope of 300. Section 21, Article 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, requires receipt of build- ing site approval for expansions of over 500 of the main structure. A condition of the Nowacki site approval, SDR -1491, granted by the Land Development Committee on April 2, 1981, calls for a fire hydrant within 500 feet of the residence to be charged with 1000 gpm of water maintained for 2 hours. This condition is required by a 1977 amend- ment to the Subdivision Ordinance which states: NS -60.4, Section 5 (amending Section 14.4 -2.): "Fire hydrants in all Hazardous Fire Areas as designated pursuant to Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any residential structure shall be further than 500 feet from at least one hydrant, and the fire protection system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1000 gallons per minute of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1000 gallons per minute minimum shall be for a sustained period of two hours." This amendment was added to insure that enough water was availa- ble for fire protection for the large houses being built in the designated Fire Hazard /Hillside areas of Saratoga. • The nearest hydrant to the Nowacki residence via the roadway does Report to City Council RE: SDR -1491 - Nowacki April 28, 1981 Page 2 not flow the required gallonage (per the attached letter from the Saratoga Fire District). San Jose Water Works estimates that $150,000- $200,000 would be required to upgrade the system for the Nowackis to reach the required 1000 gpm. The proposed water system for Parnas and McBain & Gibbs could be connected to the water system of Canyon View to upgrade it; however, pressure regulators would be needed throughout the system. A deferral could jeopardize the water system proposed for the Western Hillsides'if it set a precedent for granting deferrals to new residences. For your information, an appeal was granted in November 1979 to Perry West, for a similar condition on his site approval for recon- struction of a house on a lot of record on Via Regina. Prior similar requests had been denied. i Kathy, Ker , s AssistantPlanner KK: cd Attachments • • ORDINANCE NO. 60.4 S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING OR61NANCE NO. 60, THE SUPDIVISIO'N ORDINANCE OF. THE CITY OF SARATOGA, BY ADDING PROVISIONS RE WAIVER Oil PARCEL MAPS, POSTPONUMENT OF GRADING PLANS, CASH BONDS AND IMPROVEMENT COMPLETION PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS, FOUR OR LESS LOTS: CLARIFYING HILLSIDE SUBDIVI- SION DENSITY AND SITE APPnOVAL EXCEPTIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Section 5.2 of Ordi.nance No. 60 is hereby.amended to read as ollows: Section 5.2. It shall be unlawful. for any person to sell., lease for a period in excess of ten (10) years, finance, or erect or construct any building on any parcel or parcels of real property in the City of Saratoga which constitutes a subdivision of-'foor or less .lots (or S or more lots coming within any of the provisions of Govern- ment Code Section 66426), or to construct any building, or pave any site for of:fstreet parking where the paved area will exceed 1000 square feet on any single site or parcel, with- out first complying with the applicable provisions of Article Three hereof, and causing a final approved parcel map thereof . to be recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder, or se- curing a waiver thereof pursuant to Section 24.4 hereof. Section 2: Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 60 is hereby amended to reaTc as ollows: i Section 6.1. Except as to model. homes otherwise permitted by Section T7 hereof, no building permit or grad- ing permit shall be issued until the final subdivision map is recorded by the County Recorder, or, in the case of lots, parcels or subdivisions subject to Article Three of this ordi- nance, no building permit or grading permit shall be issued until final site approval is granted in accord therewith and the parcel map or a Certificate of Waiver concerning the same is recorded with the County Recorder, and all required on -site and off -site improvements have born completed and certified as complete by the Director.of Public Works. Section 3: Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section 13.0 -3, rclatlnj; to standards of hillside development, are hereby amended to road as follows: (a) `•tinimum avci;,ge land area per dwelling unit shall not. be less than "a" as determined by the formula: _ 1 where "S" is the average slope of the parcel in percent deter - reined by the formula set: forth in Section 13.0 -2(3) above. ` t - r (b) 1*11c waximum number of dwcl l inil uni is per - mittcJ in a suhdi.vision or minor land division shall be do I tcrmi.ned by dividinE the net land area of the parcel being ' subdivided by the required n►inimum average land area per dwelling; unit, rounding up to the next whole number to occur at .5 and above. No parcel or portion thereof which can in- dependently be divided or subdivided shall be included in the net area used to determine the maximum number of units permitted. Section 4: Section 13.9 -4 of Ordinance No.60 is hereby amend c3 � acTU111g the following thereto: Notwithstanding the foregoing, if in the opinion of the Advisory Agency it would be preferable to postpone that portion of the site development: Klan which would consist of the final (trading plan at the location of each building site, the same may be postponed so long as a notation of the same is placed upon the face of the final subdivision map, in l.hich.case no building; permit may be issued for any site unless and until a subsequent final grading plan is submitted to and approved by the Advisory Agency. Section 5: Section 14.4 -2 is hereby added to Ordinance No.-60 to rca as o lows: Section 14.4 =2. Water ; - ,Fire Protection in fldi- lyJoiis Fire Areas Fire hydrants in all }aazardous Fire Areas as designated pursuant to Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any residential structure shall be further than 500 feet from at least one hydrant, and the fire protection system shall he so designed and charged t•rith water under pressure so that each hydrant • for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1000 gallons per minute of water. Dater storage or other availability shall be such that for all) one hydrant of the system, the 1000 gallons per minute minimum shall be for a sustained period of two hours. Section 6: That portion of Section 21 of Ordinance No. 60 through Subdivision thereof is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 21. SITE APPROVAL REQUIRID. No person shall sell, or lease for a period in excess of ten (10) years, or finance, any subdivision of four or less parcels, or of five or more parcels otherwise exempt from the provisions of Article Two hereof., or construct or move onto any lot or site any building or other structure, or pave any site for off - street parking where the paved area does or will exceed 1000 s(Itlarc feet, nor shall ally budding permit be issued for the erection, C011struction or improvement of the sags(, until final site approval therefor has been grunted by the Advisory Agency in accord t,ith this Article and a parcel map }llti ei.tller been approved and recorded with the Sallta Clara Count), Itecorder or has been waived ill accord with Section 2.1.4 hereof, save and except the requirements of this Article Three shall not be applicable. to any of the foll.o"llg which are exempt from such provisions: a) lihcrc the identical site is shown as a lot on a final approved subdivision map recorded within fifteen (15) wars prior to the (late of application for a building permit, and i.f recorded prior to the effective (late of Ordinance No. 60, had not yet expire(} prior to such effective date; b) lihcrc final site approval for the identi- cal lot or site has previously been obtained • from the City within fifteen (1S) years prior to the date of application for building per- mit, in accord with such ordinance requiring site approval as was in effect at that time, and the requisite record of- survey or parcel map is of record evidencing such site approval, and if recorded prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 60, had not expired prior to such effective date. Section 7: Section 23.3 of Ordinance No. 60 is hereby amended by adlTig t hereto the following: Where the amount of the improvement security will be $5,000 or less, the same shall be by a cash deposit with the City Clerk or an instrument of credit, in accord with Subdivisions (b) or (c) of Government Code Section 66499, and shall not be in the form of a surety bond. Section S: Subdivision (a) of Section 24.1 of Ordinance No.60is hereby amended to read as follow:.`: i (a) Unless otherwise waived in accord with Section 24.4 hereof, a parcel map prepared in accord with all requirements of the Subdivision flap Act (Government Code Sections 66444 through 664S0) and in substantial accord with the approved tentative ;,yap or the applicable unit or . units thereof, and which shall diagrammatically show thereon the fulfillment of all conditions or tentative approval which may be evidenced on such parcel map, including all required offers of dedication to the public of rights -ol -way, ease- ments or other interests in land. In the event a. parcel or record of survey maP is already of record, which at the time of its recordation was prepared and recorded in accord with the then - prevailing laws regulating parcel or record of sur- vey mans, and which parcel or record of survey map otherwise qualifies as being substantially in accord with the approved tentative Wrap, a new parcel map need not be recorded and in lieu thereof a copy of said parcel map certified by the Santa Clara County Recorder as being a true and correct copy of the original parcel map on file in his offices shall be filed; Section 9: Subdivision (d) of Section 24 of Ordinance No. 60 is hereby 5 nded to read as folloi;s:. (d) Satisfactory written evidence of payment of all required fees. Section 10: The caption of Section 24.2 of Ordinance No.60 is hereb nenklcd to road as follows: Section 24.2. ACTION ON FINAL APPROVAL Section 11. Section 24.3 of Ordinance. No. 60 is hereby amended to read as 1.011ows: -3- r, Section 24.3. COMPLETION 01: IMPROVEMENTS Where final site approval has been ,ranted but • all improvements have not yet been completed, then either all Of said improvements shall be constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any Building Permit or any other permit for the development of any one or more of such lot or lots, or in the aI tern ati-vc, at the option of City Planning Conraission, su(;;c improvements may be made the subject matter of a Standard form or a Deferred Improvement Agreement, to be completed at a point in time after the issuance of any building or other permit. In all cases the requirements for the construction of such off - site and on -site improvements as have not yct been completed at the time of final site approval shall be noticed by a certificate on the Parcel Map, or in an instrument evidencing the waiver of a Parcel %lap, or by the recordation of the Improvement Agreement concurrently ni.t.1 the recordation of such Parcel "lap. Where a condition is imposed that requires the completion of any im- provement or improvements prior to the issuance of any building or other developmental permit for any lot or lots of the prop- erty, then prior to the issuance of any such permit all on -site inspection shall be made of the property by the Director of Public Works. to determine whether or not said i.mnrovement.s have been satisfactorily completed, "dnd if, so completed the Director shall issue a certificate to the Building Official which certi- ficate shall be a prerequisite to the issuance of any such permit. .Section 12: Section 24.4 is hereby added to Ordinance No.60 • to reac as of 101as 'Section 24.4 Waiver of Parcel Stan Notwithstanding 'the provision of Subsection (a) of Section 24.1 hereinabove, the advisory Agency shall have POWer to Waive the requirement of the preparation, approval and recordation of a parcel map in the event that it finds that the proposed division or site othOl- ise complies with all other requirements established by the Subdivision Map Act and by this ordinance, if the City L'ngineer certifies that the legal des- cription of said parcel or parcels of record with the Santa Clara County Recorder's office is sufficiently descriptive and definitive so as to be reasonably relatively ascertainable on the ground without the requirement of all)- such parcel map. No;.hing herein contained is to be deemed to permit any waiver of a tcrntati.vc map or any of the other requirements or provisions of this ordinance. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase OI -tTiis Ordinance is for an\' reason held by a court of compe- tent jurisdiction,to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the. . validity of the remaining, portions 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, clause or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. • -4- • [7 • Section 14. This ordinance will take effect and be in full force and effect th1--ti (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20 day of JulY 1977, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Brid0as, Brigham, Kraus, Corr & Alotteoni NOES: 110 "3 ABSENT: ATTEST: %C 11 1 � // 1" '/ TH15 IS 'ro CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN IN- STRUMENT IS A TRUE AND L'ORr:ECT COPT' OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE, ATTEST „ 19 1, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY C)F SARATOGA RY _ DEPUTY CI'rY CLERK rxhfh1,t "A" CITE /• ARATOCA STAFF REPORT iLlgIhCite - /nta Siut;lc Site - Tentative Building Site Approval. • 5 /?k'— / f�� !(�u -x r �iu.s... 7%•urn�.�cwC�''`',,�n� -L !��•e- � ..�- �,c,� -r<- . T� Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974-General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: _, =._- <':•a The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR- hL %� (Exhibit_ filed 3 // i/ ) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and appli- cable Flood Control.regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any ` other Ordinance of the City. In addition phereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby requir9d and setforth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with require- ments of as outlined in letter dated 12-118 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire- retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E) Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 127 without adhering to the following: Driveways having slopes between 12=7 to 157 shall be surfaced using 2 #" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base. .:.:.- .,... ........:.... ..,_....:- .__.... Driveways having slopes between 157 to 17k7 shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 -foot inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. Provide a parking area for four (4) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. _ -�•14"y�c�.i�° -"fir v';!'�"= �,.`�' j c'� 7?c�. 'C. _X :� �i�'•.A"' - -1� 7L`i �'-jk.'ct�.�_ - _ �_ -.��n^ �' -+or�x ., ""':.`>; -1. :.. :, �r�±.-+ a. v, ;.;.,e.'�-.r:s..7p�..+.,wywZ: r:.y:!••117,i�.�Tl s -`C".. STAFF R'•' OR1' l� 1, %�Y��2 (�L,�c •3 / l �I �? RE:. ` Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire / hydrants. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering' gallons per minute for ­L hour(s). This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall. be (Gc � III er minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. -•• - _. Developer to install hydrant that meets District's specifications and deposit to cover hydrants rental for a period of five (5) years. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. Driveway plans to be approved and fees to be paid by the Fire District prior to issuance of permits. As of the hydrants will be on- site,'the developer is to grant an easement to make these hydrants public. Construct passing turnouts 10' wide and 40' long as'required by Fire Department. Details shall be shown on building plans. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. A septic tank permit will be issued for a sewage disposal system on this lot provided that application is in compliance with Sewage Disposal Bulletin A. System to provide feet of drainfield on 12 -foot centers plus room for 1007 expansion area and a gallon tank. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT V/ Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the S MID for review and certification. Comply with requirements of SCVWD. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DLPARTMENT Building plans to be approved by Planning Department prior to issuance of permits. Individual house designs to be evaluated on the bnsi of compatibility with the surr.ouuding environment. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be. included in evaluation. (louse foundations to be designed to minimize external grading. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. - 2 - N sTAq An tom:: r • House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by Fire District-. Design.Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. Applicant is to enter into recorded agreement with the City of Saratoga agreeing to participate in the formation of a sanitary sewer assessment district, and to connect to sewer when available. At time of development, applicant is to install dry and plugged sewer facilities on site in anticipation of connection to future sewer line of On -site sewer improvement plans to be approved by said District prior to final approval. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Land Development Committee approval. VII. COITKENTS/ V Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. The following information, provided by the Santa Clara County Health Department, has served as the,/basis for approval of a septic tank system: Kathy KerdusJ Assistant Planner KK /mam • . �;: ;..' ; , .:'. r �;"':. LDC Agenda: 'J I - 3 - .irr ALr�Cy' Y..Y: ! Sh r • .. .. ...,..._. . - ak,- .¢.:.�- w..•.�,_� ,�.. _ _ T - a-: ��-.f ° ., .. �. S v.v, .�5t . .3 .-.fi -r v .:-° '�., .`;tip ?. i';:� ::Yy:^!1 CITY OF SARATOGA - DEPARD1ENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES - Site Approval Check List - MME: Ott _ . SDR NO.: �4 9 LOCATION: �...� DATE: 3/ CaCK IF APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT I. No Requirements 2. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional a) Geology b) Soils c) Foundation �. 3. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued 4. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: • a) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) t• 10 b) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) c) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. d) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. • e) Erosion control measures f) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. 5. Bonds required for: 6. Other requirements: s 'r�1tA_J:A.N c4 Dona �y✓ NAME CITY_ OF SARATOGA - DFPAHTMF.NT OF PUBLIC WO.::.:. Fl le No. SDR I `f 9 _' Date 3 Z 4- a Locatio -MINOR LAND DEVELOPMENT - CHECK LIST - Engineer IL<C•1) Exh. No. No, of Lots I Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval (Currently Submit 'Parcel Map'to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking t Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-scale prints). Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication "to Provide for a Pt. Half- Street on Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication'to Provide Easement as required (Type and-Location Attached). Improve to City Standards, including the following: Designed Structural Section ft. between centerline and flowline. Designed Structural Section ft. between centerline and flowline. Designed Structural Section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide ft. between centerline and flowline. Asphalt Concrete Berm P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36, V -24) Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.) Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan' and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. Shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12h6 without ad- hering to t e o owing: O Access roads having slopes between 12 6 and 156 shall be surfaced using,2� in. Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base. R Access roads having slopes between 1St and 17kt shall be surfaced using 4 in. of P.C'. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess of 156 shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. O Access roads having slope in excess of 17►% are not permitted. Note: *The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. • The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. •Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. •Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. onstruct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. ggregaie base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Construct Standard Driveway Approach Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. Aggregate Base. Construct 'Valley Gutter' across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of Public Works. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will channe, retArd nr nrPvent flow. No direct access allowed onto from lots.. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within State Right -of -Way. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Public Works for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: Street Improvements Storm Drain Construction Access Road Construction Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement' for the required improvements marked "D.I.A.' Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Other Pr Vl •: �a ✓ \� SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA . 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Telephone: (408) 867 -9001 1 May 1981 Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoqa, California Dear Council Members: This letter relates to City Ordinance No.60, Section 5, Section 14.4 -2 entitled plater - Fire Protection in Hazardous Fire Areas and, more par- ticularly, to the request of Susan.and Dean Nowacki,-Reference SDR- 1491). Following the passage of a Resolution by the Saratoga Fire District Board of Commissioners said Section 14.4 -2 became officially part of Ordinance No.60 on 20 July 1977. Its intent then, as now, was to :insure proper Fire Protection Services for new developments in the Western Section of the City of Saratoga defined as an "hazardous fire area ". The District maintains now, as then,that • said Ordinance does provide for proper life safety standards and makes it poss- ible to combat hazardous fires in the area should such occur. The exemption request dated 8 April 1981 from Mr. and Mrs. Nowacki (Reference: SDR - 1491) relates to a 50% expansion to an existing dwelling. This increases the square footage of the home which, in turn, increases the demands of an existing water system for fire protection which does not meet the present City Ordinance requirements. The upgrading of the home with new fire safety provisions which did not exist during original construction appears to be a logical and reasonable cause for the exemption request. Should the exemption,be granted such should be with the provision that the roof be of the now available fire retardant wood shake and that a fire alarm system connected to an automatic dialer be installed. Such seems appropriate for a 50% expansion to an existing dwelling. Such would not relate to.new developments within the area addressed by the intent of the Ordinance referred to above. I suggest that future consideration be given to sharing the cost of improving the water system as new developments occur. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ernest O.Kra le,Chief Saratoga Fire Department • 21261 Glenmont Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 April 8, 1981 Members of the City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA 95070 REQUEST FOR EX EI PT ION FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 14.4-2 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:. On April 2nd we received Tentative Site Approval on an over 50;; ez,oansion project we plan on doing to our ho•,ne. Our ap:orovai was conditional upon satisfying Fire Chief Kraule and the Subdivision Ordinance_ regarding the water.supoly to our home in case of fire. We currently have 2 hydrants within 500' of our structure, however, only 1. is of the 1,000 gallon required caoacitly and it is not as accessible a,09j"the other one which is not up to current code. : "re request an exceotion for the following reasons: 1. This is an add on situation to an existing home versus a new develoDment. 2. It would be cost prohibitive for us to put in a new fire hydrant system (well over 5100)000.00 we've been told by the Planning Department). 3. In addition to ir,-Lproviny the appearance of our home, the new roof we will gain will be far more fire safe than what we currently have. I-Vith this uperczding we will hove smoke detectors, a fire retardant roof and overall better and safer construction which in turn affects our neighbors. 4. We feel the City of Saratoga should make every attemot possiole to encoura;;e owners of inadequately constructed older ho!zes to improve and upgr:zde then for the safety and better. ,7ent of all Saratoga residents. Fro.Ti an esthetic point of view I would like to mention our house currently has a flat tar and gravel roof, is 20 years old and is only 17'0 square feet. Our proposed 2nd story addition would be an im.orove:.zent to the overall appearance of the neigt;bor hood tbhtch has large homes with heavy shake.roofs. We would in no way obscure any neighbors' views because we are on the (cont'd) page 2 Variance for Nowackis downside of a hill and even with a 2nd' story our roofline would barely be above the level of the road. The area behind us is a small swale or dry creekbed dense with oak and buy 'trees which serve as a buffer zone between us and the nearest house behind us which is more than 400' away. %fie currently cannot even see the house because of the.tree height and density. In conclusion let me emphasize this is an expansion, not a new development. Y'le would be making an overall i.m,orovement on t!:e douse as far as fire protection, thereby creating a more fire safe structure. It is for these reasons we hooe you will grant us a variance. Thank you .. fpor your consideration and please call uoon Chief Kraule to uport our /appeal, and ansfur�r any further questions you .«ay have. Sincerely, Susan and Dean Nowacki i • Suo,olement to: Request 'for Exem,otion from Subdivision ordinance Section 14.4 2. regarding Water and Fire Protection. is As neighbors of Dean and Susan Nowacki we support their appeal for an exemption on their 50/ ex,oansion project for the following reasons: 1. The existing structure would be uograded and made more fire safe. 2. >,'e would all benefit by the esthetic improvement thereby increasing our own home values. 5. Their remodeling plans have been reviewed by Fire Chief.Kraule and have his endorsement and support. 4. This project should be viewed more favorably because it is an improvement on an existing structure and will not increase the housing density of the neighbor- hood. /. //�2�/ Id, 21, 4-.��r Utj/ ' � � !.'L.C( � J- Y�.t� --.�. or_ � Z Z � L j�-✓ v� G r l� i Cam. D r 9 ' LAND IIEVI L.OPMIiNI' COMMI'l7i 1, D1 I N ll'1' Li S DA'I'S: "I'hursday, April Z, 1981 - 10:00 a.m. PLA( E: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Pruitvalc Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting L. ROUI'INE ORGAN 17A'1'ION A. RoII C, Conuni.ttcc Members Present: R. S. Robinson, Commissioner Laden and R. S. Shook St, Members Present: K. Kerdus, I). 'l'r.inidad and R. liarison B. Minutes It was moved and seconded to waive the reading of the minutes of March S, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried uncut imous ly. II. SIT NGL' PTROVAL - - - -- I. _90R_ 1491 =Dean and Susan Nowacki, Glenmont, Tentative Building Site Approval - .1 Lot, Over SO% Expansion Mrs. Nowacki was present for the discussion. Staff explained that the applicants were requesting Tentative Building Site Approval since they were expanding their house over SOa. A use permit for the second story was not required, since the lot in question has a slope over 10'. The major concern on the conditioning related to the water requirement for 1,000 GPNI for two hours, =:filch might not be available within 500' of the Nowacki house. Mr. Shook also indicated that the Council had discussed an urgency ordinance, relating to height, at their meeting the night before, that might impact the proposed Nowacki. plans. He explained to Mrs. Nowacki that their action today was only on the tentative map and not on the proposed structure. Staff also indicated that the conditions needed to be modified to delete the condi.ti.on for storm drain fees on the SO +,; expansion. After discussion w.i.th Mrs. Nowacki of the condition for water and the potential ordinance on height, it was moved and seconded to approve SDR -1491. Mr. Shook explained to Mrs. Nowacki that, if she wished to appeal any of the conditions, she needed to do so within 1.5 days. 11 L. PUBLIC HUARINGS 1. SDR -1487 - Saratoga Union School District,.AIoha Avent.ie, Tentative _ BuiId.in¢ Site Approval_- 4 Lots _ and Negative DocIarati.on Staff explai.ncd that the School District was proposing to divide their property into four lots, one parcel heing 7.3 acres and the other three being 15,000 sq. Et. or greater. It was noted that the City Council had amended the General Plan to show this as residen- tial development, as proposed. 'rhe LIIC reviewed the square footage of the lots proposed and determined that they would be, as required, 15,000 sq. ft. minimum. The public hearing was opened at 10:30 a.m. Warren lleid, architect, questioned the necessity for a condition requiring si.nglc -story designs. The LIIC, after nothing that a public hearing was required at this time, revised Condition VIII -A, to read: " Design Review required for each structure, with s.ingle- story structures being encouraged.' § . �z_ '' . mac;