Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-18-1991 City Council Agenda packet
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 84 MEETING DATE: dl dl I CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Department CSO Division SUBJECT: Declaration of Existence of Nuisance Conditions at 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, California Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution declaring public nuisance at 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga. Report Summary: Mr. Winston Chew has a history of accumulating large amounts of trash, debris, and inoperative vehicles on his property located at 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, California. These conditions have repeatedly occurred since 1980, and Mr. Chew has been convicted of criminal charges pertaining to these conditions on several occasions. The property was deemed a public nuisance by the City Council on January 3, 1990, and a nuisance abatement of the property was conducted on March 20, 1990. In spite of the criminal convictions and the nuisance abatement, Mr. Chew continues to collect trash and debris. The adoption of this resolution will be the initial step in having the City clean up the trash, debris, and inoperative vehicles and assess the costs for such work against the property as an assessment pursuant to City Code Article 3 -15. The proposed resolution will constitute a finding and declaration by the Council that a public nuisance exists upon the property. Notice of this declaration is given to the property owner (by mail, posting and publication) who may object to the proposed abatement at a hearing scheduled for this purpose on October 16, 1991.. Following the conduct of this hearing, the Council may then order the abatement work to be performed. Upon completion of the abatement, a report of costs will be furnished for confirmation by the Council and Assessment against the property as a lien. Fiscal Impacts: None. City costs incurred in cleaning up the property will be reimbursed as a special assessment on the property taxes for the site. Attachments: Proposed resolution; Staff report dated 9/12/91, and 3/21/90. Motion and Vote: 9/18: Adopted resolution 4 -0. 10/a SECTION: a 7. 05.050, 9- 50.010(b)(2) m., 151 7 1 l 17- INCIDENT 1(al(91 REPORT REPORT NUMBER #91 -09 -001 5 .(h1(L4, TYPE OF INCIDENT See narrative for description ORIGINAL SUPPLEMENT X TO CITY ATTORNEY FOLLOW -UP NEEDED X (S) SUSPECT OR SUBJECT (V) VICTIM (W) WITNESS (R /P) REPORTING PARTY NAME (S -1) CHEW, Winston Franklin DOB 06/03/41 HOME TELEPHONE 446 -4321 ADDRESS 12501 De Sanka Avenue Saratoga, California BE I \ES P HONE 2 2� NAME (S -2) CHEW, Johanna DOB HOME TELEPHONE 446 -4321 ADDRESS 12501 De Sanka Avenue Saratoga, California BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME (W -1) Guerrero, Mick DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS Santa Clara County Health Dept. Vector Division BUSINESS TELEPHONE 299 -'2050 NAME DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE UR DAY Wed. TIM 0 f 91 1 hrs ��T�0 ��9�EP� �7% hrs anonymous DATA ENTRY BY LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 12501 De Sanka Avenue APN 386 -54 -016 REPORT FORMAT: I) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION 5) STATEMENTS 2) SUSPECT STATUS 6) FOLLOW -UP 3) NARRATIVE 7) CASE STATUS 4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CHARGES: 1) 7- 05.050 SA ORD Accumulation of garbage for more than one week. 2) 9- 50.010(b)(2) SA ORD. Repair of vehicles within public view 3) 9- 55.010 SA ORD Storage and accumulation of inoperative vehicles. 4) 15- 12.160(b)(1)(4)(6) SA ORD. Unenclosed storage of vehicles, parts thereof, trash, garbage, refuse within the front yard setbacks. 5) 17- 3(a)(2) SA ORD Storage of hazardous materials SEE ATTACHED REPORT �it�! _talk _....4:0M O U S1"C� 1211 16160 his COMM �ITl" SERVICE OF ER I.D. DATE /TIME WRITTEN ©0 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Printed on recycled paper. SARATOGA INCIDENT REPORT #91 -09 -001 (S) CHEW, SUSPECT DESCRIPTION: Oriental male adult, black hair, 5 -09, 170 lbs, DOB 06/03/41, CDL# G0619381 SUSPECT STATUS: Known not cited. 2 WINSTON F. brown eyes, SUMMARY NARRATIVE: On September 4, 1991 at approx. 1400 hrs. my office received two complaints ftom concerned citizens on the condition of the (S- 1)CHEW property located at 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, California. They reported large amounts of garbage and inoperative vehicles were being stored on the property, and on the empty lot adjacent to Mr. CHEW's property. I was familiar with this residence from prior complaints. I investigated the allegations on 9/4/91 at 1500 hrs, and I found the complaints to be accurate. Mr. CHEW had 5 vehicles parked in the front driveway of which two appeared in a state of repair within public view. There were also 3 large pans of used motor oil, an engine block, a motor hoist, a floor jack, and other assorted vehicle parts. I also observed that the partially opened garage was filled to capacity with garbage, debris, and mechanical tools. (PHOTOS #14,15,16,17,18,21,22) To the south of Mr. Chew's property is a vacant lot fenced in by chain -link. I could see through the openings that Mr. Chew had removed part of his fence and had access to this lot. I was aware that the lot is listed as 12648 Ted Avenue, and the property owner was (S- 3)SLOBODAN GALEB On the lot there was very large amounts of garbage, old appliances, wood, tree trimmings, discarded building materials, 2 large commercial vans, an inoperative vehicle, and other assorted junk items stored in cardboard boxes. (PHOTOS #9,10,11,12,13,23) At 1600 hrs, I contacted Mr. Galeb concerning the items stored on his property.- He stated that he had given Mr. Chew permission to store these items temporarily, but that this personal property was to be removed by September 3, 1991. I advised Mr. Galeb to order Mr. Chew to remove these items immediately. Mr. Galeb was advised that he was subject to criminal complaint should this not be completed. On 09/10/91 at 1330 hrs, myself and Mick Guerrero of the Santa Clara County Health Department, (Vector Control Division) made contact with (S- 2)JOHANNA CHEW at the De Sanka residence. Mrs. Chew allowed us to inspect the premises, including the rear yard. I took 23 photographs of the premises during the investigation. (See Physical Evidence). In the south side yard area there were 2 inoperative Volkswagen vans filled with garbage and debris, a fork lift, and assorted vehicle parts. There was only a very small area between the cars and building to walk through safely.(PHOTO #1) Further down the side yard there was a shack filled to capacity with cardboard boxes. In the boxes were papers, metal parts, broken items, etc. Printed on recycled paper. 3 SARATOGA INCIDENT REPORT #91 -09 -001 (S) CHEW, WINSTON F. These items presented an extreme fire hazard (PHOTO #2). To the rear of this shack was an opening through the fence which led to the GALEB property. (PHOTO #3) To the north was a covered patio area. This was stacked with vehicle parts, motor oil, appliances, ladders, wood, and boxes filled with junk. (PHOTOS #4,8) The rear and side yard of the property had several large stacks of wood planks stored along the fence. There were also 3 inoperative vehicles. (PHOTOS #5,6,7,20) Mrs. Chew stated that all the vehicles were registered to Winston Chew. The 5 vehicles in the front driveway were in the same position and had been stored in the front yard setbacks for longer than 120 consecutive hours. (PHOTOS #14,15,16,17) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: See Photographic evidence log, and parcel map. STATEMENTS: (S -2) Johanna Chew stated that their property was deemed a public nuisance and abated by the City Of Saratoga on March 20, 1990. The items on Mr. Galeb's lot were the items Mr. Chew had salvaged from the March 90' abatement. Mrs. Chew further stated that due to financial reasons they could no longer afford to pay a storage company $350.00 to store these items. She did state that she and her husband had a "garage sale" on Saturday August 31, 1991, and sold several items. She requested more time to clean -up the property. (W -1) Mick Guerrero found visible evidence of rodent, and rat harborage. He will be forwarding a copy of his findings to the City for follow -up. CASE STATUS/RECOMMENDATIONS: This case has been sent to the City Attorney's office for criminal complaint. The violations are as follows; 1. 7- 05.050 SA ORD accumulation of garbage for more than one week. INFRACTION and a public nuisance. 2. 9- 50.010(b)(2) SA ORD no person shall engage in the repair of any motor vehicle on any private property within public view or within a front area or exterior side area. Also, the storage of all repair equipment, supplies, and parts must be screened from public view. INFRACTION and a public nuisance. 3. 9- 55.010 SA ORD accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles, or parts thereof, on private property. INFRACTION and a public nuisance. 4. 15- 12.160(b)(1) 5 counts 15- 12.160(b)(4)(6) SA ORD the unenclosed storage of motor vehicles, parts thereof, trash, garbage or refuse within the front yard setbacks for a period longer than five consecutive days. INFRACTION Printed on recycled paper. SARATOGA INCIDENT REPORT 191 -09 -001 (S)CHEW, WINSTON F. 4 5. 17- 3(a)(2) SA ORD no person shall cause, suffer, or permit the storage of hazardous materials, in a manner which causes an unauthorized discharge of hazardous materials or poses a significant risk of such unauthorized discharge. MISDEMEANOR and a public safety hazard. S)CHEW has been a repeat offender since 1980, resulting in several citations, criminal complaints, and Public Nuisance Abatement (March 20, 1990), I recommend that (S- 1)CHEW be prosecuted for all of the aforementioned violations, and that any sentencing in this case should include court probation prohibiting any similar repeated offenses. Mr. Chew has demonstrated that he will not keep his property up to Saratoga City Ordinance standards. Violations of these ordinances create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of the public, create a harborage for rodents, and to be injurious to the health, safety, and general welfare. Date: September 10, 1991 Time: 1330 1400 hrs 'Location: Winston Chew, 12501 DeSanka Avenue, Saratoga (?J 52t0;5 Case Number: #91 -09 -001 CSO Assigned: Sr. CSO Spoulos #100 Camera used: pentax IQZ 70 #1001) Film type: Kodak 35mm 200 ASA Film processing company: Photo Drive -up, Saratoga Sunnyvale, Cupertino Neg.# Date Time CSO Location Description 1 9 -10 1330 #100 South side yard rwo vehicles /Forklift 2 9 -10 1331 #100 South side yard Shed filled with boxes /pape 3 9 10 1333 #100 Rear yard 3oundary fence removed 4 9 -10 1334 #100 Rear yard /patio area Rear yard/property line Accumulation of motor part: Storage of.wood /building 5 9 -10 1335 #100 6 9 -10 1336 #100 Rear yard Storage of 3 inoperative v_ 7 9 -10 1337 #100 Rear yard Storage of more wood/build* 8 9 -10 1339 #100 Rear yard /patio. area Motor parts.appliances inoperative veh. /garbage 9 9 -10 1342 #100 Galeb property /12648 Teri 10 9 -10 1343 #100 12648 Ted Ave. Trailer filled with pipes 11 9 -10 1344 #100 12648 Ted /west side Moving van /garbage and ve 12 9 -10 1345 #100 /east side Van filled with junk /gar•. 13 9 -10 1347 #100 /south side Old wood /tree trimmings /o 14 9 -10 1348 #100 Chew /front driveway Veh. under repair /engine 15 9 -10 1350 #100 Front driveway 3 inoperative vehicles 16 9 -10 1351 #100 Front driveway 2 inoperative vehicles 17 9 -10 1352 #100 Front driveway Motor /mechanical tools Hazardous material (oil) 18 9 -10 1353 #100 Front driveway 19 9 -10 1354 #100 Front yard Somewhat clean 20 9 -10 1355 #100 North side yard Garbage /building mat.Wood 91 9_ln 11S6 #100 Garage (cracked open) Garbage spilling out 22 9 -10 1357 #100 Front driveway Hazardous material (oil) 23 9 -10 1400 #100 12648 Ted Ave /West side View of garbage from Ted F Printed on r V z E'!n!`i PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE LOG terials icles g mat. cle parts e pipes its venue kiO7 i a.• .r.... e• Ps. S. N m Flb A •-r EX hag 20APE. DAwLP 43 c:› s0 g ti [r42OZ lo I9 ln1(NSTOn1 1250 Pe tieu E ill Ory SQ. Cs5 K.5(Pouu.64-(6b UMW ca0 0 °1'o� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM Attached is a brief case oTihe evenfts leading up to the albatemenf TO:Mr. Todd Argow, Community Services Director DATE: 3/21/90 FROM: Michael Nottoli, Community Services Officer SUBJECT: Abatement Project: 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga; 3/30/90 1200 Noon to 5:30 PM project at 12501 De Sanka Avenue: The history summary concludes :with a. 10/29/89 memo to Hal Toppel requesting a resolution to be constructed for a nuisance abatement declaration by the Saratoga City Council. They are chronologically presented and represent the steps that occurred leading up to the process. Letters, memorandums and photographs have been included. The actual abatement process occurred on 3/20/90 from 1200 noon to 5:30 PM. The Green Valley Disposal Company crew arrived and were ready to !work at 12:30 PM. The Santa Clara County Sheriff Department provided Deputy Durr for police assistance and protection during the project. Mr. Argow was present at 12:30 PM to supervise the start and to help resolve an initial problem of dumpster placement and Green Valley access. It was decided that the dumpsters would be placed in the driveway because a problem with four large moving vans blocking the Galeb property entrance and because of Mr. Chew's preference to use front yard access. Green Valley's crew of five men worked diligently for nearly five hours (12:30 to 5:15 PM). Two dumpsters were used to empty the garbage contents in the side and rear yard of the Chew property. The third dumpster was utilized to remove items belonging to Mr. Chew which were being illegally stored on property directly west of the Chew Property. Mr. Chew had removed boards from his side fence to allow access onto this property which is owned by Mr. Galeb and having a technical lot address of 12468 Ted Avenue. Permission was obtained from Mr. Galeb through his Building Administrator to remove Mr. Chew's items from the Galeb property. The Building Administrator responded to the scene, inspected the items that were stored on the Galeb property, determined that they were not items that belonged to Mr. Galeb, and gave verbal and written permission to remove the items from the Galeb property. CSO Nottoli took Photographs of the condition of the yard and the Galeb property prior to and after the abatement process. Although Mr. Chew verbally objected to the removal of several items, the process went fairly smoothly. Items classified as garbage were removed from the premises. Items such as tools, furniture, electrical appliances, usable glass and tile, electrical cords and rope, bicycles, a trampoline, a swing set, a small tractor, a Cushman -type cart,a lawn mower, a trailer, a leaf grinder, a roll of wire fencing, and a small wooden shed were cleaned off, organized, and were stacked and placed neatly in the yard. The sidewalks and dirt area were also adequately cleaned. Items such as paints, oils, chemicals, and rabbit feces could not be removed due to garbage company restrictions. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Steven Baird and Mr. Hal Toppel: DATE: October 29, 1989 Saratoga City Attorney Staff Personnel FROM: Michael Nottoli, Community Services Officer, City of Saratoga SUBJECT: Proposal For Nuisance Abatement Procedure to Correct A Storage of Garbage Problem on the Property Owned By Winston Franklin Chew At 12501 De Sanka Avenue in Saratoga Article 3 -15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code authorizes the Saratoga City Council to declare, by resolution or ordinance,that a nuisance exists on a parcel of land. Article 3 -15 further states that the City Council may utilize the provisions of this Article to effect the abatement of such nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the parcel upon which such nuisance exists. During the past several months, I have been working with the property owner at 12501 De Sanka in an attempt to have him remove a large amount of garbage from his property. Although some progress had initially been made, the unlawful situation still continues to exist. I am therefore asking for the City Council's assistance in helping to abate this nuisance. The property owner, Mr. Chew, recently pled guilty to two different counts of storing garbage upon his property. He was ordered to pay a fine of $138.00 as a sentence. Despite my requests on both reports that Mr. Chew be placed on probation and be ordered to clean up the property as a condition of his probation, the monetary fine was the only sentence imposed on Mr. Chew by the Los Gatos Municipal Court. Therefore, the violator has not been ordered by a Judge to clean up his property. Mr. Argow, the Community Service Director, recommends that the Saratoga City Council be asked to utilize its abatement procedure to rectify the problem. On the attached pages, I have included copies of documents which present my involvement and investigation in this matter as well as documents in a prior case history file. I have found evidence in this history file that indicates that there have been similar problems at this address since 1980. Please review the attached documents and prepare a formalized request to the Saratoga City Council for their initiation of the nuisance resolution and abatement procedure. I have been asked to present this matter to the City Council at the earliest date possible. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE TO EXIST UPON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12501 DE SANKA AVENUE WHEREAS, garbage currently is being produced, kept, deposited, placed or accumulated for a period in excess of one (1) week upon that certain parcel of real property commonly known as 12501 De Danka Avenue, Saratoga, California; and WHEREAS, Section 7- 05.050 of the Saratoga City Code requires that all garbage produced, kept, deposited, placed or accumulated upon any premises in the City shall be disposed of at least once a week, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 -05 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, Section 7- 05.320(d) of the Saratoga City Code provides that a violation of Section 7- 05.050 shall constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, Section 3- 15.020 of the Saratoga City Code states that whenever the City Council has declared by resolution or ordinance that a nuisance exists upon a parcel of land, the City Council may utilize the provisions of Article 3- 15 of the City Code to abate such nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the parcel upon which the nuisance exists, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows: 1. The garbage which has been produced, kept, deposited, placed or accumulated upon that parcel of real property commonly known as 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, California, is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance upon that parcel of land. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to utilize the provisions of Article 3 -15 of the City Code to effect the abatement of said nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the property commonly known as 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, California. 3. The owner of said property may present objections to the proposed abatement at the regular meeting of the City Council to be held on Wednesday, February 7, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., at which time such objections will be heard and given due consideration. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 3rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: City Clerk Mayor CURRENT HISTORY DATA 1989 1/31/89: Complaint to City Hall from a citizen stating that there is garbage piled up 6' to 8' high in the backyard attracting rats and rodents, and also creating a fire and health hazard. 2/24/89: Complaint to City Hall from a citizen stating that there are unregistered vehicles and accumulated trash in the front yard which is overflowing into the street. 4/3/89: Complaint to City Hall from a citizen stating that there is a tractor, 6 vehicles, a Cushman cart, a washing machine, 20 trash cans, wood pallets, metal buckets, etc. being stored in the front yard. Also said there are rats at the residence. 5/1/89: Complaints from three different citizens who called City Hall to report that there are appliances, paint, dog feces, wood, etc. being stored in the front yard. Also states that the backyard is wall -to -wall garbage. 5/5/89: Officer Roldan and I inspected the residence and found a large amount of garbage in the front yard. In looking over the fence, we saw that the entire rear yard of the residence was filled with garbage. See the actual crime report for a detailed analysis of the contents (Case 89 -08 -102). 5/16/89: I called in Inspector Dennis Moore of the Central Fire District to inspect the residence. He advised that the area near the garage water heater would need to be cleaned out. Also indicated that the large amount of dried brush and wood could be a problem if there were combustible materials stored therein. 5/16/89 5/19/89: I had several discussions with Mr. Chew concerning this problem. He stated that he would make an effort to clean the residence up. 5/22/89: Complaint to City Hall from a citizen advising that the house was causing the value of the property in the neighborhood to drop. 5/24/89: I called in Inspector Tim Mulligan from the Santa Clara County Vector Control to inspect the house. He advised that there was direct evidence of rat activity and harborage. He showed me rat droppings in several areas of the backyard. 5/24/89: Talked to Mr. Chew and delivered a letter to his residence stating that he would have 60 days to clean up the problem. He said that he would get it done by the July 31, 1989 deadline. 5/31/89: Inspected residence; 2 dumpsters filled; no visible change to yard. 6/8/89: Inspected residence; Corner in the northeast part of the yard had been partially cleared of some wood. No evidence of any other cleaning. 6/11/89: Wooden basketball structure taken down from the driveway in the front yard. The front yard condition had improved. 7/11/89: Another dumpster in the front yard was partially filled. No visible change in the condition of the rear yard. 7/26/89: Backyard looks worse. More junk brought in near the rear gate from a moving van. Almost unable to walk into the rear yard. 7/31/89: Clean -up deadline. 8/1/89: Inspected premises with the City Manager, Harry Peacock. The rear yard of the residence still contained a significant amount of garbage. Mr. Chew had called Mr. Peacock to request that he be given more time to clean up. The request was denied. 8/8/89: Responded to the residence and issued Mr. Chew a citation for storage of garbage on property for more than seven days. (Citation 429; Saratoga Case 89 -08 -102). Mr. Chew stated that he would work toward cleaning the yard before his court date scheduled for 9/25/89. 9/11/89: Returned to the address 34 days after the initial citation was issued to check on the clean -up status. Although some progress had been made in certain areas of the rear yard, a substantial amount of the garbage had remained untouched or simply moved around. 9/11/89: I issued Mr. Chew another citation for storage of garbage on his property for more than 7 days. He was given a court date of 9/25/89 (the same date as the first citation). 9/25/89: Mr. Chew pleads guilty to two counts of storage of garbage on personal property for more than seven days. He is fined $138 for the violations. No other clean -up action was ordered by the Court despite my written recommendations in my two reports. (Court Dockets A8950813 A8950631) 10/29/89: I inspected .the residence and found that a major problem still existed in the rear yard. At least four or five large dumpsters would be needed to clean up the rear yard. There was no visible change since my last inspection on 9/11/89. sECnoN SA ORD. 7- 05.050 Si SL SPECT OR SL BJECT 4inston Franklin Chew \.A.M E ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS T}PE OF \CIDENTA a ion 0 more than seven days DAY DATE/ TIME OCCURRE Tuesday /8_1_890900 hours gar LOCATION OF OCCLRAENCE: 12501 DeSanka, Saratoga, CA 95070 U O U©ak 13777 FRL'ITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 1108) 867 -3438 INCIDENT REPORT age or ADDRESS 12501 DeSanka Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 r 1 ORIGINAL SUPPLESIENT DATE TIME REPORTED 5/1/89 0830 (V) VICTIM W WITNESS REPORT FORMAT: 1) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION 2) SUSPECT STATUS 3) NARRATIVE 4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE 1 6 /3/ 4 1 I DOB I DOB DOB REPORT NUMBER ID CITY ATTORNEY FOLLOW-UP NEEDED R, PI REPORTING PARTY 1 REPORT SOURCE City Hall BUSINESS TELEPHO \E HOME TELEPHONE BUSINESS TELEPHO \E HOME TELEPHONE BUSINESS TELEPHONE 5) STATEMENTS b) FOLLOW-UP 7) CASE STATUS HOME TELEPHONE 446 -4321 BUSINESS TELEPHO \E 299 -2351 HOME TELEPHONE DATA ENTRY BY (1) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION: Winston Franklin Chew, oriental male adult, 5'9" tall, 170 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, CDL# G0619381 (2) SUSPECT STATUS: Mr. Chew (S -1) was issued a citation #S89 00429) and released after signing a written promise to appear at Los Gatos Municipal Court on 9/25/89 at 0900 AM. 3) SUMMARY ARRATIVE: On 5/1/89 at 0830 hours, three concerned citizens called City Hall to complain about the condition of the front and rear yards of the Chew residence at 12501 DeSanka. Their reports stated that there was an extremely large amount of garbage which had been stored.and accumulated on the premises for years. On 5/5/89, I responded to the residence for an initial inspection. The front yard contained a white Dod:e van filled comsl-te the driveway and the yard area, a small tractor and a cushman golf cart in poor condition. numerous plastic bags sealed u in the driveway. car batteri= Michael J. Nottoli #200 Sunday 8/20/89 2200 hours COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER I D DATE,'TIME WRITTEN Page 2 'REPORT and other car parts, and many cardboard boxes full of old metal parts. The rear yard was approximately 90% filled with garbage, building materials, car parts, wood, discarded furniture, etc. There was so much garbage in the rear yard that it was extremely difficult to walk through the yard. In most areas, the garba and other items were stacked 4 to 5 feet high. All along the north side of the yard were leaves, wood, and pine needles which had obviously been allowed to accumulate there for months or years. These items presented an extreme fire hazard. Also present in the rear yard were several open containers of discarded motor oil, at least 17 bicycles in poor condition, dozens of pieces of scrap metal, 22 old vehicle tires, 21 wooden doors, a broken swing set, a broken trampoline, hundreds of pieces of old wood thrown all over the yard, broken patio furniture, dozens of boxes full of papers, old metal parts, broken tools, old garden hoses, broken toys, etc. I took 7 photographs of the premises during this initial inspection. The entire garage was also completely filled with garbage and items. It was filled approximately 7 feet high leaving only a very small area near the entrance to walk through. There was also a large amount of debris stacked directly against the water heater in the garage. On 5/16/89, Inspector Dennis Moore of the Central Fire District responded to the residence with me to inspect the premises. He advised that the area near the water heater should be cleared and that he would advise S -1 of this request. On 5/24/89, Santa Clara County Vector Control Biologist Tim Mulligan responded to the residence to inspect the area for evidence of rodents, rats. etc. He advised me that there was direct visible evidence of rat activity and harborage. He showed me rat droppings in several areas. During the week of 5/16/89. through 5/19/89. Z had several conversations with Mr. Chew on the phone regarding this problem. He advised me that his two parents had both died during the past year and that he was having to store items from his parents' home on.his property. Mr. Chew told me that he was going to make a strong effort tQ get the plate cleane d up_ He also stated that he wax seeing a cnunRelnr cnncerning seeking some a ca i atanne in rPriilni ng hi x prnpPngi ty to stnre and accumulate merchandise. During this time period, I also spoke with residents in the neighborhood who had seen rats, mice, squirrels, and flies increasing on and around the r age 2 Re�cRr 5R 2 Chew property. I also observed two large vehicles parked on the Chew property (Ford moving van: VIN F6ODCJ10142; Dodge van: 1J01969) which were filled with garbage and other items. These vehicles had been there for several days, and were marked back on 5/2/89 for enforcement of the 72 hour storage law. During the month of May, it was evident that Mr. Chew was bringing more garbage and other items onto his property using these vehicles. His front driveway had different piles of garbage and merchandise stacked up on a day -to -day basis. On 5/24/89, I talked to Mr. Chew by phone and delivered a letter to his residence stating that he would have 60 days to clean up the premises. He stated that he appreciated that he was given this time period, and that he would get it done. During the next several weeks, Mr. Chew and I talked on the phone several times concerning this case. He called me when he was going out of town for a couple of days. I discussed the necessity of him renting dumpsters every week in order to make his clean -up deadline of July 31, 1989. He stated that on two occasions, he had people from his church help him with the cleaning. During the next few weeks, my observations were as follows: 5/31/89: S -1 has filled two dumpsters= no visible change in yard condition. 6/8/89: A small corner in the northeast part of the yard had been partially cleared of some wood. No other evidence of any other cleaning. 6/11/89: Wooden basketball structure taken down from front yard. 7/11/89: Another dumpster in front yard was partially filled. No visible changes in condition of rear yard. 7/26/89: Back yard looks worse. More junk brought in near gate. Almost unable to walk into rear yard. 8/1/89: Inspected premises with City Manager Harry Peacock one day after the July 31, 1989 deadline. Mr. Chew had called to request that he be given more time to clean up. The request was denied. On 8 -8 -89, I responded to the Chew residence and issued Mr. Chew a citation for accumulation of garbage. Although some of the wood and debris had been removed from the premises, a vast amount of the yard was still filled with garbage. Stacks and stacks of unusable wood, 22 old tirpq 17 bicynles and assorted parts. piles of cardboard boxes filled with papers, metal parts, broken items, etc., still remained, along with areas where papers, plastics. metals. and broken toys and furniture wPrP All Page 6 1 REPORT S9 ohs i02 thrown together. The garage was also still full of debris. I took 3 photos of the premises during the 8/8/89 inspection and citation issuance. (4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: The followings items and documents are attached as physical evidence: a. 7 photographs taken of the rear yard on 5/5/89 b. 2 photographs taken of the front yard on 5/16/89 c. 3 photographs taken of the rear yard on 8/8/89. d. One letter which was hand delivered to the Chew residence on 7/24/89 covering the advisement of the violation and the due date for clean -up. e. One letter sent to Inspector Moore on 7/17/89 to advise him that progress on the clean -up project has not been adequate. f. One letter sent to Inspector Mulligan to advise him that progress on the clean -up project has not been adequate. g. Citation issued to Mr. Chew on 8/8/89 (cite S89- 00429) h. Copies of prior cases and reports concerning Mr. Chew's prior violations. (5) STATEMENTS: During the duration of my involvement in this case, I received complaints from seven (7) different persons who were concerned about the problem at 12501 DeSanka. Several of these seven people called multiple times to express their anger and concern about the condition of the residence and the effect it had on the entire neighborhood. It is the policy of the Community Service Department not to reveal the sources of the complaints. (6) CASE STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS: Mr. Chew has been cited for violation of Saratoga Ordinance 7- 05.050, accumulation of garbage. The case has been sent to the City Attorney for prosecution. Due to the severe nature of this problem, its effect on the residents and the neighborhood, and the fact that this problem has existed for several years, I recommend that Mr. Chew be prosecuted for the aforementione violation, and that any sentencing in this case include a supervised and mandatory clean -up procedure. Mr. Chew has already shown that he will not clean up the premises unless he is ordered to do so. Although some progress has been made by Mr. Chew, there is still a large amount of material that will need to be removed from the rear yard. legal intervention is necessary to complete the clean-up. END OF REPORT Michael J. Nottoli 8/20/89 2140 houre Sunrin v May 24, 1989 Mr. Winston Chew 12501 DeSanka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Chew: EUW off 13777 FRUITVAL.E AVEV(, (408) 867-3438 E SARATOGA. CAI-WORN e COUNel Kann A MBERS: Martha G David Movies Donald Pennon Francis Stutzman This letter formalizes my findings concerning the on -going problem at your residence. I have utilized the services of Inspector Dennis Moore of the Central Fire Department and Inspector Tim Mulligan of the Santa Clara County Vector Control District. Mr. Moore located a fire code violation in the interior portion of your garage structure concerning the water heater(5 /16/89). Mr. Mulligan inspected the exterior portion of the yards and located substantial evidence of rodent activity and harborage. I have located, documented, and photographed a substantial amount of materials classified as garbage that will have to be discarded and permanently removed from the premises. Inspectors Moore, Milligan, and I will be jointly involved in this case. Keep in mind that failure to take care of this serious problem will result in prosecution from all three agencies. So far, you have demonstrated to me that you are going to make an honest effort to permanently solve this problem. You have taken away some of the material, and have promised to remove the rest. It is important that you understand the severity of the problem and recognize that I am counting on you to come through this time. I have been under a great deal of pressure from neighbors and City officials to issue citations for any and all violations I have documented on your property. I have been patient and I am willing to give you what I feel is an adequate amount of time to resolve this situation. However, I can assure you that I.will proceed with criminal proceedings if you have not satisfactorily cleaned up your residence. You will not be given more time to complete this'task. You will be given sixty (60) days to completely clean up the residence. Your due date for this inspection will be July 31, 1989. As I stated earlier, there will be no extensions on this ea line. I will be inspecting the residence on a weekly basis until this due date to ensure that progress is being made. Don't wait until the last minute to solve this problem. It will take some time and- urotivation to accomplish this task. I will work with you along the way to make sure things are go4ing as scheduled. While you are cleaning up your residence, I will require that you do it in such a manner that will not create an attractive nuisance for your neighbors. You will not be permitted to leave things in your front yard where they are visible to the neighborhood. In other words, don't pile things out in the front yard and leave them sitting there. You must clean up what you pull out the same day. This should not be hard to manage with as long as you remember not to take out more than you can handle each day. I have attached a copy of the ordinance which defines garbage. As you can see, it includes wood, papers, liquids (car oil), plant matter (leaves and pine needles), glass, metallic substances, discarded building materials, etc. You will therefore need to remove all such materials from your premises. I will be working closely with you each week to monitor your progress. Please make an effort to take care of this problem this time. You will feel much better once the burden has been completely removed. You, your family, your neighbors, and the City will benefit from your efforts. Don't let as down. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in handling this matter. Very truly yours, Michael J. Nottoli Community Service Officer Attachments garbage ordinance cc. Todd Argow, Community Service Director July 17, 1989 Inspector Dennis Moore Central Fire District 3071 Driftwood Drive San Jose, CA 95128 Dear Inspector Moore: Very truly yours, It�f�i Michael J. Nottoli Community Services Officer Attachment: letter to Mr. Chew 13777 FRL'ITV\LE.VENUE SARATOGA. C. 95070 14081867.3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anaerson Martha Clevenger David Moyies Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman On 7/11/89, I again looked at the property at 12501 DeSanka Avenue which belongs to Winston Chew. Although he has brought in four dumpsters during the past month, the problem has not gotten much better. Although the front yard looks a bit better, the rear yard and garage are still filled with debris. It looks as if he will not be making his July 31, 1989 deadline. If he does not, I will be issuin a citation for accumulation and storage of garbage on the property. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. July 17, 1989 Inspector Tim Mulligan Santa Clara County Vector Control 976 Lenzen Avenue San Jose, CA 95126 Dear Inspector Mulligan: On 7/11/89, I again inspected the property at 12501 De Sanka Avenue which belongs to Winston Chew. Although he has brought in four dumpsters during the past month, the problem has not gotten much better. Although the front yard looks a bit better, the rear yard and garage are still filled with debris. It looks as if he will not be making his July 31, 1989 deadline for clean -up. If he does not, I will be issuing him a citation for storage and accumulation of garbage on the property. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, Michael J. Nottoli Community Services Officer (5E W TV S 13777 FRL'ITVALE AVENUE S. RATO(3.-1/4. C.ALIFORN1A 95070 (40818673438 Attachments: letter to Winston Chew COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen 4noerson Marna C:evenger David .Voyles Oonard Peterson Franc:s St o COUNTY Of SANTA CLAM. STATE OE CAUPORNIA N .„CITY OF SARAT NOTICE To AlPE DA YR TIM/ TE DAT OP W CAS( No. WLki r ?Ft) N D Ft ?rNkL IN gEW ADDNW AVE. 5 fi1 �t SGv1kM T i CITY O R VERI LJC(Nf A t NO. CLA SIRTHD ST ATE i TE �4 a10113R I CP' 3 I G2-3 Y/ SE 1 L 1 se 1%-cI� SYg 1 f I 7 1770 NT VEHICLE STATE LIC. NO. YEAR OF VEH. 1 M REGISTERED OWNER OR EE ADORESS OP OWNER OR LESS ZVI t Es"Nit' IIiI 0 IM/ COO( LOCATION QP VIO COeT, as WITHOUT ADM E ANO PLAC IGNATURE /Ow sumo is amyl SECTION T 1-054SZ 4c. u llAi.Mi 0 h of Mt ACmNOANCE WITH fool fTTI.E SAME AS ASOVE DESCRIPTION `,j41 '6V rr)° Irt. rhYS SAME AS ASOVE WOKING MOM= GUILT. I PROMISE TO APPEA AT TWO t t R Sa Y POST (AIL r i T YU MANDATORY AM[ARANC* s. YU -ata NO TEAR COLOR OPPENSEIS) NOT COMMITTED IN Y PRESENCE CE AN INPORMATION AND SELU*P M UPON' A JUDOS OR CLINK OP THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF ATE TIME tT OATOS s t �t may' u and v f wisswawssaw�e♦ f 0 0 1 RAY gm imam am ION awwslos OyN .-.18- a MNO NDMlte OP CA 1.0. OMIT 1aN A!' il My x++ave '12 i"_. 4:'.' i 1• 13777 FRL'ITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 SECTION: Sa .Ord 7- 50.050 INCIDENT REPORT REPORT NUMBER 8 068 TYPE OF INCIDENT Accumulation of garbage for more than seven (7) days ORIGINAL XX TO CITY .ATTORNEY XX SLPPLEMENT FOLLOW -UP NEEDED .S1 SUSPECT OR SUBJECT (V) VICTIM W) WITNESS R; P) REPORTING PARTY NAME Winston Franklin Chew DOB 1 6/3/41 HOME TELEPHONE 446 -4321 ADDRESS 12501 De Sanka, Saratoga, CA 95070 BUSINESS TELEPHONE 299 -2351 NAME I DOB HOME TELEPHO \E .ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME 1 I DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME I DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE DAY DATE,' TIME OCCURRED Mnnday /9- 114R9/f715 hnurs DATE. TIME REPORTED On -View REPORT SOURCE On -view DATA ENTRY BY LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 12501 De Sanka, Saratoga CA 95070 REPORT FORMAT: I) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION 5) STATEMENTS 2) SUSPECT STATUS 6) FOLLOW -LP 3) NARRATIVE 7) CASE STATUS 4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (1) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION: Winston Franklin Chew, oriental male, 5'9" tall, 170 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, CDL# G0619381. (2) SUSPECT STATUS: Mr. Chew (S -1) was issued a citation (S89- 00433) at the scene dnd.was released after signing a written promise to appear at Los Gatos Municipal Court on 9- 25 -89. (3) SUMMARY NARRATIVE: On 8/8/89 at 0715 hours, I issued S -1 a citation for accumulation of garbage for more than seven (7) days. S -1 had failed to remove a large amount of garbage from his rear vard after being given sixty (60) days to clean the area. Refer to case number 8'1-08 for the details of this case. Mr. Chew stated that he would work toward cleaning up the rear yard before his September 25. 1989 court date at Los Gatos Municipal Court. On 9 -11 -89 at 0715 hours, I returned to re- inspect Mr. Chew's property to ascertain whether any progress had been made in the clean up project. This inspection was made 34 days after the initial citation. The following is a report of what I observed: 1_ Mr. Chew had cleared and swent nff the sidewalk rea nn the west side of the vard Mir•hapj .l_ Nnttoji #200 9/17/89 0835 hours COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER I.D. DATE /TIME WRITTEN 13777 FRL'ITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 Page 2 P1-01- C)65 leading from the west side gate to the north part of the rear 2. Mr. Chew had cleared a small pathway leading from the east ate to the north art of the rear yard. 3. Mr. Chew had cleared a path along the north fence which he now uses for an archery range area. 4. Mr. Chew has constructed several wooden storage bins for certain items that he wishes to keep and protect from outside weather elements. 5. Mr. Chew has not removed any of the garbage from underneath the covered patio area in his rear yard. Large amounts of damaged items, wood, metal, clothing, papers, etc. have been stored in this area since I began inspecting the property. The debris is piled so high and is so plentiful that the rear sliding door exit to the residence is completely blocked and unusable. See attached photographs. Thito I t2] 6. Mr. Chew has not removed any of the garbage which has been stored along the west fence area from the front gate all the way to the back fence. Large amounts of damaged metal products, bicycles, wood, vehicle tires, papers stored in cardboard boxes, rubber hoses, etc., have been stored in this area since I began inspecting the property. See attached photos. [Photos 3,4,5,0 7. Mr. Chew has not removed a large amount of garbage located in the center portion of the rear yard. Furniture, old clothing, papers, metal products, etc., have been accumulated in this area which is located just north of the covered patio area. See attached photos. [Phew Q] 8. Mr. Chew has several containers of old motor oil stored in the rear yard near the east fence area that he has not removed. See attached photos. [Pho+a 17 9. Mr. Chew has made an effort to fill and empty 12 metal garbage cans full of garbage since I inspected his property and issued him the first citation. 10. A large amount of garbage is still located along the east fence. See photos.[ '7, (4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: I took 9 photographs on Monday 9/18/89 which have been labeled according to the location in the yard of where the garbage has been stored. (5) yard, I would estimate that at least four or five large dumpsters are still needed. I recommend that Mr. Chew be prosecuted for the accumulation of garbage violation. As a condition of a disposition of the case, I would recommend that Mr. Chew be placed on a supervised probation program to ensure that the premises are adequately cleaned up. End of Report Michael Nottoli CSO 9 -17 -89 I TIME I ID/� 2 iu 1 CASE MO. NAM 'DAT MI D W rN KU 0 cuetni ADDR t �5a De s► CITY 1 A C fT c Y 0 RIVS 1115 IU0. CEO) Ck !TA �1 o t 6- N —ms s H SLi i EYES '1 rtt 1 wi VEHICLE STATE TEAR 1.16. NO. YEAR OF VON. I MAKI SODY STYLE I COLOR REGISTERED OWNER OR LESSEE 0 SAMS As ASOVI ADDRESS OF OWNER OR LESSEE ❑SAME AS ASOVE Tp r ma ac fQ~Kws M ACCORDANCE BOOKEND RE«JEIm WWI CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION o S 7 WILLyouk M Ar,9 asV OIPtN$E(S) NOT COMMITTED IN MY PRESENCE CERTIFIED ON IN FORMATION AND 1E1.11? Loewy 1 OF VI TIGRIS) I C v TT OF POMMY TWAT THE 10 `OmtN u tom AND CORRECT. EXECUTED ON TIM DATE 010110 O N AEVE AT k CA. 1 Cif c5IC Qbt. 4b53 ISSUING OFFICER r15G OIAO�O/T FROM ASDVE NAME OF ARRESTING WITHOUT ADMI ILT PROMISE T APPEAR 1 os T ME AND PLAC IN01C TED�SLOW8 GNATURE J lIAY POST SAIL 0 EIT YES NO MANDATORY APPEARANCE p} YES NO BEFORE A JUDGE OR CLERK OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OP LOS GATOS DAT TI �E�.�:. 25 �S (As MN I Paw sus so seam MONO 101 MR meneremso ism amens 1r TM muss or CU erN Paw awwl 'al "S." OMV 7•N1 IOC Ansi PC MA COUNTY OF SANTA CLAM. STATE Of RMA cirrOFSAR s A FO NOTICE TO APPEAR TRA 00433 208 MEETING WITH WINSTON CHEW 9/30/91 8:20 a.m. Told him he would have until about 11/1/91 to clean up property before the City does it for him. He asked that Rebecca call him about what needs to be removed. Says he has building materials for house addition. He has purchased same and has receipts. Doesn't want this removed with the junk. I agreed to have further contact and to inspect before we abate. P aAtr4, Harry R Peacock Printed on, recycled_paper. OgUT 0 °'7N Accumulation of garbage for more than one week Storage and accumulation of inoperative vehicles Storage of hazardous materials 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE Condition Corrective Action Dated this 19th day of September, 1991 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON September 18, 1991, the City Cen ohl of the City of Saratoga declared a public nuisance to exist on td/em onia property described as 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, Cal i fd1 &tvtzman The conditions constituting such public nuisance and the actions to be taken for abatement thereof are as follows: Remove garbage to satisfaction of City Manager Remove inoperative vehicles and parts thereof from the property to the satisfaction of the City Manager Remove hazardous materials from the property to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager Upon failure to abate such public nuisance through the corrective actions described herein, the nuisance will be abated by the City of Saratoga. and all costs of abatement will be assessed against the property on which the nuisance exists and will constitute a special assessment upon and against such property until paid, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. A copy of the declaration of nuisance by the City Council is on file in the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk. Any property owner objecting to the proposed abatement by the city of Saratoga is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to be held on October 16, 1991, commencing at 7:30 p.m., at the Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. City l nager /City Clerk City of Saratoga r s ,SENDER: rw Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. Complete items 3 4a b. Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person deliverer to and the date of delivery. 3. Article Addressed to: (AA Ps cf/ECJ 5./ k_ r o m ature (Addressee) Signature (Agent) Y-97 PS Form 3811, November 1990 *U4„GPO1991- 2870e■ I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. Addressee's Address 2. Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Art cle Number P 718 Pis 8o? 4b. Service Type Registered Ili Express Mail 7. Date of Delivery El Insured COD ['Return Receipt for Merchandise 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVIC Official Business PM to JI 2G CEP lg9 PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 Print your name, address and ZIP Code here City Clerk, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 F l t 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 I. 1 1 1 i 111!1 6311113 31 October 13, 1991 To the Saratoga City Council: We are the owners of the homes in tract 6996 of Brook Meadow in Saratoga. We object to the lot at the corner of Leutar Court and Ted Avenue being used for purposes other than for a single family residence for which it is zoned. Name: Arr 6Z., RAW>14191J Address: jD 37L L ev R. Cfr, Name: Address: Name: x0363 /e-d/°" Address: Name: Address: �0 3 b Address: Te-Q\ Ke- Name: IC. /en yud_q Cja,'i J Address: OD LQGt G-7—, SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 18, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to City Code Amending and Adding Certain Sections of Article 4 -50 Pertaining to Peddlers and Solicitors Recommended Motion: Introduce Ordinance Revisions and Conduct Public Hearing EC,/ Report Summary: In response to concerns expressed by residents, the Council directed staff to draft a revision to the Ordinance governing Solicitors in Saratoga to include a provision which would prohibit distribution of advertising flyers or merchandise on private property unless the items are handed directly to a responsible adult on the premises. The draft language adding two new sections to Article 4 -50 of the City code is attached. These sections prohibit the unsolicited distribution of all advertising material or merchandise, with the exception of regularly published magazines or newspapers of general character. While some residents favor a change in the Ordinance, representatives of the business community are concerned that such a prohibition is unfair to local businesses which depend on this type of advertising. Additionally, adoption of these code sections will not alleviate the primary problem which is enforcement. The existing Ordinance requires solicitors to have a City business License and Solicitor's Permit. Most of the distribution of flyers is done by people tossing them from passing cars. In general the people engaged in this are operating without any City permits. It is very difficult to catch them in the act of violating the City codes, as is required in order to issue a citation. It has also proved difficult to make contact with the offenders to advise them that City permits are required. fiscal Impacts: Undetermined Attachments: Draft Ordinance Sections 4- 50.100 and 4-50.110 Municipal Code Article 4 -50 Peddlers and Solicitors Correspondence received Motion and Vote: Sections: 4- 50.010 4- 50.020 4- 50.030 4- 50.040 4- 50.050 4- 50.060 4- 50.070 4- 50.080 4- 50.090 4- 50.100 4- 50.110 4- 50.120 S4- 50.010 Definitions S4- 50.020 Permit required Business Regulations ARTICLE 4-50 PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS Definitions Permit required Application for permit; fee; investigation by Community Services Director Grounds for denial of permit Issuance of permit; conditions; term Renewal of permit Transferability of permit Commercial peddling or soliciting at night Compliance with "No Solicitors" signs Suspension or revocation of permit Appeals to City Council Violations of Article s ss 54- 50.010 As used in this Article, the term "business" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Subsection 4- 05.020(a); the term "engaged in business" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Subsection 4- 05.020(c); the term "peddler" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Subsection 4- 05.020(g); and the term "solicitor" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Subsection 4- 05.020(h) of this Chapter. No peddler or solicitor shall engage in business in the City without first having obtained a permit to do so pursuant to this Article. Such peddler or solicitor shall also apply for and obtain a business license pursuant to Article 4 -05 of this Chapter, and pay the license fee specified in Section 4- 05.100, unless such peddler or solicitor is exempted from the payment of such fee under Sections 4- 05.160 and 4- 05.170. No business license shall be issued unless and until the applicant has first obtained a permit under this Article. S4- 50.030 Application for permit; fee; investigation by Com munity Services Director (a) Application for a permit hereunder shall be made to the Community Services Director on such forms as he may prescribe, which shall include the following information: (1) Name and address of the applicant, together with the name and address of each person who will be engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City for or on behalf of the applicant. Business Regulations S4- 50.030 (2) The location of the principal place of business, and if such principal place of business is in the City, a statement of the zoning classification for such location. (3) A complete description of the business, activity, program, or other purpose for which the peddling or soliciting will be made, including a copy of all brochures, forms, contracts, subscriptions, handouts, and other documents to be used in connection with such peddling or soliciting. (4) The particulars in regard to any felony or misdemeanor offense for which the applicant or any principal of the applicant has been convicted. (5) Two recent passport type photographs of each person who will be engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City for or on behalf of applicant and, if requested by the Community Services Director, one complete set of fingerprints for each such person, to be obtained at the expense of the applicant. (6) If the peddling or soliciting will be conducted for an organization or an activity which is exempted from the payment of business license fees under the provisions of Sections 4- 05.160 and 4- 05.170 of this Chapter, the applicant shall provide documents establishing, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director, the qualification for such exemption. (7) The places within the City, times of day and period of time during which the peddling or soliciting will be conducted. (8) A complete description of each automobile or other motor vehicle which the peddler or solicitor will operate in the City in connection with the business or activity. (9) A list of any other cities or counties within the State where the applicant has engaged in peddling or soliciting, and if the applicant has applied for or received a permit or license from any of such cities or counties, the name and telephone number of the official or department to whom the application was submitted or by whom the permit or license was issued. (10) Such other information and documents as the Community Services Director may require. (b) The application shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as may be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council; provided, however, no such fee shall be charged if the applicant is found to be exempted from the payment of a business license fee under the provisions of Sections 4 05.160 and 4- 05.170 of this Chapter. (c) Upon receipt of the application and other documents and the fee (if payable) as required in Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Section, the Community Page 4 -72 Business Regulations 54- 50.040 Services Director shall conduct such investigation as he deems appropriate to determine whether a permit should be issued. In connection therewith, the Community Services Director shall forward a copy of the application to the following persons for review and approval: (1) The County Sheriff, for determination as to moral character and background of the applicant and whether the applicant, or any person employed or acting on behalf of the applicant, has ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense involving theft, dishonesty, violence, fraud, deceit, or moral turpitude. (2) The Planning Director, for determination as to whether the conduct of the business or activity will be in compliance with zoning requirements and other rules, regulations and ordinances of the City. The foregoing persons shall indicate on the application that the proposed permit is either approved or disapproved or approved subject to specified conditions, and shall return the application to the Community Services Director. 54- 50.040 Grounds for denial of permit The Community Services Director shall deny issuance of a permit based upon any of the following grounds: (a) A finding by the Community Services Director that the applicant is not of good moral character. (b) Disapproval of the application by the County Sheriff. (c) A finding by the Community Services Director that the applicant has engaged in conduct within the City or elsewhere for which a business license or permit could be revoked under the provisions of this Chapter. (d) A determination by the Planning Director that the conduct of the business or activity would not be in compliance with all zoning requirements and other rules, regulations and ordinances of the City. 54- 50.050 Issuance of permit; conditions; term If a permit is issued, it shall be subject to any conditions as may be imposed by the Community Services Director, the County Sheriff, or the Planning Director. Peddler's and solicitor's permits may be issued on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis. 54.50.060 Renewal of permit A permit issued under this Article may be renewed for a period not exceeding one year upon application to the Community Services Director on such forms as he may prescribe, accompanied by payment of a renewal fee in such amount as Page 4 -73 established from time to time by resolution of the City Council, unless the applicant is exempted from the payment of such fee. The Community Services Director shall renew the permit if he finds that all of the requirements of this Article have been satisfied by the permittee and no conditions of the permit have been violated. S4-50.070 Transferability of permit No permit issued under this Article shall be transferable and any attempted transfer shall invalidate the permit. S4- 50.080 Commercial peddling or soliciting at night No commercial peddling or soliciting shall be conducted in the City before the hour of 8:00 A.M. of any day, or after the hour of 7:00 P.M. of any day; provided, however, this restriction shall not apply to any meeting between the peddler or solicitor and his customer arranged by appointment with the customer. As used herein, the phrase "commercial peddling or soliciting" means any peddling or soliciting conducted for the private gain or profit of any person and which is not exempted from the payment of a business license fee under the provisions of Sections 4- 05.160 and 4- 05.170 of this Chapter. S4-50.090 Compliance with "No Solicitors" signs No person shall peddle or solicit, or attempt to peddle or solicit, at or upon the premises of any residential dwelling unit or business establishment where a "No Solicitors" or "No Tresspassers" or similar sign is posted upon the premises in such manner as to be observable by persons who may wish to enter thereon. This Section applies to any form of peddling or soliciting for any purpose whatsoever, including, but not limited to, solicitation on behalf of any charitable, religious, political, educational, benevolent or other non profit organization or activity. S4- 50.100 Suspension or revocation of permit Business Regulations §4- 50.070 (a) Any permit issued under this Article may be suspended or revoked by the Community Services Director for any reason that would justify a refusal to issue the permit originally, or by reason of any failure by the permittee to comply with all of the provisions of this Article, or any other provisions of this Code, or any condition of such permit. (b) The holder of the permit shall be given prompt notice of the intention to suspend or revoke his permit. Such notice shall fix a time and place, not less than five nor more than thirty days after service thereof, at which the holder of the permit may appear before the Community Services Director and be granted a hearing upon the merits of the suspension or revocation. If after such hearing the permit is ordered suspended or revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to the City Council. Page 4 -74 S4- 50.120 Violations of Article Supp. #7, 11/87 Page 4 -75 Business Regulations S4- 50.110 S4- 50.110 Appeals to City Cowmcil Any decisions rendered pursuant to this Article with respect to the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of a permit, or the conditions thereof, may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or permittee or other interested person in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2- 05.030 of this Code. The violation of any provision contained in this Article, or the violation of any condition of a permit issued hereunder, is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. The enforcement of this Article pursuant to Chapter 3 shall be in addition to any proceedings conducted under Section 4- 50.100 for revocation or suspension of a permit, or any proceedings conducted under Article 4 -05 of this Chapter to revoke a business license by reason of the same violation. Mayor Willem Kohler City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SEP 1 1 1991 12776 Saratoga Glen Court Saratoga, CA 95070 September 10, 1991 408 252 2240 Reference: Letter from Deputy City Clerk, Subject: Upcoming Public -c Hearing: Solicitors Ordinance. I appreciate receiving the reference notice of the hearing September 18, 1991 and regret that I will be unable to appear. Since I have been protesting to the City for over five years the apparent lack of control over advertising literature deposited at my home I should like to submit my observations. Over the years I have discussed with the Community Service Officers this matter of control and learned that: The City of San Jose is uncooperative in providing information on permits it has issued. Addresses on flyers afire not shown hence locating violators is inhibited. Cross reference telephone lists should show. addresses. Language barriers exist which in itself a contradiction because all flyers are printed in english. Many violatore state that a permit issued outside Saratoga authorizes them to solicit in and do business in Saratoga. They are limited in apprehending violators and verifying business permits and soliciting licenses. As a civic duty I have felt that the City receives revenue from permits and licenses therefore reporting violators assists in the collection of money. Also all businesses should be complying with the City's requirements. As shown by,the large number of cases that I have submitted, mere administrative action does not accomplish the ends. Saratoga should have the reputation of being a desirable place to live and its main objective is not commercial /industrial. Those activities departing from that objective of being a desirable place to live should know from the start that compliance with permits /licenses are closely controlled. -1- State codes cover the leaving unauthorized mater as violations of the trespass and litter laws. I can assure yournthat such action violates my home security system and I intend to continue reporting to the City violations inasmuch as its charter embraces safety of our lives and property. I recommend that the proposed ordinance require all advertising literature be delivered personally to an occupant of a residence and that no such literature be left at a place where a person does not acknowledge delivery. Violators shall be subject to citation as a misdemeanor. Sincerely, James G. Russell _r7/ 4,(,19(‘2-27 --v fr71q-67 d7-54 secArp J 2-0 s d-2V(P °A1:27.-/rP/ -err7 Q 71/7 4)7 j 2)77 -17'tf v`? r-rw Nfirp e-77 1,7 J t,"7 y�S (45( 7 2//0,5 Q 7 4 7./ 7 5-57-YAV 7 0 ,7 X6 61 fi °d9° 1661 "9 d3S )7 /e97 /25 cc, Cor P7 SEP 10 1991 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE /0777 L/ 4---/ ice' 7 d/ 41-11 K Z/4 S 0 i 4/ l .�airr -r o "J't/ ems 1-4//SL y�� e 2 o 7 1 3 -7v,✓ 7 C 7® 9 /2 September 12, 1991 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Betsy Cory Dear City Council Members, DEVEQWE in SEP 13 1991 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY *MANAGER'S OFFICE I received a notice in the mail that you will be addressing the subject of advertisements (flyers, etc) being left at homes in Saratoga. I appreciate the notice and would certainly have planned to attend, however I will be out of town on September 18th. I am writing to relay my feelings on this matter as it is of great interest to me. It is definitely a tip off, to anyone passing, that a resident is not at home when papers are on their mailbox, sidewalk, door knobs and porches. Also the people who leave these advertisements are in a position to walk the streets and observe the neighborhood without having to answer to anyone who feels they look suspicious. Also they come to the door asking if you are interested in having yard work done (ariating the grass, etc.) as they did this last week, which I didn't appreciate because I was home alone. What a good way to survey the area and determine who is not home. I was sent a notice regarding this matter because I have called the city twice regarding solicitors coming to my door after dark. If you don't answer the door you might gel a surprise visitor later because they may think the house is empty. If you answer through the door they know you are a women alone. Its really not a good situation. Maybe years ago it would not impose a threat, but not in this modern time. I have been very frightened and resent this intrusion, even in the daytime, in what 1 would like to consider my safe place. Remember, the time the sun sets changes over the months. What may be broad daylight at 7:00 PM one month may be total darkness another month. Also in order to see if a person has a permit to come to your door you have to open it. I hope you will consider eliminating these types of dangers from our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Rosemary Woolley 19396 Shubert Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 8(1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. f AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE September 18; 1991-. CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT OF MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT COPIER RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve staff recommendation for purchase of a basic Xerox 5028 Copier for replacement of the- Maintenance Department's old and malfunctioning copier. REPORT SUMMARY: The Maintenance Department is now utilizing-an extremely_.old- Gestetner 2000S Copier which was handed down to them in 1985 from another City department. It is estimated be 10+ years old. Its repairs are frequent and the copy quality is very poor. Staff has researched several copier lines and has determined that a stripped down Xerox 5028 would meet its basic needs. Comparison of three comparable units is attached. This same model Xerox recommended is presently being utilized- by'both the Recreation and Building Departments with success. FISCAL IMPACTS: $6000 is included in this year's budget for purchase of a copier. The additional $34. needed for this purchase will come from savings on other purchases. Attachments: Copier comparison Motion and Vote: 0 Printed on recycled paper. O uaLrJrff (Do LiJ icopo 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMO TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: MAINTENANCE DIRECTO SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT COPIER FOR MAI ENANCE DEPARTMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Included in the current year's budget is money for replacement of the copying machine located in the Corporation Yard. This machine is extremely old, was passed down to us in 1985 and is currently malfunctioning. At best, its copies are very poor. We have researched copiers from various manufacturers and have determined that the Xerox 5028, stripped down, would best serve our needs. This is the same model utilized by both the Community Center and Building Departments for the past three years. They appear to be very reliable and should give us many years of good service. Attached is a comparison of three similar copiers researched in addition to an Agenda Bill for Council approval. The budget contains $6,000 earmarked for this replacement. The price, including tax, and after trade -in would be $6034. COPIER CANON NP2020 XEROX 5028 MINOLTA 4230 TAX IS INCLUDED IN THESE AMOUNTS. YEARLY MACHINE TOTAL FEATURES MAINTENANCE COST COST 10 BIN SORTER 3YR -$1404 $4596 $6495 AUTOFEEDER ONE SIDED COPYING NO SORTER 3YR- INCLUDED $5575 $6034 AUTOFEEDER WITH SORTER $7074 ONE SIDED COPYING NO SORTER 3YR -$1625 $5871 $7496 AUTOFEEDER 2 SIDED COPYING Printed-on- recycled paper.• SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 4 1 7 4 1 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE September 18, 1991 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT:: INSTALLATION OF WALKWAY LIGHTS AT KEVIN MORAN PARK Recommended Actions Authorize staff to request proposals from interested electrical _contractors to install nine (9) walkway lights in Kevin Moran Park. Summary: The walkway lighting for this site was first installed in 1972. Approximately three (3) weeks after installation, these lights were vandalized. At that time, Council decided not to repair this lighting system. Staff has investigated the feasibility of restoring the nine (9) walkway lights._ The service connection and all underground wiring was checked -by an electrical contractor and was found to be in good working order. A11 -of the original poles or lamps were either destroyed or have been discarded since they were removed in 1972. Staff is recommending replacement with nine new twelve foot high poles_ with high pressure sodium lamps. Staff is specifying a Nu- Art light with a 100 watt high pressure sodium lamp mounted on a twelve -(12) foot square steel pole. The pole and lamp are the same- style as the two that were recently installed at the entrance for the Blue Hill pedestrian overcrossing at Kevin Moran and Azula Park sites. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA,`CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Light and pole specifications. Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler onia Funds- for -the installation of -nine (9) walkway lights at Kevin Moran Park are included in the fiscal year 1991/92 budget. ($11,000) FEATURES: 1. POLE SHAFT: Low carbon, high strength steel tubing. Electric resistance welded with outside flash removed. Available in heights of 12' to 39'. Standard finish is red zinc primer inside and out. Other finishes include baked enamel or galvanized. 2. ANCHOR BASE: Square steel base with 31/2" diameter (4" square pole) or 41/2" diameter (5" 6" square pole) wireway hole. Electrical resistance welded to pole shaft, including gussets for additional support. 3. REINFORCED HAND HOLE: 2" x 4" (4 pole) or 3" x 5" (5" 6" square pole) reinforced handhole with single bolt, die stamped cover plate. 4. ANCHOR RODS: Set of four properly sized steel bolts with four flat and lock washers and eight nuts. (Base templates supplied with order.) 6. SIDE POLE MOUNTING: Side pole mounting is standard. This includes steel back up plate welded in place and threaded to receive 1 h" rods. Also includes Vs" diameter wireway hole. 8. TENON TYPE MOUNTING: Tenon type mounting is standard with 3" pipe tenon, 6" long. Other size tenons available on special order. 7. POLE ACCESSORIES: For pole accessories such as, base covers, extra hand holes, exterior hubs, outlet boxes, grounding Tugs, etc. see Section E page 13. Nu Lighting Manufacturing Co. 160 North 400 West North Salt Lake, Utah 84054 24' 26 28 30 :e 32.:. 34 36 36 39� ORDERING INFORMATION CATALOG NUMBER SUB- 12 -4 SUB- 14 -4 SUB- 16 -4 SUB- 18 -4 SUB-20 -4 SUB- 22 -4 SUB- 24 -4 8 Po J SQUARE STEIN.. POi HFIGH'T -1 e., RATED FOR 100 M.P.N. STEADY WINDS CLEAN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLEASING APPEARANCE AVAILABLE IN 4 5" OR 6" SQUARE The Sharp and clean lines of the Uinta pole presents an architectural pleasing appearance. Quality material and Nu -Art's proven standards of workmanship insure the ability to wilh r 1d 100 M.P.H. steady wind velocities. NOTE: Luminaire rating shown below should not be exceeded. Pennants, signs, stringers, etc. thnl add wind stress should never be used. Because soil and climatic conditions vary, an r,tnpinr r should be consulted for foundation requirements. LUMINAIRE: flAf i1JC9 1301T BOLT PRO.). MAX. CIRCLE SIZE AREA WEIGHT 1 1 1/4" x 24" 25.4 4r.'10r' 11" 3 A" x 24" 21.5 45(111 11" 1/4" x 24" 18.4 450# 11" 3 /4" x 24" 14.8 4501 1 1 3 6 1" x 30" 11.3 •1501/ 11" 3 ,4" x 30" 9.7 45011 11" 3 /4" x 30" 8.2 315 II SUB -20 -5 13" 3" x 30" 22.6 '1'.i(2 1; SUB-22-5 13" 3 /4" x 30" 19.1 •1501,' SUB- 24 -5 13" 3/4" x 30" 16.8 45011 SUB- 26 -5 13" 3" x 30" 12.7 4504 SUB- 28 -5 13" 3 x 30" 10.2 '1508 SUB- 30 -5 13" 1" x 36" 8.6 45011 SUB- 32 -5 13" 1" x 36" 6.4 450ff SUB- 24 -6 13" 1" x 36" 26.6 5001i SUB- 26 -6 13" 1" x 36" 24.6 500g SUB- 28 -6 13" 1" x 36" 21.0 50011 SUB- 30 -6 13" 1" x 36" 17.8 50011 SUB- 32 -6 13" 1" x 36" 15.3 50011 SUB- 34 -6 13" 1" x 42" 12.8 50011 SUB- 36 -6 13" 1" x 42" 11.7 5001 SUB- 38 -6 13" 1" x 42" 8.7 5(10/1 SUB- 39 -6 13" 1" x 42" 7.9 50011 "FINISH: Standard finish is red zinc primer inside and out. For special finishes use proper catalog suffiy as shown below. "LB" light bronze, "MB" medium bronze, "DB" dark bronze, "B" black, "GV" galvanized. Section E Page 4 Nu Art Nu Art Lighting and Manufacturing Company ultra IV Controlled Area Floodlights This is the mini of the Ultra Series floodlights. Its lower mounting height makes it better for the small, hard to illuminate areas such as walkways or gardens around commercial complexes. It's great for condominiums, too. The control feature directs light where you want it, not where it's not wanted. Section A -1 Page 63a 33 Height 8" Length Width 16 Product Features 2. Lens 1. Fixture Bet.iy Main body is a combination of die- formed alumi- num and extruded aluminum. Minimum thickness is .064 Full length hinge and enclosure framing are extruded aluminum. After primer coat, finish is electrostatic spray baked enamel. Stan' r 1 colors are black and bronze. Other colors on request. Flat, clear tempered glass.Other lenses available. Exclusive extruded polyvinylchloride and high temperature silicone gaskets around entire lens assembly insure positive protection against moisture, dust and bugs. 3. Reflector Preformed specular aluminum, step type. Reflector set to achieve IES Types II and III cut -off. Section A -1 Page 63b 4. 3allast Mercury vapor ballast— constant wattage auto transformer. Reliable starting to -20 Metallic halide ballast autostabilized circuit with peak to RMS voltage. Reliable starting to -20 High pres- sure sodium minimum power factor to 90 Reliable starting to -20°. All popular voltages available. 5. Lampholder Glazed porcelain "Grip -Tite" lampholder. Screw shell is nickel plated to prevent lamp from oxidizing and freezing to lampholder base. Center contact is heat treated beryllium copper alloy. 6. Lamps Mercury vapor -75 to 250 watt Metallic halide -175 to 250 watt High pressure sodium -70 to 150 watt 7. Heat Barrier f. Insures long life of ballast. 8. Bracket For side pole mounting 8 12" and 18" lengths. For tenon type mounting 12 ",,and 18" lengths., For, Wall- mounting 4 8" and 12" lengths: 11 ���+5 �G.�;.JtS.•:t 1f I��:� 1I .'I ULT- IV -MV -75 75 watt mercury vapor ULT -IV -MV -100 100 watt mercury vapor ULT -IV -MV -175 175 watt mercury vapor ULT -IV -MV -250 250 watt mercury vapor ULT -IV -MH -175 175 watt metallic halide ULT -IV -MH -250 250 watt metallic halide ULT -IV- HPS -70 70 watt high pressure sodium ,ULT -IV -HPS -100 100 watt high pressure sodium ULT -IV -HPS -150 150 watt high pressure sodium titr, y TUL -18 -T Triple 18" arms 1"UL -12 -Q Quad :12" arms TUL -18 -Q 11 ���+5 �G.�;.JtS.•:t 1f I��:� 1I B} 4y �3 t {y y.^ R tf f L��,�.J 1 Side Pole Mounting Tenon Type Mounting UL -8 -S Single 8" arm UL -12 -S Single 12" arm UL- 18 -S Single 18" arm Wall Mounting Elracket UL -4 -WL i Single 4" arm UL -8 -WL Single 8" arm UL- 12 -WL Single 12" arm TUL -12 -T Triple 12" arms titr, y TUL -18 -T Triple 18" arms i..F )a. s A XK Y, -.1 C Y 4 1 4 y i� "L .K n 9 71r. Tenon Type Mounting TUL -12 -S Single 12" arm TUL -18 -S Single 18" arm TUL -12 -D orN (90°) Double 12" arms TUL -18 -D orN(90°) Double 18" arms TUL -12 -T Triple 12" arms TUL -18 -T Triple 18" arms 1"UL -12 -Q Quad :12" arms TUL -18 -Q Quad. 18 arms e t- Ordering Information Mounting Arrangements 0. Example for ordering fixture: ULT- IV -MV -25 ;r. D -T -III ANSI distribution (Type 11 or 111) •Lamp wattage Lamp type Model number V 180 -90 -T Seciion A -1 Page 63c j 1 j j i/ I ��m�. r r--- 1 r-- -T _t_ C" S 4 j 1 j j 1— r/ l -T _t_ o C" S 4 1 7 1— —_-1~— Iry _t_ o SZZJ SL .£j J s I v co Photometrics 250 Watt3 Mercury Vapo Ultra |v Horizontal Isolux IES Type 11, Cutoff Metallic Halide Ultra IV Horizontal Isolux Iso Type II, Short Cutoff Section A-1 Page 63d 2 o at 1 75 3 co o iT) �c 5 2.75 4 250 Watt3 2 0 2.75 3 5 150 Watt u High Pressure Sodium 2 Ultra w Horizontal |,mux IES Type II, Short Cutoff 0 4 5 Longitudinal distance in units of mounting ^eioms Longitudinal distance in units ot mounting hoigmu. Longtudinal distance in units ot mounting heights. N Art Nu Art Lighting and Manufacturing Company '=ktisiv Values based on 20 foot mounti Correction Factors For Other Mounting Heights com/oowvmoecuo-Iv'mv-2no Number of Fixtures: one Lamp: One *orKc-2nn/ox. rated 11.00u lumens, horizontal. Lens: Flat, tempered glass -------Isolux lines 'x horizontal /nov`anu|eo Candlepower peak location nan peak candlepower trace Values based on 20 foot mounting heights. Correction Factors For Other Mounting Heights Catalog Number: IJLT-IV-MH-250 Number of Fixtures: Orie Lamp: Orie 250 watt Phosphor Coated Metallic Halide, rated 1o.000lumens, horizontal Lens: FIat, tempered glass -Isolux lines mxoeizontal footcandles Candlepower peak location HaIf peak candlepower trace Values based on 20 foot mounting heights. Correction Factors For Other Mounting Heights ndiei Catalog Number: ULT-IV-HPS-150 Number of Fixtures: One Lamp: One 150 watt Diffuse High Pressure Sodium, rated 15.000 lumens. horizontal Lens: Flat, tempered glass -----Isolux lines of. horizontal footcandles Candlepower peak Iocation Half peak candlepower trace Lateral distance Lateral distance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1,128 MEETING DATE: Sept. 18, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: Renewal of DisadvantagedBusiness Enterprise (DBE) Program Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution extending the existing DBE Program for an additional year from October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1992. Report Summary: On April 19, 1989, the City adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in order to satisfy one of the technical requirements for receipt of federal funds for reconstruction of the bridges on Quito Road. The Program is intended to facilitate the opportunity for minority and female owned businesses to submit bids and receive awards of contracts on federally funded projects. The Program is required to run during the same period as the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. The expiration date of the DBE Program has already been extended twice to September 30, 1991. A further extension is necessary to September 30, 1992. No changes to the Program itself are being made. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Proposed resolution with attached DBE Program. AGENDA ITEM 4i Swimming Pool Slopes: Printed on recycled- paper. UMW ©2 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 _(408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: 9/18/91 SUBJECT: R -OS Ordinance At its 6/25/91 meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed R- OS Ordinance and referred the ordinance back to the Planning Commission to address the following issues: 1 The location of swimming pool on slopes greater than 15 -2. Requirement for all clustered development to be connected to a sanitary sewer system. 3. The addition of a comprehensive open space definition. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman 4. The review of landscaping standards with emphasis on natural landscaping to ensure preservation of the existing vegetation. The re- evaluation of a 100 ft. setback from earthquake faults. 6. Use the term "top" of water course bank in the text of the ordinance to be consistent with the definition. 7. Consideration of eliminating any variance provision which would allow buildings on sites which exceed 30% slope. The Planning Commission reviewed and studied each of the issues and recommended a number of revisions to the proposed ordinance to address those issues. The City's hillside district zones allow swimming pools on slopes up to 30% and require a variance for construction on slopes over 30 The proposed R -OS zone district contains the same slope provisions. Creation of pads for swimming pools on steep lots continues to raise the issues of visual and environmental impacts. Since the majority of the land within the City's Sphere of Influence is characterized by extremely steep topography, construction of pools may involve large amounts of grading. The Planning Commission recommends that the average slope under swimming pools within the R -OS district, be restricted to slopes of 15% or less. The Commission also recommends eliminating the variance provision for construction of swimming pools on sites which exceed 15 These regulations regarding swimming pools are provided in the new Section 15- 20.050(g)(5). Sewer System Connection for Clustering In order to allow more flexibility for clustering development, a requirement to connect such development to a sanitary sewer system is recommended. Leach field systems require a large drainage area often in conflict with the City's goal to confine cluster development in areas of minimal environmental impact. The County's zoning regulations for HS districts, require a minimum of 2.5 acres per lot when sanitary sewer is not available. Therefore, the Commission recommends adding a section to the proposed ordinance requiring cluster development to connect to a sanitary sewer system. Section 15- 20.060(d)(9) was added to include this restriction. Open Space Definition Open space has a different meaning and perception by different individuals and its definition varies. The Open Space Task Force recently dealt with the definition of open space for the General Plan Element. The Task Force recommended the use of the definition provided in the Government Code with the addition of scenic open space. The definition will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council as part of the general review of the amended Open Space Element. The Commission recommends that the definition section of the City's Zoning Code shall include a reference to the definition in the General Plan. The reference will ensure consistency with the existing and, later, with the amended Open Space Element. Landscaping Standards In order to address the City Council's concerns regarding the proposed landscaping regulations, the Commission recommends an addition to Section 15- 20.050(j) to emphasize the preservation of the natural landscaping and to limit the area of non indigenous landscaping to the immediate area around the house. Landscaping in other portions of the lot should use native plants to blend in with the existing natural landscaping. The Commission recommends that the total disturbed area, including the impervious coverage, shall not exceed 12,000 square feet. The impervious coverage is limited to a maximum of twelve thousand square feet in accordance with Section 15- 20.080 of this ordinance. The non native landscaping area may be planted within the allowable impervious coverage only. The City is required by the State to prepare a drought tolerant landscaping ordinance by the beginning of 1992. The ordinance will include restriction on the size of area covered by different types of plants and turf which are not drought resistant. The ordinance will be implemented in all the zone districts. In the interim, landscaping must comply with the existing City's Xeriscape Standards. Fault Zone Setbacks The question regarding the adequate setback from faults was raised at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. In order to address this issue, the City Geotechnical Consultant prepared a detailed report explaining the issues involved with the mapping of the fault zones within the City's Sphere of Influence and the appropriate requirements for geotechnical studies and setbacks. The consultant suggests that the required study zone be increased to 200 ft. and that the 50 feet setback from structures for human habitation be maintained. The City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant emphasized the importance of the inclusion of sufficient area in the investigative requirements in order to identify the fault trace. The required setback of 50 feet from a well defined fault trace is sufficient and in some cases can be reduced. The City Geotechnical Consultant also recommends the inclusion of a provision to the ordinance, authorizing the City Geotechnical Consultant to require larger study areas and setbacks where determined necessary. Section 15- 20.050(d)(3) was modified according to the recommendations of the City Geotechnical Consultant. The Consultant's report is attached for the City Council's review. Top of Water Course Bank Section 15- 20.050(g)(7) was revised to read "top of water course banks" for consistency with the definition. In addition this Section was modified to include setback restriction for leach fields from water course banks in accordance with the requirements of Santa Clara Health Department. Variance for Building Sites of Over 30% Slope The City Council directed the Commission to study the elimination of the variance provision for construction of structures on sites which exceed 30% slopes. In drafting the R -OS Ordinance, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental impacts involved with construction on steep lots. As a result, many restrictions were placed on the structure and driveway locations, amount of grading to minimize impact on natural vegetation and other resources. Section 15- 20.050 deals with development criteria which includes requirements for all the necessary geotechnical studies. The Commission feels that the regulation of construction within the City Sphere will provide sufficient tools to control construction on lots with topographical constraints. The Commission reserved the option of granting a variance for exceptional situations where no other location is available on the lot. The authority to grant a variance also provides the City with more flexibility in locating building sites with the least environmental impact. It should be noted that the areas within the City's Sphere of Influence are characterized by very steep topography and although the required minimum lot size is 20 acres, many of the sites will have no building site of 30% slopes or less. The City Council should refer to the attached City Attorney memorandum for the legal ramifications of eliminating the variance provision relative to slopes. In relation to swimming pools, the Commission recommends elimination of the variance provision. Restriction on construction of swimming pools in the hillside districts is common and was placed on many hillside lots as a subdivision condition. R -OS zone boundaries The Planning Commission recommends that following the adoption of the R -OS ordinance, the City Council direct the Planning staff to prepare criteria evaluating the physical and environmental conditions within the unincorporated area. The criteria shall be used to define the boundaries of the R -OS zone. This recommendation was included in the recital section of the R -OS Ordinance for the Council's review. Attachments: 1. Revised R -OS ordinance 2. Report from the City Geotechnical Consultant 3. Memorandum from the City Attorney 4. City Council minutes from 6/25/91 CH MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUTTVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Larry Perlin, City Engineer FROM: City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Faults and Fault Setback Criteria (S3051A) RE: Proposed R-OS Ordinance Y of SARA OGA DATE: July 8, 1991 At your request, we have prepared this memorandum to summarize fault investigation guidelines and fault setback criteria in the City of Saratoga's proposed R -OS district. To complete this task, we have reviewed and evaluated pertinent technical documents from our office files regarding fault hazards, fault locations and setback policies. EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS AND FAULT TERMINOLOGY Earthquake effects fall into three general hazard categories: 1) strong ground shaking, 2) surface fault rupture, and 3) triggered ground failures (such as landslides, liquefaction, ground cracking, and settlement). Efforts to identify fault locations, and then avoid building across them, are made in order to prevent structural damage due to surface fault rupture (i.e., hazard category 2). Faulting of the earth's surface occurs when subsurface fault displacement extends upward to the ground surface. This hazard is generally associated with moderate to large earthquakes (i.e., greater than approximately Magnitude 6.5), and is usually confined to narrow zones along traces of pre existing faults Fault traces represent locations of previous surface rupture; consequently, identification of these traces can result in avoidance of these areas when planning new structures. The following terms are frequently used when describing or evaluating fault characteristics: Fault A fracture, or zone of closely associated fractures, along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacement which may have occurred suddenly and /or by slow creep. Fault Trace A line formed by the intersection of a fault and the earth's surface, and the representation of a fault as depicted on a map. Fault Zone A zone of related faults which commonly are braided and subparallel, but may be branching or divergent. A fault zone has significant width, ranging from a few feet to several miles. Fault Strand One of several fault segments or branches within a fault zone (equivalent to splay or branch). Steve Emslie, Larry Perlin Page 2 Active Fault A fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (i.e., within the past 11,000 years) and which is considered likely to experience surface rupture in the future. Potentially Active Fault A fault which has had surface displacement within Quaternary time (i.e., within the past 2 to 3 million years) and which is considered possible to experience surface rupture in the future. Many "potentially active" faults may actually be "active but clear geologic evidence of Holocene displacements has not been established due to difficulties in determining the precise ages of geologic materials in the area. Sufficiently Active A concept whereby evidence for Holocene surface displacement along any one fault strand within a fault zone dictates that all splays within the zone should be considered active. In other words, clear evidence of displacement within the past 11,000 years is not needed everywhere along a fault or fault zone to categorize that fault as active. Well- Defined Fault A fault that is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. 'Well- defined" implies that a fault can be located in the field with sufficient precision so that recommended setbacks can be confidently established. Not all "active" faults can be located with such precision. Fault Setback An area bounding a potentially active, or active, fault zone in which the construction of structures for human occupation is prohibited. The setback distance is measured outward from the outside fault strands within a fault zone. July 8, 1991 S3051A STATE ZONES ALQUIST- PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES The Alquist -Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act (SB 520), which went into effect on March 7, 1973, regulates construction in areas of potential fault hazards. The Act requires the State Geologist to delineate fault hazard zones, called "Special Studies Zones along known active faults throughout California. It also requires local governments to withhold approval of construction within the Special Studies Zones until appropriate geologic investigations have been completed to establish that the proposed building site(s) is not threatened from future fault rupture. Special Studies Zones are depicted on 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle maps (scale: 1 2,000') throughout the State and are periodically amended as new information concerning the existence, location and activity of certain faults becomes apparent. LOCAL CONCERNS FAULTS IN THE SARATOGA AREA The San Andreas fault zone is the only fault located within the City of Saratoga's Sphere of Influence that currently is recognized as an "active fault" by the State and is thus zoned on the Special Studies Zones maps. The San Andreas fault zone does not extend into the current City limits; however, it does cross the proposed R-OS district. Numerous fault traces belonging to a group of potentially active faults, referred to as the Monta Vista Shannon Berrocal fault zone, occur within the current City limits and traverse the proposed R -OS district. Although not yet delineated as a Special Studies Zone, geologic data acquired in the past decade strongly indicate that these fault traces may represent a potential threat from future fault rupture. These faults are depicted on the three existing City Geologic Maps (and corresponding Ground Movement Potential Maps) that cover the City's hillside areas. The "Psf" category (i.e., "potential surface faulting on the City maps represents a "zone of potential surface faulting and associated ground displacement within 100 feet of a trace of the Berrocal fault or within 200 feet of a trace of the Shannon fault The City Steve Emslie, Larry Perlin Page 3 NEED FOR DETAILED FAULT INVESTIGATIONS CONSTRUCTION LIMITATIONS AND SETBACK CRITERIA July 8, 1991 S3051A Geotechnical Consultant restricts new construction in the vicinity of these faults as part of the geotechnical review procedure by ensuring that appropriate geologic investigations are performed and building setbacks are established prior to Tentative Map Approval or Building Site Approval. Geologic investigations for developments within the Psf category are required to provide sufficient data to: 1) determine the location of fault traces in the vicinity of the proposed development, and /or 2) determine that sites of habitable structures are free from the potential of surface fault rupture (i.e., potentially active fault traces do not underlie the building site). The purpose of the regional Special Studies Zones Maps, and the more detailed City Ground Movement Potential Maps, is to alert property owners, real estate agents, potential developers, consultants, utility companies and municipal agencies to the presence and general location of potentially hazardous faults. One or more fault strands may exist within a fault zone that has been depicted on these maps. Therefore. the precise location and identification of hazardous faults can be determined only through detailed engineering geologic site investigations. Any individual fault strand potentially could move in a future earthquake; consequently, building sites within delineated fault zones should be established only in areas that have been rigorously explored and found not to be underlain by any potentially hazardous fault strand. General guidelines for fault investigations are provided m the City's ordinances and in the State of California's "Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture Guidelines for fault investigations will also be provided in the City's "Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports which is currently being prepared. The primary purpose of fault setbacks and construction limitations in fault zones is to prevent loss of life associated with structural damage from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. A secondary purpose is to prevent significant damage to residences and essential structures due to surface fault rupture. Such structures include residences, apartments or other living quarters (including temporary dwellings), and other structures used for human occupation or meeting places. It is the opinion of the City Geotechnical Consultant that non habitable, secon•ary" structures can be allowed within established fault setbacks if: 1) the owners and users of the structures are aware of the risks of constructing in a known fault zone, and 2) damage to these structures poses a low risk of adverse impacts to other properties and structures in the vicinity. Examples of non habitable, secondary structures may include pools, tennis courts, horse stables, tool sheds, and detached garages. Faults that are considered "active" by the State of California are shown on the Special Studies Zones maps. According to State policy, no structures for human occupancy are permitted over or within 50 feet from the trace of a known active fault. The State considers the 50 -foot standard to represent only minimum criteria for all structures. Certain essential or critical structures (e.g., hospitals, schools, and high -rise buildings) should be subjective to more restrictive criteria at the discretion of local jurisdictions. In addition, cities and counties may establish more restrictive policies and criteria than those established by the State. The City Geotechnical Consultant considers the accuracy and precision of a fault trace location, as well as its age or activity, when evaluating fault setbacks for new constuction. For example, a 100 -foot "study zone" has been established for the Berrocal fault to accomodate imprecise locations and possible existence of subsidiary strands associated with this complex fault zone. A fault setback for habitable buildings may be reduced to 50 feet (or less in some cases) from a well- defined fault trace within this one if substantial site specific geologic exploration and analysis has unequivocally established the precise location of all possible fault traces. Steve Emslie, Larry Perlin July 8, 1991 Page 4 S3051A It is important to remember that the effects of strong ground shaking are not reduced significantly by adhering to fault setbacks. The effects of strong ground shaking muat be accounted for in the design and construction of structures. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed R-OS district encompases an extremely geologically sensitive area. In addition, the City should be aware that the available geologic maps of the proposed R -OS district are "regional maps and thus are not as accurate, or as detailed, as the three City geologic maps covering the hillside area within the current City limits. Furthermore, detailed geologic hazard maps (similar to the City's Ground Movement Potential Maps) have not been prepared for this area. The combination of numerous geologic hazards, rugged topographic conditions, and a lack of detailed maps depicting geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards is a significant constraint to safe land -use decision making. We recommend rigorous geotechnical review of proposed subdivisions and building sites in this district. Because of the potential for mislocation of hazardous faults, we also recommend that a relatively wide zone of potential surface faulting be recognized for faults mapped on these regional maps. Consequently, we recommend that Section 15- 20.050(c)(3) be reworded as follows: (3) With respect to any area in the State's Special Studies Zones or within two hundred feet of a trapped or otherwise recognized trace of a potentially active earthquake fault, an investigation by a certified engineering geologist addressing the seismic hazards related to the nearby trace, with particular emphasis on evaluation of possible surface faulting and characterization of seismic ground motion. Investigative techniques may require geologic and geomorphic mapping and analysis, subsurface exploration, and possibly geophysical traverses to demonstrate that no fault exists within 50 feet of a structure for human habitation. If deemed necessary by the City Geotechnical Consultant. an area greater than two hundred feet from a possible fault trace may be subject to the same investigative requirements. MICHAEL R JAVE STEVEN R 1 3EYERS NATALIE 0. -VEST ELIZABETH MICHAEL 0 RIBAC• MOLLY T TAM! !MICHAEL 7 RCCa:C KATHLEEN FA1,8!ON OF COUNSE_ ANDREA SALT2.IAP1 TO: FROM: QUESTION ANSWER AUG 2 1991 City Council MEYERS, NAVE. RIBACK (Si; WEST A PPOFESSICNAL LAW CCPPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET. SUITE 300 SA�l LEANCRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 (415) 351 -4300 u FAX: (415) 351-4481 FREDERICK S ETrERIDGE vJENOY A ROBE; s CITY OF SARATOGA MEMORANDUM DAVID W SKINNER CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Michael S. Riback, City Attorney by: Kathleen Faubion RE: Prohibiting Development on Slopes Over 30% PENINSULA OFFICE 1 220 HOWARD AVE SUITE 250 BURLINGAME. CA 3 -7'30 FAX 3 MARIN OFFICE 1202 GRANT AVE.. SUITE E NOVATO. CA 94945 (415) 892-8879 REPLY TO San Leandro DATE: August 20, 1991 May the City prohibit development on slopes exceeding 30% in the R -OS district without the possibility of applying for a variance for such development. Probably not. Such a prohibition would likely be found a regulatory taking of property. DISCUSSION 1. Test for Regulatory Taking. Local governments have broad discretion under their police power to restrict property development. When the regulation "goes too far however, it may constitute a regulatory taking. That is, the regulation is so oppressive that the local agency may as well have physically taken the property since it left the property owner no reasonable use. Reviewing a California case, the United States Supreme Court established a two part test for regulatory taking. Actins v. City of Tiburon 447 U.S. 255 (1980). The court upheld a downzoning of residential property because a) The rezoning substantially advanced the city's legitimate governmental interest in preventing premature urbanization of open space, and b) The TO: City Council FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney by: Kathleen Faubion RE: Prohibiting Development on Slopes Over 30% DATE: August 20, 1991 PAGE: 2 rezoning further limited the property owner's ability to develop but did not deny all economically viable use of the land. 2. Legitimate Governmental Interest. In surveying takings cases both before and since Agins, a California court recently described the "hierarchy of interests" that may be pursued under the police power. First English Evangelical. Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles 258 Cal. Rptr. 893, 904 (1989). Preservation of life, prevention of death and injury are at the top of the hierarchy. Id. That court found the subject interim ordinance prohibiting con- struction of buildings along a creek which had flooded causing considerable physical damage as well as loss of life was based on just such a compelling public purpose. "Lesser" interests such as preventing premature urbanization or preserving open spaces may justify development restrictions, but may more easily be outweighed by constitutional property rights. Id. The court mentions the "ultimate" question of whether a public interest may be "so paramount that it would justify a law which prohibited anv future occupancy or use of land." .T.d. However, it was not called upon to decide this question. 3. Economically Viable Use of Land. In determining whether restrictions leave property owners an economically viable use of their land, the Supreme Court directs that the value of the land after restriction be examined, not just the value of the "right" taken. Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis 107 S.Ct. 1232, 1248 (1987). In Keystone, plenty of coal remained for mining even with restrictions to protect against subsidence. In the local arena, a marine terminal operation was not deprived of all use of its property simply because San Francisco refused to grant them a demolition permit preliminary to building a new office. Terminals Equipment Co., Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco 270 Cal. Rptr. 329 (1990), rev. den. (1990). The operation could continue in the existing building, which could also be remodeled. Moratoria under interim ordinances (Gov. Code 65858) may restrict development without causing a taking. First TO: City Council FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: by: Kathleen Faubion Prohibiting Development on Slopes Over 30% DATE: August 20, 1991 PAGE: 3 Evangelical, 258 Cal. Rptr. at 906. In this case, an interim ordinance prohibiting new building near a river was reasonable given the serious safety concerns demonstrated by recent floods. The two and -a -half year duration of the prohibition while the county studied a permanent ordinance was reasonable given the complexity of the issues. Finally, the scope of the prohibition against new construction was reasonable given the flood danger on the site and on other nearby properties. Id. 4. Takings Law Applied to R -OS Ordinance. The City is currently in the process of considering a new R- OS ordinance which would generally be applied to hillside areas in connection with prezoning of property for annexation. The City is considering prohibiting development on slopes of greater than 30% with no possibility of relief through a variance procedure. Given its potential application in hillside areas and assuming the hillsides may often exceed 30% slope, such a restriction could effectively prohibit development on hillside parcels. It is questionable whether this restriction would meet the two part Aqins test. First, given the sophistication of available engineering techniques, it is not obvious that development on 30% slopes presents a clear public safety hazard severe enough to justify a blanket prohibition. If this prohibition is adopted, it should be supported by the strongest possible evidence of the relevant safety hazard. Note that while the prohibition may also serve aesthetic and open space purposes, these are not as compelling as safety risks. Second, permitted uses in the R -OS district are few. For many properties likely to be subject to this zoning, the ability to build a residence may be the major source of the property's value. Eliminating the potential to develop anything will probably eliminate virtually any economically viable use of the land. 4. Will a Variance Procedure "Save" the Prohibition. We believe it will. The City may want to consider reviewing development on slopes over 30% subject either to a use permit or variance. Both are discretionary actions which allow applicants to at least make their best case before the City. That is, to TO: City Council FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney by: Kathleen Faubion RE: Prohibiting Development on Slopes Over 30% DATE: August 20, 1991 PAGE: 4 show the City that their proposed development may be built without unreasonable risk to themselves or neighboring properties. Conversely, such review may also demonstrate that the proposed development cannot be safely pursued. In addition to giving property owners an opportunity to be heard, a variance or use permit procedure allows the City to make its development decision with the benefit of a factual record developed during the course of the permit processing. This record can then be used to support whatever decision is made. The decision as to which procedure is preferable is a policy matter. For example, requiring a variance may make a stronger statement to the effect that development•on slopes should not occur unless no other development site is available. CONCLUSION Prohibiting development on slopes over 30% in the R -OS district without relief from the prohibition will likely violate the Acxins test for regulatory taking. We suggest that any prohibition be strongly supported by public safety evidence as well as evidence of any other applicable public purpose. We also suggest that either a use permit or variance procedure be available to allow case -by -case review of particular properties. MSR:MKF:dsp cc: Harry Peacock, City Manager Steve.Emsli:e, Planning Director Larry Perlin, City Engineer mnrw \273 \memo \slope30.mkf MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK WEST Michael S. Riback City Attorney By: Kathleen Faubion ``H' MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, June 25, 1991 PLACE: Community Ctr. Arts and Crafts Rm., 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call Councilmembers Clevenger, Kohler, and Mayor Stutzman were present at 7:30 p.m. (Councilmember Anderson arrived at 8:15 p.m.) 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda The City Clerk announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21. The notice of adjournment from the June 19 Council meeting was properly posted on June 20. 3. Item continued from June 19 meeting as public hearing A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding a Residential Open Space Zone District (R -O8), which may be applied to properties within the City's Sphere of Influence upon annexation to the City, with the associated Negative Declaration (first reading and introduction) The City Clerk noted the receipt of two letters since the agenda packet had been prepared, one from the Greenbelt Alliance, the other from the MId- Peninsula. Regional OPen Space District. The Planning Director presented his report on the content of the proposed ordinance and the reason for the regulations being proposed. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Cheriel Jensen believes the County may use this ordinance and interpret it liberally wherever it is weak and use it against the City. Since these areas will not normally be sewered but on septic systems, distances from creeks for buildings and septic systems should be firmly set out. Studies by the County indicate about 25% of the housing in the hillside areas of the Los Gatos watershed suffered significant damage. County ordinance requires a 90% open space requirement. Clustering provision could be liberally interpreted by the County to allow increased densities before annexation. Recommends that clustering be abandoned. One half acre lots, clustered, won't provide adequate drainage for septic systems. If a site is really suitable, it could be rezoned to a higher density. City for years limited swimming pools to 15% slopes, proposal allows up to 30 this should be reconsidered and the 15% limit used. Councilmember Anderson arrived at 8:15 p.m. Meg Caldwell stated that the proposal for 30% dedication originally came from the City Council when the Council was considering the Country Club annexation. The intent of the open space requirement was not just to secure unbuildable areas but also preserve ridgelines, provide trail links and other open space needs. Clustering as a tool to be used against the City by the County should be a concern as well as the septic system adequacy problem. The standard or a riparian corridor was not concluded until the last hearing and could be revisited. Wanda Alexander read a letter dated June 20, 1991, from the coalition for Hillside Protection and discussed the reasons behind the suggestions contained therein. These involved the purpose and definition of open space, the use of clustering, deletion of various conditional uses except those which already exist, no building within 1200 feet of an earthquake fault, prohibiting variances, especially for slopes, clarify intent of the term "water course banks." Suggests the City follow the Los Gatos model for a specific plan with the County so zoning works together. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. City Council Minutes 2 June 25, 1991 Councilmember Clevenger suggested if Council is inclined to modify the ordinance, these items should be sent back to the Commission for further study before the ordinance is passed. Councilmember Anderson suggested that some of the items brought up could create a taking of property which she couldn't support. She would support the 100 -foot fault setback as a change. Councilmember Kohler disagreed that past standards have worked, but generally agreed with 95% of the ordinance. He believes Council should make the minor changes and go ahead and pass the ordinance. He supported the 100 -foot fault setback and 15% slope limit for swimming pools. He would like to limit future commercial uses which could result in intense use by traffic and the like. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the ordinance is weak in relation to landscaping type and use. She wants as much natural landscape as possible. Mayor Stutzman asked Caldwell how much effort would be required to review any specific loose ends. She replied that it probably could be done in one hearing. There was consensus to refer back to the Planning Commission, for report back in forty days, the following: 1 swimming pool slopes 2 require clustering to have sewer systems 3 define open space 4 review landscaping standard 5 100 -foot fault setback 6 Top of Water Course Bank as a definition 7 Variances for slopes over 30% The meeting was recessed from 9:00 to 9:15 p.m. Actions in connection with Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation 1991 -1) Councilmem, -r Clevenger stated she would abstain from voting since her residence i 'n the annexation area. The City Engine presented REsolution 91 -36.4 which eliminates the Brookview and West ew areas from the proposed annexation. Assessments per parcel will not ange. ANDERSON /KOHLER MOVED ADOPT RESOLUTION 91 -36.4. Passed 3 -0 -1 (Clevenger abstaining). B. Amendments to t. Zoning Ordinance concerning noise provisions with the sociated Negative Declaration (first reading and introduc •n) and recommendations regarding Village noise issues. Planning Director Emslie reviewed change to the ordinance relating to exceptions for specific activities, inclu• g construction activities, garden tools, and pool and spa equipment. councilmember Anderson suggested that commercial onstruction activity be limited to Monday through Friday unless a perm is granted by the City Council. Allan Halverson, Woodside Drive stated he preferred t ban on leaf blowers as approved by the Planning Commission rath than the ordinance as amended. Greg Catanese recited noise element catalogue of noise complain from 1984 -1987. Leaf blowers only represent 14% of complaints. Wha are current complaint levels and are the complaints widespread. e understood Los Altos has noise readings which City may wish to acquir for its own study and use. r Mayor Kohler and members of the Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mawr Kohler and Councilmembers: I am writing to urge you to consider the following changes and suggestions to strengthen the Saratoga Residential -Open Space Ordinance: 1. The ordinance does not have adequate creekside protection measures. (Section 15- 20.050.g. 7). We believe that a riparian corridor protection ordinance should allow no construction of roads, structures, parking areas or despoiling actions (cutting, grading, debris disposal) to be built within 150 horizontal feet of the 1) drip line of streanlcide vegetation, or 2) the top of the stream banks, whichever is further. The 150 foot setback is becoming the standard for communities to truly protect the ecological integrity of the riparian corridor. The presence of a wide band of vegetation along our streams and creeks promotes the public health and safety in many ways. Riparian zones reduce flooding; they improve the quality of our groundwater; they preserve the quality of our topsoil; they provide unique habitat for wildlife and plants; and they increase the quality of our uban lifestyle. The Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition has been actively working on a model riparian protection ordinance which they would be happy to share with the Planning Commission and City Council as a means to protect Saratoga's invaluable streams and creeks. A draft copy of the proposed ordinance is attached. 2. The definition of open space needs much more careful consideration. I do not believe that the definition provided in the Government Code with the addition of scenic open space will be adequate. I recommend that the Saratoga Planning Commission take more time to determine a definition that is complete and specific and to be added at a later date. In order for Saratoga to truly preserve its hillside lands and its natural resources, the definition of open space must include language regarding the protection of natural areas sufficient for the preservation of the ecological integrity of riparian corridors, wildlife habitats and migration pathways and other important environmentally sensitive areas. Thank you very much for your consideration. SOUTH BAY OFFICE 960 West Hedding Suite 220 San Jose CA 95126 (408)983 -0539 P E O P L E F O R O P E N S P A C E The Bay Area Keep It Green September 18, 1991 Si in ncerely, v Vicki Moore South Bay Field Representative g MAIN OFFICE 116 New Montgomery Suite 640 San Francisco CA 94105 (415)543 -4291 Z,. A le•dLhPsc. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE What are riparian corridors? The term riparian is used to denote a close association with a watercourse. A riparian corridor has a river, stream or creek at its center and includes any woody or herbaceous vegetation that depends on that water source for its survival. All riparian corridors are identified by the presence of vegetation that requires large amounts of water or conditions that are more moist than normal. Nonetheless, riparian corridors will vary considerably in vegetation and size because of the many combinations that can be created between water sources, soil, and other physical characteristics of a site. Riparian zones, with their abundance of vegetation, will usually provide a striking contrast to the neighboring landscape. In Santa Clara County the Santa Cruz mountains receive a considerable amount of rainfall, while the rest of the valley and the Diablo Range are quite arid. Cottonwood sycamore woodlands comprise the riparian zone of the larger waterways, while Oak woodlands make up the mesic (wet but not saturated) riparian zones. These streams appear dry for much of the year but below the surface lies a wet world of minute animals and plants, which provide life giving nutrients to the plants in the riparian zone above.? Why do we need riparian corridors? The presence of a band of vegetation alongside our streams and creeks promotes the public health and safety in many ways. Riparian zones reduce flooding; they improve the quality of our groundwater they preserve the quality of our topsoil; they provide unique habitat for wildlife and plants; and they increase the quality of our urban lifestyle. I. Streamside vegetation reduces flooding. Streamside vegetation impedes rapid runoff and provides cost effective flood control. Plants protect soil and absorb precipitation so that the velocity and volume of overland flow is reduced. By spreading out peak levels of runoff over a longer period of time, streamside vegetation reduces downstream flooding. This can reduce the need for expensive flood control measures such as concrete channeling and construction of levies. II. Streamside vegetation prevents soil erosion and sedimentation. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE, PAGE 2 The root network of streamside vegetation binds the soil in the steam banks and makes them more resistant to collapse and erosion. Also, streambank vegetation can filter out much of the soil eroded from a hillslope before it reaches a watercourse. Creeks with incomplete or no vegetation tend to result in severe erosion and silt deposition.l Silt deposition reduces channel capacity and further increases erosion, both of which lead to increased flooding. Maintenance for silt removal and erosion control is expensive. III. Protection and improvement of groundwater quality and quantity. Santa Clara valley's groundwater is stored in natural reservoirs called aquifers. Wells draw the water out of the aquifers. Like surface reservoirs, the aquifers need to be refilled "recharged with clean water each year. If the aquifers are not recharged, then wells must be drilled deeper, at greater expense. Additionally, an unfilled aquifer allows the land above it to subside which permanently reduces the aquifer capacity while increasing the probability of flooding, at greater expense to taxpayers. Riparian corridors, including percolation ponds, are the primary source of aquifer recharge in Santa Clara County. Many segments of streams have direct contact with the primary aquifers below the valley floor. Many streams show no surface flow during the dry months. However, water contributed from uphill sources is present and moves slowly through the subsurface of creeksides and underlying strata all year. Healthy riparian corridors enhance groundwater recharge. If silt clogs the sand and gravel beds of the creek bottoms it reduces the waterway's ability to recharge the aquifer. Recharge of the aquifers is also prevented by cementing the waterway. Healthy riparian corridors reduce pollution of streams and of aauifers from non -point sources. The vegetation slows down the water and enhances percolation through the soil mantle where water impurities are filtered out and altered by microbial action. Riparian corridor vegetation shades the water and protects it from extreme fluctuations in temperature. Changes induced from excessively warmer water can include RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE, PAGE 3 lower levels of dissolved oxygen, increased acidity or greater algae growth. IV. Necessary for fish and wildlife habitat. Hundreds of animal species depend on riparian habitat for their survival. The riparian plant community is the rarest of communities in California. It is also the most valuable because it supports more wildlife (reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish and mammals) than any other. Both indigenous and migratory animals require the food and shelter found in abundance along the streams. Today, more than ninety percent of the riparian habitat originally present in California has been converted to other uses, making riparian areas one of the most endangered habitat types in the state. V. Benefits to ranching and agriculture. Riparian zones reduce the erosion of Santa Clara's valuable topsoil. Riparian vegetation slows down destructive runoff from storms, it filters out sediment before it reaches larger waterways and it keeps the stream banks more resistant to erosion. Riparian zones provide homes for rodent eating hawks and owls as well as cool shade for livestock. VI. Maintain the quality of life. Santa Clara County has traditionally recognized the value of its riparian corridors. Since the 1970's the County Park Plan has shown a network of streamside trails connecting the urban areas. Riparian corridors provide opportunities for outdoor recreational pursuits such as walking, jogging, bicycling, and nature observation, in addition to visual relief from the urban or dry landscape. Just as the streams recharge the great underground aquifers, they also recharge the lives of all who visit and enjoy them. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE, PAGE 4 1 Harvey and Stanley Associates, Inc., Michael Rigney, Project Manager, November 11, 1988, p. 2. 2 Jack Ward Thomas, et al, "Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands -The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon, Riparian Zones," General Technical Report PNW -80. 1979, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 3 iWildlife Habitats in Managed Forests -The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington," U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 553, Sept. 1979. 4 Harvey and Stanley, p. 2 5 Santa Clara County General Plan, p. D6. 6 Harvey and Stanley, p. 2 7 Jack Stanford, University of Montana, Flathead Lake Biological Station, in the San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 1989, p. A 21. 8 "Final Report of the Forest Practice Rules Assessment Team to the State Water Resources Control Board," April 24, 1987, pp. 4 -7. 9 Ibid. 10 philip Flint, Professor of Environmental. Management at the University of San Francisco, Letter to the State Water Resources Control Board, March 19, 1984. 11 "Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands," Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, June, 1975, p. 10. 12 "Water Resources," Santa Clara County Planning Department, December 18, 1979, p. 21. 13 Ibid., p. 15. 14 lbid., p. 6 15 Ibid., pp. 15, 18. 16 Environmental Protection Agency, p. 17 Planning Department, p. 19. 18lbid. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE 19 Philip Flint, Professor of Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco, Letter to the State Water Resources Control Board, March 19, 1984. 20 Planning Department, p. 17. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE (DRAFT #3) SECTION 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to preserve, enhance and restore riparian corridors by preventing or minimizing development inconsistent with protection of such areas, and to implement the policies of the General Plan. SECTION 2. FINDINGS Riparian corridors are essential to the public health and welfare, as well as the quality of life, because of the contribu- tions they make in many areas, including but not limited to the following: A. Maintaining water quality; B. Preventing soil erosion and sedimentation; C. Groundwater recharge; D. Flood control; E. Streamside Vegetation; F. Fish and wildlife habitat; G. Aesthetics; H. Recreation; I. Agriculture and ranching; J. Open space. Given rapid development and scarcity of remaining riparian corridors, it is urgent that such areas receive immediate protection. SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS A. perennial Stream A stream which contains flowing RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE. PAGE 2 (DRAFT #3) water year round, as indicated by a solid blue line on USGS 7 -1/2 minute topographic quadrangle maps. B. Intermittent Stream A stream which flows during the wet season or after precipitation, or both, but which ceases to flow at least part of the dry season, as indicated by a dashed blue line on USGS 7 -1/2 minute topographic quadrangle maps. C. Riparian Corridor Any perennial or intermittent 4.4.d a.40y stream des<9. i-ed ay the. C4 I; Ivey,a Oepa.#re4.07" OA' 4%4 C stream and that area on each side of such stream extending 150 horizontal feet beyond 1) the drip line of streamside vegetation, or 2) the top of the stream banks, whichever is further. SECTION 4. PROHIBITED USES AND ACTIVITIES Except as provided in Sections 5 and 6, the following uses and activities are prohibited within a riparian corridor: A. Construction of roads, structures, parking lots, utility lines or pipelines. B. Any other despoiling action, including but not limited to: 1. Cutting; 2. Clearing; 3. Grubbing; 4. Burning; 5. Grading; 6. Debris disposal or materials disposition; RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE. PAGE 3 !DRAFT #31 7. Removal, destruction or significant alteration of streamside vegetation; 8. Use of herbicides and pesticides. C. Use of motorized recreational vehicles. D. Planting vegetation other than native streamside species. SECTION 5. PERMITTED USES AND ACTIVITIES The following uses are permitted within a riparian corridor, provided these uses are allowed under applicable zoning law and regulation: A. Performance of emergency work necessary to preserve life or property. Any impairment or alteration to a riparian area resulting from emergency work shall be mitigated or repaired. B. Road, pipeline and utility line crossings, when necessary and when sited and constructed to minimize disturbance of the riparian area. C. All existing structures and uses as of the date this ordinance takes effect, repair and maintenance of existing structures and facilities, reconstruction and additions which do not increase the building lot coverage or change the nature or type of use, or both. D. Water quality and water flow monitoring installations. E. Necessary water supply projects. F. Necessary flood control projects which have been RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE. PAGE 4 (DRAFT #31 reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.' Flood control modifications to be made in areas that are substantially natural shall use a flood plain design which avoids alteration of the riparian area. G. Pathways, access points and bridges to make resources more usable for pedestrian access for passive recrea- tion where it is determined there would be no decrease in habitat value. H. Developments which would improve or enhance the areas listed in Section 2, provided that such development does not conflict with any other restriction contained in this ordinance. SECTION 6. EXCEPTIONS A. An exception to any of the requirements or regulations contained in this ordinance may be granted by the Planning Commission. B. Before the Planning Commission mi grant an exception the person seeking the exception must apply in writing and must affirmatively prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proposed alteration of the riparian area: 1. Will not cause or increase the likelihood of water quality degradation, soil erosion, sedimentation 1.• RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION ORDINANCE. PAGE 5. (DRAFT #31 or flooding, at any location, either individually or cumulatively; and 2: Will not cause significant degradation of the streambed, streamside or wildlife habitats, at any location, either individually or cumulatively; and 3. Is consistent with adopted County General Plan Policy, Community Plan Policy, and Department of Fish and Game Laws and Permit requirements; and 4. Will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other nearby property. C. Any exception granted shall be subject to such conditions as will give effect to the purpose and findings of this ordinance. SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT This ordinance shall be enforced as provided in Ordinance No. NS -3.14, Section 4. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 20 75 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 18, 1991 MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering LO SUBJECT: 1991 Pavement Management Program Award of Contract Recommended Action: Discussion: 1. Relieve Coastal Paving, Inc. of San Jose from their bid on the project in accordance with section 5101 of the Public Contract Code. 2. Declare O'Grady Paving of Mountain View to be the lowest res- ponsible bider on the project. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with O'Grady Paving for $789,488.50. 4. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $15,000. Sealed bids for the 1991 Pavement Management Program were opened yesterday afternoon, A total of five contractors submitted bids on the project, however two of the bids were incomplete and were rejected as non responsive. A bid summary is attached. The low bid was submitted by Coastal Paving, Inc. of San Jose for $660,503.39 which is 17.8% below the Engineer's Estimate of $803,507.50. Subsequent to the bid opening however, Coastal Paving, Inc. requested relief from their bid due to various significant misinterpretations of the specifications on their part. Attached is a copy of the leter submitted by Coastal Paving, Inc. requesting relief from their bid. Public Contract Code section 5101 alows the City Council to relieve a low bidder from their bid after a bid opening. Because of the errors acknowledged by Coastal Paving, Inc. and because of numerous other irregularities in their bid, it is staff's recom- mendation that Coastal Paving, Inc. should be relieved from their bid or at the least, that their bid should be declared non- responsive. The second low bid which complied with the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids and is therefore responsive was submitted by O'Grady Paving of Mountain View. O'Grady's bid is $789,488.50 which is less than 2% below the. Engineer's Estimate. Rather than reject all of the bids and readvertise the project, it is recommended that the Council award the contract to O'Grady Paving. Fiscal, Impacts: The adopted FY 91 -92 budget contains $853,873 in Program No. 31, Account No. 4530 for both the Street Maintenance and Pavement Management Programs. Approximately $103,118 has been expended on the Street Maintenance Program leaving a little over $750,000 for the Pavement Management Program. Although O'Grady Paving's bid is close to $790,000, staff be- lieves that the approximate $40,000 shortfall plus $15,000 in contingency funding can be made up through various cost saving techniques during construction primarily by reducing the overlay pavement section by one -half inch on those residential streets which originally were scheduled to receive cape seals rather than pavement overlays. In the event these techniques are not suffi- cient to close the gap, staff would then return with recommenda- tion to transfer funds from next year's Pavement Management Program into this year's program and reduce the scope of next year's program accordingly. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Letter from Coastal Paving, Inc. dated 9- 18 -91. 3. Contract for Public Works Construction. Motion .4 Vote: SUMMARY OF BIDS EN9JPEER'S ESTIMATE e v� G G o itv n °K t O `r A v 6 Nam No, Approx. t�uantih Description it l Price Total (Wt Price Total (WI Price Total Mt No Total 11, 270 T #aft' 4 2" ayu eel y 31. 5 c35;/25 31.22 1 ./',/5 ,'"09. 3E3 55/2, 2690 Ste 513,720 a x3530 2 3-14 l7 ovf 19,, II 75 635,,417.50 C.0 03 '7'7,6 80 90, 8 .80 90, 932'! 3 3 y iaJ AR 4 1000 s iezc O S 1,703 .10 1. 08 3, 5106 t5,9& 1 00 2 20, 513(0 1(0.(00 01 2. 25 3410.l00 18,1x75- 55. y20 8,30o IQ.epa..r'..c �l sf- reef's 1 15 1.1•525 5 55.'120 11 L� 44* 5-5, 5120 95 4 17,107 25 ln9,ai4" I (o 380 Lush 1" hete6;75 37•So 1 250 30.'17 11,578./x0 35- /3, 300 `15' 17,100 (bf 5P 7 310 Rd144df va eves eh. 17 5 541, 250 /10 3'1, /00 Zip (05 l oo Zoo Co 2,000 5:232.5Z 10,000 S 2oA3o demo v .4C �avr ref 50 l o,'1 (05 51 10,[x751. 00 IC, '1'1 .2 5 9 '.5 /loo r/oay ex. y- Ale 15, 000 (5,000 '7, 993 24 /'/9 10,000 /0 1135 Ce7tst f rt .road '1.00 0,4440 000 2.94 30.'17 S too .90 4, Sic 20 to 70 1 Q, yla 3. loo W,2 S, 7[00 11 100 ecklierz4 A C d4I've *y 37. SO 11,20o 3[o ra y 74,4;,4 t e/toss Oaf K 150 Co00 75 300 5•25" 2,/00 100 got, y5U RSO.ya i3 x90 Type P vma r/C-rs 'L( 1.1(n0 4.50 1,305 1/ 5.00 5* lLI 2580 l?azu.f dbl- lte7oto .40 1. ISZ .30 010 1 2,000 35 15 L ?a.t .1444.116,15 /5 I,5o0 4(0 Oh 000 1I00 1(e 1.15 34(4 e ,ma., I•44_s !0 2 5 z 25 `Mc Co 27o TOT /I C TTM 5 1-140 8o3.5c 6400,503. 899. 993 71 3,8136- Q Project Name Project No. CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BIDS Page. 1` Bld Date: q III .Lt i I00 00 2, 301 NO 20 4 100 oc 3 N0 200 900 3. 50 goo Z -SI SS qzo 8- 15; 200 4 17.3$ (DZ,000 105 Hl eta) 7 S 9, 000 IZ,37(, (0,07Z•S4 (u 1 vo S7 1 000 S .q0 35 No T3iD 5 13 bm No. O�tity /5 i(0 SUMMARY OF BIDS Desattlon avaert y a S50 /3134-4 0' nvGdia y R 441f 1'1,270 'nsfa1'( ,2 ?"D A L I TEm5 1 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE UM Price 1 Total CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BIDS 003. SO' 7.5V SA C fSTROCTio1.1 Udt Price Total 4 2,0 qo, 02 0 ND 131D By WATT'S CONST ftQCTso N '30 4120 3R -7o Cie( ,s19 Puce Total Unit No Total 9o,0Zy 3yo .rwa 20,033 4 17,533 la 3, SS 2 (0,1(P2-SO /Z, 37to l0, y10 20 hit) 320 I ,yzi boos 225 NO $1•D Pape vl 8M Date q 7 -4V Coastal Paving Inc. 851 North King Road 408/988 -7550 San Jose, CA 95133 FAX 408/259 -5772 City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dept. of Engineering 9/18/91 Bid Requirements and Conditions Section 2 H) "Relief Of Bidders Coastal Paving Inc. is withdrawing their bid from the City of Saratoga 1991 Pavement Management Program. Were withdrawing our bid for the reasons of misrepresentation in the bid specifications. One can not be expected to read "between the lines," in the "Payment Section," of the specifications in order to create the true technical provisions of the bid,(in reference to:) Seal Coating, Tack Coating and application of the tons of asphalt in correlation to the work items on the bid summary sheet located in the bid package. Due to the above mentioned, we have approximately $60,000.00 dollars not included: In oils and spreading, asphalt not included in other work items on the bid summary sheet. Sincerely, 4 7 1 t C hr er Estimator Serving all of California Century Paving, Inc. Century Paving, Inc. Capitol Paving, Inc. Los Angeles Riverside San Diego 213/921 -9827 714/522 -2910 619/941 -2772 SARA CITY COUNCIL t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 7 C_' MEETING DATE: Sep't.18, 1991 /l CITY MGR. APPROVAL /�%1 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Fourth Street Sidewalk Capital Project No. 958: Award of Contract Recommended Action: 1. Declare Ambo Engineering of Union City to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with Ambo Engineering for $17,738. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the project up to $5,000. 4. Direct staff to prepare a budget adjustment resolution authorizing the transfer of necessary funds into the project budget from General Fund balance. Discussion Sealed bids for the Fourth Street Sidewalk, Capital Project No. 958, were opened yesterday afternoon. A total of seven contractors submitted bids on the project. A summary of the bids is attached. Ambo Engineering of Union City submitted the low bid of $17,738 which is 23.2% below the Engineer's Estimate of $23,100. Because Ambo Engineering's bid complies with all of the requirements in the Notice to Bidders, it is recommended that Ambo Engineering be declared the lowest responsible bidder on the project. Fiscal Impacts: The adopted FY 91 -92 budget contains $13,250 in Capital Project No. 958, Account No. 4510. Although the low bid exceeds the amount of funds budgeted for the project, staff believes that the spread between the six low bids demonstrates what the true cost to build this project actually is. Therefore, if the Council desires to complete this project, it will be necessary to appro- priate an additional $9,500 for the project to cover the base contract plus anticipated changes. If the council agrees, staff will prepare a budget adjustment resolution for you to adopt at your next meeting authorizing the transfer of the necessary funds into the project from the General Fund balance. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Contract for Public Works Construction. Motion k Vote: SUMMARY OF BIDS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE A MUO Et4&U1EE Zt t.sC, 60t D E r.+ 13 r 6F_ olz(, E t31,4 W C ft I s' a item No. Ql ox. tity Description Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total LS e EArt 4 ZJ• 4. /000 4 100 Soo .274 c g Ls E 4,ZTr1 uio 2 K .'t v OCR I 00 113 3 240 CLIZE5 .U, rraa 12E iovAa -L IS 3 00 /2. 8s 5o€4 s sa 2oc'I.Zo i1 2,'-,i 0 CO DJ5TQUCT C4Q+3 GUTTER Al 10, $%X) 3 2 10 770 44 y 2 HO /D 7 (p 1(' 4 -1(4. 11,150 5' 1_5 RELOU}TE ELrEC iWLIEZ 4 -1 000 x ZOOC> 33 4 t ILItJ (4 5 QTR IrINb MARKczs S 190 �}5 0 5 7 t..- TRAFFIC, CaNITRo 1 2-Oo 1100 12Oo 1573 TOTAL TTE1•7S 1-7 23,100 17 18 2lv 20,050.4P0 Project Nam FbviZT# 7^REE7" 1p 14!011 -K Protect No. 958 CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BIDS Page: 66 3 Bid Date: 9 1 r" el l SUMMARY OF BIDS ENGIEBTS ESTIMATE 73 t B Co, icizErr rr' zAm i- VE1.I116LES 'Pin ZxA p�Q�DES t t Price ,r Total tl No. Qty Dumbbell Ikit Price Total boil Price Total Ibit Rice Total 1 t.5 t cEAIl 9i 61 WS IHOC) 1000 '32)410 ,7 L 3 EAzrttWoiztc 1 1000 4 1300 5!o 3S 3 2'10 ZEw1ovE Co¢I >i &orreir /s1 -P.0 34/.90 tto 'ego 14 '33to0 y x cDN STIEL CUM I tiTTEit, 4,2 SO /0, 20O Hg. /0, 060 2 3 sTze, 5 17ELocArr E LEECTiToLlea_ l '300 5040 Co10 ft RA114, tr`tG Co L5 5 NCp M 300 5 f? 7 "Z L 5 TRA FFr C_ CONT2 cc 30 O 1000 .2110 TeTAL TTEMS ,22. g00 Z6).300 V Project Name: FOo/ZTN 5772s SET 5, D et/Ail-L Project No. 9 Sg CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BIDS By: Page: .21 ti 3 Bid Data q l7" GI/ SUMMARY OF BIDS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ZoMA CoNSTr[xcttrw Non y Description Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Rice Total 1 t.S CLEAR 4 CMOS a3.Coo 2 1-s EA ser ‘-"oR is 9 AO 3 2 RErtoVE CtA¢rS +6tATEt "1 le 44eo '-1 2 eOJ TY ocT CLIDSt 6 Q7T sv 10.000 S I-.S tELO C 1 =t`. t=t"fTacou EE r 9(P440 1' Il A l lr- J KI 6 0 z., 5 ILiri tic. at MfY2KEiZS 1 1 00 `7 L 5 1 R It FFt C C o txI'TZ o t,_ 11 00 TOTAL. TTENtS t 1 4 1 O 000 Project Name: 1 FZ77 -t ST1Z ET i per owK Project No. 6 ,5 -4 6 CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY OF BIDS BY P Bid Date: q 1 `7 q 1 Page: CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION FOURTH STREET SIDEWALK THIS CONTRACT, made this 18th day of September, 1991, by and be- tween the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called the City, and Ambo Engineering hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the City has caused to be prepared in the manner pre- scribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract docu- ments, for the work herein described and shown and has approved and adopted these contract documents, specifications and plans and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10 of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE: That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature necessary to construct all of the improvements for the City of Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and other contract documents and according to such instructions as may be given by the Saratoga City Engineer or his authorized agent. 15 ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications "Changes and Extra Work the City shall pay the Contractor according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance of the work. The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruc- tion or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili- ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex- penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the time frame specified in the Notice to Proceed, all according to the contract plans and specifications, the details and instruc- tions, and the requirements of the City. ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT: That the complete contract document consists of the following: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 2. Bid Proposal 3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty 4. Contract for Public Works Construction 5. Hold Harmless Clause 6. Performance Bond 7. Labor and Material Bond 8. Plans 9. Specifications 10. Insurance Certificates In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of the contract, this Contract shall be binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year hereinabove written. 16 AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: CITY OF SARATOGA: Date ATTEST: CONTRACTOR: 19 City Clerk The foregoing Contract is approved as to form this day of City Attorney 17 By Title License No. Tax ID or SSN County of Santa Clara Health Department vector Control District 976 Lenzen Avenue San Jose, California 95126 (408) 299 -2050 September 12, 1991 Rebecca L. Spoulos Community Service Officer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Spoulos (P 6/;c fl lik:lsuo On September 10, 1991 the Santa Clara County Vector Control District responded to a request from the City of Saratoga to conduct a joint inspection of 12501 DeSanka Avenue. The following is a report of the district's findings: 1. Mouse droppings around the back patio area. 2. Roof rat droppings the front yard fence. 3. Refuse accumulation along the side and back of house may provide substantial rodent harborage. Sincerely, Mick Guerrero Technician III MG:ls cc: Keith Kraft, Manager /e Board of Supervisors: Michael M. Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Ron Gonzales, Rod Diridon, Dianne McKenna County Executive: Sally R. Reed Galeb Paving, Inc General Engineering Contractors California State License No. 325912 September 11, 1991 Winston Chew 12501 DeSanka Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Mrs. Chew: It has been brought to our attention the City of Saratoga is in the process of abating your property, and any items you have stored on our property, which is the vacant lot adjacent to your property. You had permission to store some items on this property until September 09, 1991, at which time you and your wife signed an agreement that all items would be removed. We would also like to advise you that you do not have permission or will have permission in the future to use this lot for storage. Sincerely yours, Slobodan Galeb /bp cc: City of Saratoga, Attention, Rebecca Spoulos. 12340 S. Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Suite 10 Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 253 -4747 9/19/91 STATEMENT BY MAYOR BARBARA KOPPEL, CITY OF CUPERTINO TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES ASSOCIATION REGARDING BAY VISION 2020 7,4 The Cupertino City Council has previously endorsed in general terms the consolidation of Bay Area regional agencies in an effort to better coordinate regional activities. The issue before us now is the establishment of a regional agency interim governing board. I would like to offer my comments as the Mayor of Cupertino on the size and composition of this interim governing board. This position has been endorsed by the Cupertino City Council. 1. The governing board should consist of between 35 and 40 members. 2. A minimum of 2/3 of the governing board should be f cent elected officials with the remaining 1/3 being non elected. 3. The elected officials would be selected through a process determined by each of the nine Bay Area counties. In Santa Clara County, I believe the process that was used to select the representatives for the County Congestion Management Planning Agency would be the preferred selection process. Specifically, the Santa Clara County representation to the interim governing board would be determined by a majority of the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the county. 4. The non elected officials would be appointed by the locally elected committee members. 5. The City of Cupertino remains highly skeptical of efforts to develop regional revenue sharing on a fair and equitable basis, and would oppose such efforts until a thorough and detailed analysis of local government financing is undertaken. To be complete, this analysis must address the current inequities of property tax assessment and the diversion of local revenues to redevelopment agencies. 6. It is also of great concern that the geographical make -up of this body hasn't been seriously discussed. We're the southernmost county of the nine proposed for Bay Vision 2020. We have much more in common with our neighboring counties, i.e.: Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, Stanislaus and Merced. Thank you for your consideration of Cupertino's point of view on this issue. We remain available to participate in the continuing discussion on this important regional matter. 5EP -1b "9 I1UH 12:0b IU:CAMPBELL WAFBUR TEL NU:408 -295 -1423 AUSTEN D. WARBURTON WILLARD R. CAMPBELL ,IQHN R. FITZSIMMONS C. MICHAEL SMITH WILLIAM T. BROOKS RALPH E. MENDELL VIRGINIA TURNER NESS NICHOLAS PASTORE J. MICHAEL FITZSIMMONS WILLIAM R. COLUCCI JEFFREY C. PARK CAMPBELL. WARBURTON. BRITTON, FITZSIMMONS i SMITH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORN =YS AT LAW TWELFTH FLOOR. SANK OF AMERICA BUILDING 101 PARK CENTER PLAZA 5AN JO5E, CALIFORNIA 9RII3 $853 September 16,..2991 4223 P02 MAILING ADORES$ POST OPPICG BOX 1667 SAN JOSC, CALIFORNIA 1i51O0 AREA CODE *Oa TELEPHONE 205-7701 TELECOp1 5 14 3 FRANK V. CAMPBELL II002 -10711 IrPANK L. CUTER wawa-ID6r) ALFRED B. 6RITTON, JR. (RETIRED) The Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Saratoga City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Agenda Item 6 B. for Council meeting of Sept. 18, 1991 (Policy Statement on Creekside Trails for open Space and Circulation Elements) Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I have had the opportunity to review the revised Policy resolution regarding Creekside trails and the map prepared by the planning staff reflecting the portions of Wildcat and Saratoga Creeks that would be protected by the policy. I have another meeting that evening that will prevent my attending the meeting until 10:00 p.m. or so, and so I wished to express my support of this revised policy by this letter and commend it to your adoption. I also wish to express my thanks for the careful consideration given by the council to this item at its last meeting and to the help of the planning department staff in developing language that took into account the concerns of all elements of the community. WTB:wtb cc: Michael Riback Yours truly, WILLIAM T. BROOKS TO: FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director DATE: September 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommended Revisions to the Residential Design Standards Overview: After conducting numerous hearings and workshops attended by interested members of the public, the Planning Commission has prepared a recommended ordinance revising a cross- section of development regulations pertaining to single family residential construction. Background': W (.0 13777 FRUITVAL E AVENUE- SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 7 (408)-867 -3438 Mayor and City Council M E M -O R A N D U M In October, 1990, the City Council met in joint session with the Planning Commission to discuss methods to address issues relative to- `house size, compatibility and retention of neighborhood character. The Council reviewed several alternatives prepared by staff which included the following techniques: 1.- Rezoning smaller lot neighborhoods to limit future construction to one- story. 2. Establish a process by which individual neighborhoods would indicate compatibility objectives. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Define compatibility standards to remove Planning Commission subjectivity when considering residential proposals for new construction_and additions. Re- evaluate the City's design standards such as house size, setbacks, building height and slope density in response to growing trends to overbuild both on vacant land and within established neighborhoods. 5. Evaluate methods to reduce the mass and bulk of new construction by considering building height when calculating building size. The Council favored technique #4 which called for an update to current development standards. The Council also felt that the techniques described to reduce building mass as a function of height warranted further consideration. As a result, the City Council provided the Planning Commission with the following directions: 1. House Size A minor reduction in house size is acceptable. Consider reducing house size as a function of building height. Go to a volume approach. 2. Setbacks Deal with only R -1- 40,000 and above plus extra setbacks for homes above 18 ft. in height. 3. Proceed with the concept to reduce building volume but care should be exercised to avoid an overly restrictive standard. The goal is to provide an incentive for one -story construction over two -story construction. 4. Viewsheds Pursue defining ridges by mapping visually prominent areas and to develop a criteria to minimize view impact. 5. Grading Proceed as recommended by staff to reduce the permit threshold to gain additional control over grading proposals. 6. Clustering Proceed as recommended by staff to allow smaller lot sizes when open space is dedicated to the City. 7. Impervious Coverage Adjust coverage percentages to reflect the exclusion of driveways from the coverage calculation. 8. Slope Density and Lot Size Revise the ordinance to equate lot size to the average slope of the lot being created. 9. Design Review Give the Planning Commission more leeway in determining style and architecture. After the Council provided its direction, the staff set out to complete a draft ordinance for presentation to the Planning Commission. Also, at Council direction, staff proceeded with the ordinance in advance of completing the ridge line mapping and viewshed protection criteria as the ordinance changes were a higher Council priority. Staff referred to Council direction in preparing a comprehensive ordinance for discussion by the public and the Planning Commission. While the draft ordinance addressed Council direction, staff also developed some additional concepts and proposals to submit for Planning Commission consideration. Staff's initial proposed ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission in April, 1991 at a public workshop attended by numerous individuals concerned about additional building restrictions. Many who addressed the Planning Commission in response to staff's proposals questioned the necessity to strengthen the City's development criteria when the existing ordinances were adequate to address inappropriate construction. The Planning Commission also conferred with the City Council as it proceeded through the public's review of the proposed changes. The Council again restated its initial direction to the Planning Commission requesting examination of moderate changes to the ordinance but also enabled the Planning Commission to explore other areas perhaps not anticipated or contemplated by the Council. The Council acknowledged that the Planning Commission might arrive at a creative method to address our compatibility concerns throughout the City. In completing its recommended ordinance, the Planning Commission agreed that a general relaxation of staff's initial proposal was warranted, and decided to retain certain standards found in the existing ordinance. The Commission's end product represents a compilation of input from a variety of sources including: 1. Hillside property owners 2. Real Estate representatives 3. Developers 4. Architects, Designers and Engineers 5. Concerned homeowners and association representatives In general, the Planning Commission attempted, whenever possible, to incorporate the concerns of the public without compromising the Commission's goal to adopt a regulatory solution to our compatibility program. Several architects, designers and builders provided pictorial examples of the effect of contemplated changes as well as examples of well designed (and not so well designed) homes in and around Saratoga. The Planning Commission used this information along with staff recommendations to arrive at its finished version of the draft new before the City Council. Summary of the Recommended Ordinance The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission proposed modification to all the single family zone districts. Namely, these districts are R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500, R -1- 15,000, R -1- 20,000, R -1- 40,000, HC -RD, NHR and the Agricultural zones. In an attempt to clarify for Council the nature of changes proposed, staff provides the following summary: Definitions Ordinance Sections 1 2 The sections modify the zoning definitions of building height. The existing ordinance measures building height from natural or finished grade even if the finished grade is lower than the natural grade. The Planning Commission determined that by measuring height from finished grade when it was lower than the natural grade was a disincentive for homeowners to set homes into topography. The Planning Commission revised the ordinance to measure building height from natural grade when the home is excavated into the topography. The definitions also clarify that an excavated basement entirely below grade is not considered to be a story. This has been the Commission's practice; the existing definition of story is ambiguous on this issue. Agricultural Zone District Sections 3 -7 Subdivision of Sites Section 3 The determination of density shown in the table in Section 3 is based on the City's existing slope density formula for the Agricultural Districts. This density ranges from 5 acres for lots less than 10% average slope to 20 acres for lots exceeding 35% slope. The parcel being subdivided must correspond to the average slope listed in the table. Site Coverage Section 4 The maximum allowable impervious coverage has been reduced from 15,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. This reduction is proportional to the exclusion of driveways from coverage calculations. Yard Setbacks Section 5 The specified setbacks for front, side and rear yards remain as found in the existing ordinance, 30 ft., 20 ft. and 50/60 ft. respectively. However, the proposed amendment adds regulations requiring setbacks to be proportional to lot dimensions. For the Agricultural District, front yards are 20% of lot depth, side yards are 10% of lot width and rear yards are 25% of lot. depth. The standard that results in the greater setback will always apply. Grading Section 6 Grading is proposed to be limited to 1,000 cubic yards of total earth movement. The Planning Commission has applied the 1,000 cubic yard limitation as a matter of practice when evaluating 4 proposed construction. The Planning Commission also recognized that exceeding this grading limit can produce less obtrusive design. Therefore, the Planning Commission also established an exception process rather than a variance to exceed the 1,000 cubic yard requirement when certain findings are present. R -1- Zone Districts Sections 7 -8 Site Coverage Section 7 Similar to the Agricultural Zone amendment, site coverage percentages are proposed to be reduced to compensate for the exemption of driveways from coverage calculations. The following table represents the changes for each zone district. Yard Setbacks Section 8 Existing R -1- 10,000 60% R -1- 12,500 55% R -1- 15,000 50% R -1- 20,000 45% R -1- 40,000 35% Proposed 45% 45% 40% 35% 30% The yard requirements for all R -1 zone districts remain the same with two exceptions: 1) proportional setbacks; and 2) corner lot standards. Proportional setbacks for R -1 districts are 20% of lot depth for front yards, 10% of lot width for side yards and 25% of lot depth for rear yards. The corner lot setbacks have proven especially problematic for the Planning Commission in that the street side yard of 25 feet is overly restrictive and the rear yard of 10 feet is too liberal. The Planning Commission recommends that the street side yard be reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet and the rear yard be increased from 10 to 25 feet for the R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 zones, and a street side yard of 20 feet for the R -1- 20,000 zone. HC -RD Zone Section 9 -15 Permitted Uses Section 9 A new permitted uses, public parks, trails and public open space is added to allow the City to accept and maintain land acquired through the issuance of a clustering permit. 5 Conditional Uses Section 10 A new conditional use, clustered development is added to implement the Planning Commission recommendation that cluster development be allowed in the hillsides. Grading Section 11 As discussed above, the Planning Commission recommends institutionalizing the 1,000 cubic yard limitation on total grading of a site. Again, the Planning Commission recognizes the potential benefits of exceeding this limit when the design of the structure is improved. Subdivision of Sites Clustering Sections 12 13 The range in lot size is consistent with the City's existing slope density standard. The HC -RD density ranges from a 2 acre minimum for a flat lot to a 10 acre minimum for a lot at 50% average slope or greater. As stated above, the lot size is correlated to the slope of the lot being created. This section also introduces the clustering concept to the HC -RD zone. Clustered development would be allowed through the Planning Commission's issuance of a conditional use permit subject to the criteria listed in Subsection (C) (1 -9). Clustered lots may be a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. in area. The number of lots will be determined by application of the existing slope density formula. Site Coverage Section 14 Again, the impervious coverage for the HC -RD zone is reduced from 15,000 square feet to 12,000 in compensation for the exclusion of driveways from the coverage calculation. Yard Setbacks Section 15 Similar to the above discussion, HC -RD setbacks remain the same with the exception of the addition of proportional setback. Front yards are 20% of lot depth; side yards are 10% of lot width; and rear yards are 25% of lot depth. In all cases, the most restrictive setback would apply. NHR Zone Sections 16 -22 Permitted Uses Section 16 A new permitted use, public parks, trails and open space is added to enable the City to accept offers of dedication when clustered development is proposed. 6 Y Conditional Uses Section 17 A new conditional use clustered development is added to implement the Planning Commission recommendation that cluster development be allowed in hillside zones. Grading Section 18 The NHR zone contains the same provision as discussed above which limits grading to 1,000 cubic yards of total earth movement. This section also contains the same exception process which allows grading to be exceeded when the design of the structure is improved. Subdivision of Sites Clustering Sections 19 20 The same clustering process discussed above in the HC -RD zone is included in the NHR zone. The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit for clustered development when the requirements listed in subsection (C)(1 -9) are present. The minimum lot size is 20,000 sq. ft. The density is determined through application of the existing slope density formula. Site Coverage Section 21 The NHR zone contains the same impervious coverage reduction discussed in the previous zone districts. Yard Setbacks Section 22 The NHR zone contains the same proportional setbacks discussed above in the HC -RD zone. All other setback standards remain the same. Design Review Sections 23 26 The greatest area of change is in the Design Review section of the proposed ordinance. Floor area ratios, house size limits, slope deductions and height adjustments are addressed in these sections. The Council should note that these changes precipitated the greatest amount of attention from the public during the Commission's review. Allowable Floor Area and Height Reduction Section 23 The Council should notice that the calculation of floor area is the product of two variables: 1) Lot size; and 2) Average slope. The average slope of parcel determines the amount of lot area to be deducted for purposes of calculating allowable floor area. The Council should note: The formula for calculating the slope 7 adjustment or the ratio of floor are to lot size does not change from the existing ordinance. The significant change is that the existing floor area ratio has been extrapolated to a maximum allowable floor area of 7,200 square feet. This action results in the reduction of house size for lots larger than 40,000 square feet only. The following table illustrates the effect of this change: Lot Size 229,031 sq. ft. 30% Slope 128,634 sq. ft. 30% Slope 186,528 sq. ft. 30% Slope 201,115 sq. ft. 30% Slope 275,000 sq. ft. 30% 229,031 sq. ft. 30% Slope 128,634 sq. ft. 30% Slope 186,528 sq. ft. 30% Slope 201,115 sq. ft. 30% Slope 275,000 sq. ft. Existing House Size Proposed House Size 7,650 sq. ft. 6,360 sq. ft. 7,050 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. 8,040 sq. ft. 6,860 sq. ft. 700 sq. ft. 6,240 sq. ft. 700 sq. ft. 6,700 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 6,800 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. 6,950 sq. ft. 1,090 sq. ft. The floor areas listed above would be subject to further reduction if located in an R -1 zone district. The proposed ordinance includes a provision to reduce the allowable floor are by 2% for each foot of height exceed 18 feet. Given that the maximum building height in any residential zone is 26 feet the maximum deduction would be 16 The following table illustrates the effect of the height reduction on the above table: R -1 -Lot Size Floor Area 18' Allowable Allowable 6,860 sq. ft. 6,360 sq. ft. 7,050 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. 8,040 sq. ft. Floor Area 26' 5,762 sq. ft. 1,098 sq. ft. 5,342 sq. ft. 1,018 sq. ft. 5,922 sq. ft. 1,128 sq. ft. 6,048 sq. ft. 1,152 sq. ft. 6,753 sq. ft. 1,287 sq. ft. Increase Floor Area When Structures Abut Open Space Section 24 The current design review ordinance allows the Planning Commission to exceed the allowable floor area when lots abut open space. The Planning Commission is recommending the deletion of this provision as it contravenes the Commission's goal to protect the scenic quality of open space from large and obtrusive development. Increased Setbacks Section 25 The current ordinance requires one foot of additional setback for each foot of building height over 22 feet. The Planning Commission recommends that the setback be increased to require one foot of additional setback for each foot in building height exceeding 18 feet. Design Review Findings Section 26 The Planning Commission also re- evaluated the findings required to grant design review approval. The Planning Commission refined the language to reflect a broader concern for the compatibility and visual impact than just the immediate neighborhood. This change reflects the level of review that the Planning Commission is conducting in the course of evaluating design proposals. Variance Authority Section 27 The Planning Commission received testimony from the developers of a project in progress, San Marcos Heights. The developer expressed concern that the application of the new proportional setbacks would undermine the approved site development currently underway. Because grading of building sites was conducted pursuant to City approval, the developers would need to regrade the subdivision in order to comply with the new setback standard. On the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission included narrowly drawn language to exempt developments for which site development plans have been previously approved by the City. The language requires that substantial evidence exist in the record to demonstrate that the grading was an integral component of the City's decision to approve the project. Grading Section 28 The grading permit provisions are recommended to be modified to require permits at a lower threshold. Currently, the ordinance requires a permit when 50 cubic yards of earth is involved. The recommended ordinance lowers the requirement to 10 cubic yards and /or a change in grade of one foot or greater. 9 The Planning Commission also used this opportunity to revise the technical requirements listed in the grading section to conform with the newly drafted R -OS ordinance. Conclusion The Planning Commission spent considerable time in accepting public testimony regarding the proposed changes. While every effort was extended to all concerned residents, many who participated categorically disagreed with any change to present codes. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, seek necessary clarification and move the following: 1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration. 2. Introduction of the Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Adgme tep 'en El-lie Planning Director Attachments: SE /dsc 1. Planning Commission Recommended Ordinance 2. Resolution No. AZO -91 -001 3. Draft Negative Declaration 4. City Manager Memorandum to Planning Commission (including Council minutes 10/30/90) 5. Planning Commission minutes 8/14/91 6. Director's memorandum 8/14/91 7. Correspondence 8. Articles related to clustering RESOLUTION NO. AZO •91 •001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 15 •11, 15 •12, 15 •13, 15 •14, 15 •45 146•15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO THE REVISIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA, AND GRADING SECTIONS FOR R •1 AND HILLSIDE ZONE DISTRICTS The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby as follows: Y Section 1: That the City Council directed on October 30, 1990 that the Planning Commission review certain sections of the City Code relating to the development of new single family residences as well as to the modification to existing residences in established neighborhoods; and Section 2: That the Planning Commission held numerous publicly noticed workshops to receive the input of concerned citizens relative to the fairness of proposed revisions to the and he City Section 3: That the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 14, 1991 to consider draft amendments to the City Code at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity heard; and Y to Section 4• That the Planning Commission determined that changes to the development standards including setbacks, site coverage, house size as a factor of building height, and the design review criteria are necessary to resources and to advance the Cit .s protect the City's scenic Plan goals; and Y progress in meeting General Section a1 That the Planning Commission has reviewed a draft Negative Declaration which concludes that the proposed amendments to the City Code will not have a significant environmental impact, and recommends that the City Council adopt this Negative Declaration; and Sec e 6 That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the zone amendments attached as Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga passed a on the 14th of August, 1991 by the following vote: day Resolution AZO -91 -001 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, FAVERO, FORBES, MORAN NONE TUCKER At/ALA! if Sec etary /to P1- ning Commission Planning Commission PROJECT DESCRIPTION NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 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, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following de- scribed project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Zone amendments to the Agricultural (A), Northwest Hillside Residential (NHR), Hillside Conservation Residential (HC -RD), R -1- 10,000, 12,500, 15,000, 20,000 and 40,000 zone districts to modify setback standards, lot coverage, lot sizes and density provisions for cluster development, zone amendments to the design review section to add provisions to reduce allowable floor area for all R -1 zone districts based on maximum building height; also included all revisions to the required design review findings, zone amendments to the grading provisions including permit requirements, and provisions for corrective grading. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 The proposed zone amendments are intended to reduce environmental impact by promoting greater compatibility with the natural environment. No proposed development is authorized by these amendments. Subsequent proposals for development would be subject to separate environmental review. Executed at Saratoga, California this 134 day of ,rtp.,,,,,,,,Gc,L, 1991. D recto of Planning Director's Authorized Staff Member Printed on recycled paper March 28, 1991 To: Planning Commission From: City Manager Subject: Revision of Property Development Standards, A, R -1, HCRD, NHR Zoning Districts 13777 FM:IT\'ALE \VE \UE SAR. \TOGA. CALIFORNIA 9 50070 (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: At its meeting of March 26, 1991, the City Council requested the Planning Commission to proceed as rapidly as possible to revise various development standards for subject zoning districts and to separate consideration of standards relating to ridgeline properties into a subsequent recommendation when the staff analy- sis of ridgeline areas is complete. In order to comply with the City Council's request, the Planning Director and I have discussed a tentative schedule to complete this assignment. Our proposed time table is listed below: April 5, 1991 Planning Director completes draft of proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. Copies sent to City Attor- ney, Planning Commission and City Council. April 10, 1991 Display ad announcing informal mark up session for the proposed ordinance published in the Saratoga News (deadline to submit ad, April 4, noon). Notices of mark up session sent to community groups mailing list. April 12, 1991 City Attorney completes review of staff draft revised as necessary to meet legal form and submits same to Planning Director. Ordinance available to the public. April 25, 1991 Planning Commission holds mark up session and receives opinions from the general public April 26 to May 3, 1991 Staff and City Attorney revise draft ordinance as modified on April 25. May 7, 1991 Planning Commission goes over revised draft and makes final changes. May 8, 1991 Notice of public hearing on proposed ordinance published (deadline to submit ad, May 2, noon). Notices mailed to community groups list and to all participants at the April 25 mark up session. <aren .4^Cerscn Martha C'e:'enger Wruern Kpn!er v c:or Monra rarC Sti :r"nn Printed or recycled paper Revision of Property Development Standards Page 2 March 28, 1991 May 22, 1991 Commission holds public hearing on proposed ordi- nance, makes final revisions and adopts recommended ordi- nance for hearing by the City Council. June 5, 1991 Notice of hearing published (deadline to submit ad, May 30, noon). Notices sent to community groups mailing list). June 19, 1991 City Council holds hearing on the ordinance. I recognize this is a rather tight time table and the Commission may wish to revise it as they see fit. However, I feel it is not unreasonable given the general agreement on the City Council regarding the specific changes to the zoning ordinance discussed by the City Council with the Commission on October 30, 1990. The areas of change would include: 1. slope density formulae 2. building footprint as a function of height 3. setbacks 4. coverage 5. grading Please refer to the attached minutes where these items were listed. arry Peacock, City Manager jm Attachment cc: City Council Manning Director City Council Minutes 2 October 30, 1990 basis is not supported. Discussion ensued on the process and use of the neighborhood character definitions. While this is a low priority item, there should be an effort to complete the three studies which have been started. The Compatibility Approach Look at what prevails within a 500 -foot radius. If most are second story, then it would be allowed; if not, then one story would be all that would be allowed. No support for this approach. The Stabilizing Approach Change development standards to stabilize existing neighborhoods and reduce impact of homes in hillside districts. On aggregate setbacks, concern was expressed that this might make most existing homes non- conforming, needing variance to do any further development such as an addition. Councilmember Monia suggested that ridge be better defined and comprehensively mapped and limits on dimensions be developed which minimizes impacts on homes on ridges or in areas of major viewshed. Discussed clustering proposal for NHR zone. All agreed it was a good concept which should be pursued. Grading regulation tightening was presented, including extending NHR standards to other districts. The Building Volume Approach Should be pursued, maybe instead of the square footage approach. Direction from the Council to the Commission 1) House size minor reduction OK go to a volume approach. Setbacks deal with only in R1- 40,000 and above, plus extra setback for homes above 18' in smaller lot districts. too restrictive but and discourage two map, etc.; develop Volume proceed with concept, maybe intention is to encourage one story story. Viewsheds pursue defining ridges, criteria to minimize view impact. 5) Grading proceed as recommended by staff. 6) Clustering proceed as recommended by staff. 7) Impervious surface coverage adjust only relating to excluding hillside driveways. 8) Slope and lot size proceed as recommended by staff. 9) Design compatibility give Commission more leeway in terms of style and architecture; keep Council informed of progress. 8. Rol• of Commission as it relates to acting on policy direction from Council 2) 3) 4) Vice Mayor Kohler cited miscommunication from Parks and Recreation Commission regarding Council's intention on Beauchamps Park. If Commission has a problem with understanding a council position it should feel free to contact the Council and discuss the Council policy. Councilmember Monia suggested there is enough going on in the area of planning that a joint meeting each quarter might be in order. ij PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared. Page 4 In response to Com. Caldwell's question regarding the stacks on Chimneys, Mr. Emslie stated they each serve a separate fire CALDWELL /FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ED 5 0 ce. DURKET /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -91 -020 WITH MODIFICATION TO THE CHIMNEY TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT AND HAV E SMALL SEPARATE CAPS, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Chr. Moran questioned the landsc ng and suggested a combination of 15 gallon trees with 24" b• trees installed in the back of the property. Com. Caldwell supp• ed Chr. Moran's suggestion. Com. Durket d Com. Bogosian had no objection to amending the motion. e above motion was approved adding that 15 gallon trees and box trees to be installed in the back of the property. P ed 6 -0. 7. CITY OF SARATOGA Proposed changes to City Code. The City of Saratoga is considering the following proposed changes to the City Code: 1. Establishment of new density standards for subdivisions in the NHR, HC -RD and Agricultural zones. 2. Establishment of a size limitation for homes located in the NHR and HC -RD zone districts. 3. Revisions to setback and coverage standards for all zones. 4. Establishment of revised clustering standards for new subdivision located in the HC -RD and NHR zones. 5. Establishment of floor area reduction factor based upon the maximum height of structure for homes located in the R -1 zone districts. 6. Revisions to the grading standards including lowering the threshold for which a permit is required. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Emslie presented the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 14, 1991. He stated the item before the Planning Commission is the consideration of a recommendation to the City Council to amend sections of the Residential Zoning Ordinance concerning lot sizes, subdivision, e PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 Page 5 clustering of sites, design review regulations, setback coverage and grading. Mr. Emslie informed the Commission, included in the staff report is a draft form of a Negative Declaration, a brief summary of some of the issues the Planning Commission has addressed and a summary of some of the issues surrounding dedication of land vs. the acceptance of an easement in terms of clustering and open space development. Mr. Emslie went on to review the major changes in the Ordinance as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Emslie noted that he and the City Attorney had met with representatives of the San Marcos Heights Development who raised a question which had to do with the affects of the revised setback standards as it affects the San Marcos Heights Development. The City Attorney suggested a grandfathering clause be added to the variance section of the Ordinance. The purpose of the clause would be to acknowledge the amount of work already done in approving a development. This work would be carried from the Tentative Map and the Grading Permit to the setbacks in subsequent building permits. Keeping in mind the different permits operate under different ordinances. Com. Bogosian questioned if this clause would only relate to already approved building pads? The City Attorney said it would and in order to determine this the staff would look back through the history of the Tentative Map. In response to Com. Forbes' question regarding pads being constructed according to a legal grading permit and the developer having to regrade, the City Attorney stated the developer would have to comply to the new Zoning Ordinance. She felt setbacks would be the biggest problem. Com. Favero suggested applying the clause on a case by case basis. The City Attorney stated the blanket clause would narrow this to an already approved Tentative Map as of the date of the Ordinance. Planning Director Emslie stated it is typical for a development in Saratoga to take years to build out a subdivision and it would be better to have the grandfathering clause. Com. Durket thanked Planning Director Emslie for the information on clustering. In response to Com. Caldwell's concern regarding site coverage in R1 districts, Mr. Emslie stated the maximum percent coverage, including necessary driveways is 55 He explained a single driveway is 16' wide and necessary to access the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 Page 6 Com. Caldwell suggested rewording the condition, making it clear that it is a driveway which is absolutely necessary to provide the vehicle access from the street to the enclosed parking. She also suggested in sub section (b) of Site coverage the wording be changed to reflect all main structures. Com. Caldwell noted, regarding Clustering of lots, section (6), that it was her understanding that a reduction in building height etc is allowed. Mr. Emslie stated he would check to see if this consistent. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Mr. Kirk Anderson, Architect, noted he had received a copy of the proposed Ordinance changes stating that his major concerns are with the setbacks. He expressed concern about no exceptions in the variance section of the Ordinance regarding setbacks. He suggested adding section (e) to S15- 13.090 to read "The Planning Commission may grant an exception to front, side or rear setbacks, given unusual site conditions such as topography, geological concerns, natural vegetation and /or pre- approved building pad sites in subdivisions approved with final maps recorded prior to the final acceptance of this Ordinance review." He noted this would give the Planning Commission another vehicle to examine on a one to one basis without additional cost to the applicant. He stated this exception would eliminate some proposals for a variance. Mr. Bill Heist, Civil Engineer stated that in addition to the final recorded map, an approved Tentative Map should be considered also. Under the Grading, he feels the 1000 cubic yards should not include a pool. He stated there should be no maximum floor area in the R1- 40, HCRD and NHR districts. He noted there are other regulations to ensure an acceptable project. Regarding the floor area reduction for height, he would like to see the R1 -40 hillside lots excluded. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Scott Design Associates, stated he did not agree with the formula for determining floor area. He suggested the floor area be determined on the basis of uniform building code and adjust the size accordingly if it affects the bulk. Mr. Bob Swanky expressed concern about who is the "City of Saratoga" when changing the Ordinance. He did not support the building height restrictions. Mr. Eric Morley, representing the Board of Realtors, stated the Board has concerns regarding the 7,200 s.f. maximum and requested this be removed from the Ordinance. He also expressed concern regarding house size reduction based on height. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Safaria, 21757 Congress Hall Ln., noted his lot is a triangle shape and requested the front and rear setbacks be combined so as to build a house in an appropriate location. Mr. Kirk Anderson concurred with Mr. Safaria noting that combined setbacks would allow more flexibility. Mr. John DeMato stated that property owners and citizens in the City have not be properly notified and staff should consider notifying all property owners in Saratoga regarding this issue. Mr. Clay Thomas, Saratoga, stated he had not been notified of the change, he expressed concern about the zoning changes. Mr. Gerry Huston, Saratoga, stated he had not been notified. He feels many homeowners have not been informed and this zoning change affects homeowners of Saratoga. Mr. Eric Morley stated the Board of Realtors represents the homeowner. He stated the Board is concerned about preserving the residential character of the Community. In response to Com. Durket's question Mr. Morley stated his clients are informed by newsletters and communications with clients to inform them of this process. Mr. Kirk Anderson stated he is concerned about the quality of life in Saratoga. Ms. Marie Gaspar, Realtor, stated this process will cause many problems for people trying to sell property in Saratoga. She also noted that developers are not building in Saratoga because of strict regulations. FORBES /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6 -0 In response to Com. Favero's concerns Com. Caldwell noted residents of Saratoga spoke at previous hearings in favor of this Ordinance. Com. Durket requested a change in Page 3 of the Ordinance, Section S15- 11.080 (b) "maximum height of any main or accessory structure..." to "...maximum height of all main and accessory structures... this change should be incorporated throughout the document. Com. Durket stated that 18' should be the cut off for one story and requested a change on Page 15 to reflect having no reduction until 18'1 He noted he would like to adopt part of Mr. Anderson's language to read "The Planning Commission may grant an exception to front, side or rear setbacks when there has been prior Planning Commission approval of building pad sites and subdivisions approved with Tentative and Final Maps recorded prior to adoption PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 Page 8 of this Ordinance This language should be in the variance section. Com. Bogosian stated the height limit should start at 18' 1" and would support the amendment to that affect. Regarding the grandfathering clause he would like the language wrote in a legal memo for review. Com. Caldwell concurred with Com. Durket she supported his suggestion, to be written in the variance section. She noted exceptions would only be granted for those subdivisions in which building site locations are an issue. Planning Director Emslie stated there has to be substantial evidence before an exception is granted. The City Attorney explained the issuance of a Grading Permit. Planning Director Emslie stated that the grading of a subdivision needs to be done on a comprehensive basis which staff will address. In response to this Com. Caldwell stated this would be her recommendation, to include this criteria in any exception that is drafted. She stated obtaining a legal memo may hold up the process. Mr. Emslie stated there would be appropriate time to review a legal memo. Commissioner Caldwell continued her changes to the Ordinance. Page 3, add a third finding to read "The exception will not result in the removal of any protected tree as described in Section 15.50- 050" She stated the purpose of this exception is because it would be unacceptable to allow an applicant to exceed the allowable impervious coverage threshold by way of the exception process. She feels an applicant should be encouraged to work around an ordinance tree. She would also like to see this repeated in the site coverage sections. In response to Com. Caldwell's question Mr. Emslie stated the clustering and ROS would be identical. Com. Favero spoke in support of Com. Caldwell's third exception. Mr. Emslie stated Com. Caldwell's suggestive third language is similar to the grading findings. Com. Bogosian stated he would like to see specific language rather than general. Com. Durket stated there may be a problem when trying to get an PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 Page 9 exception into the site coverage that will not result in the detriment to natural land forms and vegetation. Com. Favero would like specifics as to environmental impact. Com. Caldwell would like to see a specific exception that no ordinance tree be removed. Chr. Moran stated she was not in support of the third finding. She stated she would like to be able to consider site coverage independent of an ordinance tree. She noted she would have no objection to preserving and protecting the natural vegetation. Com. Favero stated the Planning Commission should be encouraging one- story, therefore not be too restrictive when considering site coverage. He noted he would like to see Com. Caldwell's proposal be incorporated in the Ordinance. Mr. Emslie stated Com. Caldwell's proposal does not differ from ancillary coverage. Com. Forbes suggested language such as "it is prohibited to unduly manipulate the environment Chr. Moran stated the Planning Commission has the ability to ensure site coverage exceptions are sensitive to the vegetation. Com. Durket stated consideration for the removal of an Ordinance size tree does not mean an exception has to be granted. He feels it is an important issue, but not a finding. The City Attorney agreed with Com. Durket. Com. Caldwell stated she would like a third finding to address the environment in general terms and would like staff to write this finding. Com. Bogosian stated she would like to see some specifics in the third finding. Com. Favero concurred. Com. Caldwell addressed Maximum building height. She stated under 18'1" should be deleted and feels anything above 22' should be dealt with differently with regards to floor area reduction. She suggested increasing the percentage for penalty when exceeding the 18' height limit. Commissioners Caldwell and Favero felt the percentage should be higher when exceeding 22 ft. to discourage height. Both Commissioners felt the numbers are not adequate to reach the goals of the Planning Commission and suggested 4% and 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 14, 1991 Page 10 After much discussion relating to the penalty figures it was agreed by Commissioner that 2% plus 2% in all zoning districts would be acceptable. In response to Chr. Moran's question regarding setbacks, Mr. Emslie stated it is staff's intent to increase second story setbacks. Com. Favero addressed the grading with regards to the 1000 cubic yards which include a swimming pool. Mr. Emslie stated a typical pool is 150 -200 cubic yards. Com. Favero felt this is a significant percentage of the total cubic yards and asked if the amount of cubic yards for grading should be reduced? In response to Chr. Moran's question Mr. Emslie stated the 1000 cu yds often excludes the pool. He noted including the pool is a means of tightening up the rules. Chr. Moran suggested changing the figure to 1200 cu. yds. to include pools. Com. Caldwell spoke in support of staff recommendation of 1000 cu. yds. Com. Favero also spoke in support of staff recommendation. Floor area was discussed. Planning Director Emslie stated the formulas used will stay as is. Regarding design review Chr. Moran stated in larger homes it is more difficult to make the findings on mass and bulk. CALDWELL /FORBES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AZ -91 -001 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: PAGE 9 (B) TO READ °...WHEN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ALL OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE SITE..." THIS IS. TO APPLY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT; NO DEDUCTION UNTIL HEIGHT IS OVER 18'1" AND THAT IS 2% PLUS 2% FOR EACH FOOT OVER 18' UP TO THE MAXIMUM OF 26' FOR ALL ZONES; PAGE 8 DEFINE CLUSTERING TO ENSURE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH ROS; DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE THE LANGUAGE FOR THE GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE WITH RESPECT TO SETBACKS AND ALSO STAFF TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE FOR A THIRD FINDING IN THE SITE COVERAGE SECTION WHICH COVERS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. PASSED 6 -0 The Commission took a break at 10:15 p.m. The meeting readjourned at 10:26 p.m. Commissioner Durket did not return after the break. Printed on recycled paper. M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN EMSLIE, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: 8/14/91 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: SUBJECT: DEDICATION VS. EASEMENT IN THE APPROVAL OF CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman OUESTION: What are the pros and cons of the City's desire to require dedication of open space in approving cluster development? BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission asked staff to prepare a written analysis of the issues surrounding acceptance of the dedication of open space as a condition of approval for cluster development. This memorandum will identify the substantive issues common to an open space discussion as well as provide a response based on the current draft clustering provisions. In October of 1990, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission investigate modifying the Hillside Zone Districts, NHR and HC -RD to include meaningful clustering provisions to enhance the City's open space system. The Planning Commission first addressed the clustering issue when refining the draft R -OS Zone. Concurrently, the Planning Department transplanted the refined R- OS clustering provisions in completing its initial draft of the zone changes to the residential development and design review standards. ISSUE: The major criticism of a clustering program is that it only delays the inevitable development of lands ostensibly preserved as open space. RESPONSE: While the merits of a clustering program is widely accepted as a viable means to ensure preservation of the maximum. amounts of open space, there is varying degrees of skepticism regarding the potential abuse of the concept to evade city density H requirements. The concern is that once lots are clustered and open space is provided, it may only be a matter of time until the remaining open space is developed resulting in twice the anticipated density. Without adequate controls incorporated into the cluster program, Staff believes that this concern is valid. The maximum control of land that the City can assert is over land which is owned in fee by the City. Land that is acquired in the public's interest is committed to serve a community benefit. It is also implied that an easement acquired in public interest serves a community need. However, easements are often acquired for specified purposes such as for utilities, access or preservation of slopes. In short, an easement is often narrow and restricts use to specific purposes. However, ownership of a fee interest is broad and enables the City'.wide discretion in defining uses after the interest is acquired. ISSUE: The acquisition of a fee interest places an additional liability on the City. RESPONSE: With ownership includes assumption of liability. Invitation of the public to use public land assumes a responsibility to maintain a adequate degree of safety. Whether the city's interest is through an easement or by a fee title does not necessarily diminish the assumption of liability. ISSUE: The acquisition of a fee interest rather than easement will reduce the minimum lot size. If the City acquires an easement the underlying fee interest would be retained by the lot owner. Thus, the lot area would include the easement in calculating the total lot size for purposes of defining density under the Subdivision Map Act. RESPONSE: The clustering provision proposed in the draft ordinance allows lot size to be reduced to a minimum of 20,000 square feet provided that the overall density of the project does not exceed the density prescribed by the slope density regulations. The allowance for the reduction of lot size is necessary to enable the City to acquire a fee interest. Concerns regarding possible inconsistency with the density are addressed by the clustering provisions in so far as the number of dwelling units are limited to no more than those allowed by the slope density formula irrespective of the size and configuration of lots within the development. ISSUE: Are there other mechanisms available other than a acquiring a fee interest or an easement to the City to accomplish its goal of open space preservation? RESPONSE: Another means to preserve open space while at the same time allowing limited development is a concept known as "transfer of development rights This concept is used by some agencies to insure that land is protected from development by acquiring the development rights in exchange for allowing limited development or use on or off -site. The concept is most feasible where the property being acquired retains some economic value if development does not occur. For example, the concept works well in east coast communities where open space is often viable agricultural land. The development potential of producing agricultural land represents only a portion of the total land value for which the owner is compensated. In this way, owners of agricultural land are economically encouraged to maintain their open space use; and the agency acquires open space at less than market value. In the Bay Area market, however, the development potential represents the total land value. Because there are virtually few open space parcels that have viable uses that do not include development, there is no incentive to the owner to accept less that fair market value in exchange for the development potential. ISSUES: A property owner may be reluctant to agree to the City's acquisition of a fee interest when such action will provide the City with broad power to determine future public use of the land which may be in conflict with the owner's objectives. RESPONSE: The proposed clustering provisions allow the City to stipulate its intended purpose for using the land. It is anticipated that a variety of uses ranging from passive land preserved for its scenic value to active recreational trails may be needed in order to advance General Plan goals. Therefore, the approval process will include prior agreement as to the City's intended uses to allay possible concern of the property owner. CONCLUSION: The City's acquisition of a fee interest establishes the City in the optimal position to preserve open space. While open space dedicated to the City cannot be categorically ensured of preservation, staff feels that the retention of a fee interest is the nearest to an absolute guarantee of preservation. From a colloquial perspective, staff paraphrases a famous American humorist: "Buy land. They're not making any more of it!" 4 Em Planning Director JAI H JENNINGS McDERMOTT HEISS, INC. SUITE 3111 (408) 286 -4555 950 S. BASCOM AVENUE SAN JOSE, CA 95128 Civil Engineering City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn.: Planning Commission Honorable Commission: Land Planning June 27, 1991 .41 Land Surveying The City staff was kind enough to provide our office with a copy of the latest design review proposals to be considered by the Commission. I commend the staff for the latest version which seems to respond to many of the concerns raised during the previous work shops. It must be recognized that in all negotiations and subsequent compromises, it is difficult to please everyone. Most compromises result in every one having to give a bit and, as such, not being fully happy with the results. This document generally seems to provide a reasonable middle ground. Having said that, I would still like to offer four comments regarding the document for your consideration. I note that the height penalty found in Section 15- 45.030g applies to the R -1 district. This would still penalize lots in the hill side areas of the R -1 :40,000 districts. The R -1 :40,000 district is not necessarily a hill side district, but there are many lots in this zoning district which are categorized as hill side lots i.e. over 10% slope. I specifically point to Mr. John DiManto's approved Tentative Map on Madrone Hill Road. Two of Mr. DiManto's five lots are in the R- 1:40,000 district. They have slopes in excess of 30 are 3 to 5 acres in size and are totally hidden by mature vegetation. It seems inappropriate to burden these lots with an additional height penalty considering their size and location. I would suggest one modification to the present proposal and that is to exclude all hill side lots from the height penalty. This would seem to work in the intent of this particular section. My second comment deals with the general grading language. It still appears to me that subparagraphs b, c, d e should be goals rather than findings. I do not see any mention in the present document regarding elimination of daylight basement from the height computation. The ability to notch or excavate into the ground in order to set the building lower, is certainly desirable, but the present ordinance does not lend itself to this type of construction. The grading statement would seem to encourage it, but there is no other language that would support this proposal. I believe some of the Commissioners indicated a desire to take advantage of this type of construction which is an excellent design technique in the hill side. My other comment deals with the front yard set back proposed in the hill side districts. As I commented earlier, in many cases it is desirable to place a home as close to the road as possible to minimize grading, driveway, retaining walls, etc. I recognize the goal to set the homes back as far as possible for visibility consideration but this must be off set against the physical constraints of the lots. I would suggest one minor addition to the set back criteria for front yards. I am enclosing an excerpt from the Town of Los Gatos ordinance which allows a 50% reduction when certain slope conditions exist in the front yard area. I believe this would provide sufficient variation to meet both your intent and to accommodate topographic constraints. My final comment deals with house sizes in the hill side areas. I recognize the Commissions desire to reduce house size in an effort to control the appearance and visibility of homes. It does not seem fair, however, to treat all lots the same when there are many different situations. Specifically, I reference lots which by their very nature are screened from view. We have worked on many project where there are lots that have natural screening either by topography or existing mature vegetation which minimizes their visibility. Would the Commission consider treating these lots some what differently and allowing a bonus over the present restrictions. I find this situation particularly unfair for the vary large lots. For a hill side lot with a 30% slope, you have a situation where for every additional acre of land added to the lots size would only permit an additional 90 square feet of house based on 5 square feet per 1,000 square feet of net lot. Under the existing ordinance, which allowed 30 square feet per thousand square feet of lot area, an acre which would translate to 540 square feet. It would seem reasonable for those lots that have sufficient natural screening to restrict their visibility that they be allowed the previous footage of at least 30 square feet per 1,000. It just doesn't seem fair to treat visible lots and lots with limited visibility the same since that seems to be the motivation for the total reduction process. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, William Heiss JENNINGS McDERMOTT HEISS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING cluif June 25, 1991 Stephen A. Emslie Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408/867 -3438 Steve: RWG:nw PARAGON URBAN DESIG\ PLAN \I \G Many thanks for arranging the meeting with Mrs. Moran today. I believe that the time spent was very informative, productive and well worthwhile. As a citizen of Saratoga since 1972, my interest in these proposals is from more than a professional point of view. The following is my summary of the meetings high points: Consideration for an early -on review committee that could review conceptual sketches for City Goals compliance and direction. Important that any such body's decision be respected and not second guessed at the final stages of approval. Consideration for height limit to be a parallel plane 26' above natural grade. This method would eliminate subjective and argumentive determinations of building height. Consider allowing increased grading under homes to reduce height of retaining walls surrounding daylite basements. Consider allowing some percentage of roofs to exceed 26', possibly by having total average height be somewhere below 26'. The end result could produce lower overall profiles. Consider a greater incentive for building below 18' on R -1 lots rather than a disincentive for building two story. Two stories occur for more reasons than preserving existing yard improvements; i.e.: Views and costs. The current regulations seems to be creating a great deal of sameness in the recent construction and the proposals would perpetuate more sameness. Preserving the character of Saratoga is the basis of these regulations and yet under the existing and proposed regulations it would be very difficult if not impossible to build what we are intending to preserve. Thanks again for meeting with us and we look forward to presenting our 20 minute presentation on July 2nd. PARAGON DESIGN GROUP, INC. 405 Alberto Way, Suite D Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 358 -3707 FAX: (408) 356-1969 MEMBER A.I.B.D. MEMBER B.I.A. r 1 l JMH JENNINGS McDERMOTT HEISS, INC. SUITE 3111 (408) 286 -4555 950 S. BASCOM AVENUE SAN JOSE, CA 95128 Civil Engineering City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Attn.: Steven Emslie Planning Director Dear Steve: Land Planning May 2, 1991 Land Surveying As suggested by the Planning Commission at their April 10th Work Shop, I would like to offer a series of comments regarding the proposed amendments to the zoning code. During the meeting, I did make a few oral statements and feel that a written response would be in keeping with the Commissions desire. For simplicity, I will like to follow the format of the ordinance revision for my com ments. The modifications to both the HCRD and NHR density requirements seem extremely severe. As I stated at the meeting, we examined two different projects presently in the planning stage and found it reduced them from 30S to 20S of their original density. This seems like an unnecessary restriction and almost constitutes a taking of the property. Since both of the properties are surrounded by existing development with all public services in place, it seems almost a case of spot zoning to utilize such a great restriction in density. Both of these Districts where established in response to citizen concerns and took into consideration geology and the environmental constraints of the hillside area. It does not seem appropriate to further reduce the density over that which resulted from the creation of these two districts in the original instance. The requirement that each hillside lot must be sized in conformance it's individual slope is a rather difficult one to achieve. I wonder whether any one in the planning department has ever taken a piece of property and attempted to accommodate this regulation. It requires many attempts at configuration of the lot in order to ultimately provide the particular size based on its slope. I am not say that it is impossible, but it is a rather difficult time consuming procedure. In it self, it seems to negate the desire to cluster which can be accomplished under the current ordinance rather simply with out requiring a clustering use permit. It seems to require an extra step in the design with no particular benefits. As long as the density is based on the slope criteria, clustering seems to be the logical way to develop hillside properties. I have a concern with the reduction in front yard setbacks for hillside lots. This would apply for the HCRD, NHR and R- 1:40,000 Districts. As a general rule, the street and home sites are usually in close proximity to one another in the hillside setting. This is logical in order to utilize the less sloping part of the property for the developed area which is certainly in harmony with the planning guide lines. To increase the front yard setback would move the house further from the street. This might be appropriate if there is sufficient level land to permit it. In many cases, however, this is not the situation and would require increased amounts of grading, driveways, retaining walls, etc. in order to achieve the adjusted setback. There are many lots approved in the hills with specific building sites noted that where based upon the existing front yard setbacks. The increase that is suggested could move a house outside the planned building envelope. I, therefore, fee! the front yard setback should be left as is. Revisions to the other setbacks would not present this problem. The limitation of 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill is a reasonable proposal providing there is some latitude. I find that Subparagraph (a) in Section 15- 11.160 provides the necessary latitude. It would seem appropriate, however, that (b), (c), (d) and (e) not be necessary findings but be guide lines for the grading design. The reduction in the house sizes proposed by the ordinance seem to be extremely severe. It some what surprised me that this modification is coining so soon after the previous studies which reduced house sizes using a slope penalty. It would seem that the City has not given the previous design review standards plus the implementation of the Residential Design Handbook sufficient time to be utilized and applied. It seems that the ordinances is treating the symptom rather than the disease. It doesn't necessarily follow that making a house smaller, it will result in less bulk or be less obtrusive in appearance. If the provisions of the residential handbook where applied more rigorously a better design would be achieved with out penalizing those individuals who desire a larger home. There are many lots in Saratoga which can very easily accept a larger home. I think it is important that the home be in scale to its setting and this has to be part of the design and not JENNINGS McDERMOTT HEISS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING necessarily be an artificial element created by limiting the size. There are many lots that are not visible which would be severally impacted by this proposal. I think, specifically, of Mr. DiManto's property on Madrone Hill Road where there are five very large lots which have very limited visibility from any where in the City. This proposal would limit the house size to 2,400 square feet which seems to be totally unrealistic. The key word again is good design, keeping homes in scale with there surroundings and considering of their overall visibility. Perhaps a point system could be developed taking into consideration such factors such as visibility, vegetation, retaining, grading, location and neighborhood structure. It would seem appropriate to add this type of criteria rather than limiting size. The same holds true for trying to limit the height of the home. I am no architect, but have been to enough meetings to recognize that variation in the roof height is what helps make a home look interesting and establishes its character. The City certainly doesn't want a series of flat tops or only rambling ranch style homes. This concept should be thought out much more thoroughly. It would be appropriate to bring architects into the procedure in order to establish additional criteria if that is what is needed to insure that designs meet the goals of the City as to appearance, visibility, etc. Again, limiting house size is an inappropriate vehicle to achieve this desire. Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts in the matter. I trust that there will be others who will be able to offer more specific recommendations requiring design procedures, etc. particularly as far as house style is concerned. Very truly yours, /5/' William Heiss JENNINGS McDERMOTT HEISS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. SI RE [T sm.b474_L, q ADDRESS J/Cr5-S Lii) /L o SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL, #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN-UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. fi SI NATURE SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) 767 4 e Ls bluS-77-7922- To: The Planning Commission City of Saratoga, CA Congress Hall Lane Saratoga, CA Subject: Proposed Design Review changes New Ordinances Dear Sir: It is very distressing to have a City Planning Commission which proposes changes to ordinances which would make them unfair, discriminatory and too restrictive. The purpose of the city ordinances, among other things, shall be to encourage building of structures which are structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing. The proposed changes do not achieve any of those goals. It is true that city shall have enough power to control the development of the city, but the proposed ordinances provide unnecessary power and controls to the city to a point that they are encroaching on the freedom of choice of the residences of NHR. The current ordinances allow enough, in fact TOO much, power and control to the city planning commission to control/ monitor the development of the structures. HEIGHT: When most cities are allowing dense development to have more area left open, the proposed reduction of height would cause most houses to be single story, thus, covering most of the lot, and hence reducing the open space around the houses. In fact the allowed maximum height shall be increased to encourage building of two story houses. SIZE: Decreasing the allowed maximum size of a house would decrease the possibility of developing elegant houses which will reduce the desirability of the SARATOGA area. This, in turn, will reduce the property value which in turn will reduce the TAX BASE for the city of Saratoga when most of the cities are trying their best to increase the tax base. Further, the new regulations are discriminatory to the current owners of the lots who have not build on those lots for reasons of their fmancial capability among others. ARC;HIIECrURAL REVIEW BOARD: As they say, if you want to stall something or make it difficult and hinder progress, have more review committees. Having one more review in the current review process is like the straw which breaks the camel back. Saratoga review process already takes too long. We must not introduce anymore reviews, especially when it is of no benefit to the owners. Owner usually employs an architect anyway. Planning Commision shall do the following: Instead of getting excitement by proposing new ordinances and adding to the pain of the property owners, I suggest that planning commission should do the following: o Reduce the design Review process time. o Make the design review process more predictable. o Relax the current ordinances. Allow more freedom to the owner in designing a house which will make the houses more elegant and safe. o Increase the allowed maximum height to 30 feet. SUMMARY Thus, we the responsible citizens of Saratoga, say: NO to proposed changes to the current ordinances. NO to any new ordinance. NO to any new Review Boards. KEEP or RELAX the current ordinances and make them more clear. INCREASE the maximum allowed height to 28 or 30 feet. Sincerely yours, Virender (Ravi) K. Luthra 2 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING. IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. 7 1- L d SIGNATURE PETITION i 770 ADDRESS e. F':✓ G4),_ S 0 e 1L-k Kaa c/k a, SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) Exc es-s t v t a-wd A i` c s 4 J e c „Pri`e, C u yr -e/v' 1. t iZ8 pct. r t i� u�� Li, iW •Ps ft t`c (J2.1 S ita 5 GtoC(1 e rS-e oac f e a')-1 cno p" r ne i 6 r r w a" a Y cites ti �c2s r e s u. f Mec( 'e u r- o b,E .ess T a„ 1141- L, e q h an e acre favrr lofts s rf'olk,.leu WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. 4 4J 4-4-& SIGNATURE 245153 PETITION SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. PETITION 1 5',1 5 I rc C' P\ DR-\ v\D Sips DU ll C',4 Z) ADDRESS SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. S I ATURE CC e-1 4‘1-J 4S- x 4L.75 *760 1 opt/ Cove T S ADDRESS %1 A1 7 1 940 ft SUBDIVISION SUBD ppropriate) CA 96v70 PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. 00eAri-el e A et- SIGNATURE 2153/ S27 /4L Q. ADDRESS 14-3i SUBDIVISION j appropr3ate) PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING: IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. SIGNATURE 1$ 1 CT-) i) ADDRESS SUBDIVISION (il(f appropriate) PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING.IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WEI PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION T6 "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. 2 SIGNATURE I S /tf )t a /G'6 j9 C ADDRESS SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) St C_-4 `1 2t, P 1 V(60 727 L/2-2— PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. SIGNAT RE 2/50 ..S/KA 709A /IP rd f ORS D :D (11 9-5-6-7° ADDRESS J /Jeri idf SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING. IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. PETITION 3 C9�L it A SU:DIVISION (if appropriate) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUINITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING: IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. A( S Q SIG URE (4mDTIA 40u0 yk, ADDRESS C occm PETITION SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITON ON MODIFYING THE CURRENT BUILDING ORDINANCE. PROPOSAL #3, PRESENTED BY THE SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE JUNE 4th STUDY SESSION AND SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS RESTRICTIVE, PUNITIVE AND DETRIMENTAL TOWARDS THE POSITIVE GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY. IT IMPINGES ON THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. WE SUPPORT PROPOSAL #1, "NO CHANGE AND ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO "TIGHTEN -UP" AND ADHERE TO THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. SIGNATURE PETITION la </4P4 4/71 ?our (cP /TA 124.0 /2 5'2 1/iv 1 ADDRESS SaAScr (1- raimc(1) SUBDIVISION (if appropriate) 3 0fTE" 9/ alviiei_44/ We E,I,,./4/-er ,4,Gotze_e;At Otlt, c /#171 27 &t _.,g,-_,/(1,4.7, g104 6 >z/le a_e6#244e_d wLe. ccteele 4g, C 7 %74, g ede_ 62 d6t-ii.v. Yie e-1 Y Y1-6;z, teef-a-c, City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attn.: Mr. Emslie Dear Mr. Emslie; Yes cc. City Council Saratoga, Oct. 23, 1990 The Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association has taken a poll of our neighborhood concerning two -story additions. We would like to convey to you the results of our ballot. Out of 383 homeowners 300 responded (78.3 The questions and the results are as follows: 1. Are you for or against a second story addition next to, across from, or behind your house? For Against N/A 76 (19 206 (53.7 18 2. Would you support one design review board representing the entire Saratoga Woods neighborhood? No N/A 225 55 20 Maybe's were treated as N/A (no answer). The ballot was tabulated by an independent organization Cooper, Collins, and Pors, Accountancy Company. Sincerely yours, Qtai SARATOGA WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. SCOTT DESIGN ASSOCIATES 14375 SARATOGA AVE. SUITE J SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867 -7447 Sinc 7/3/91 Commissioners, Last night's study session addressed quite a few of the issues previously expressed as complaints. I don't think it was clearly indicated that the information presented by Bob Schwenke, Rodger Griffin and myself, was based on meetings with members of the Design community, Steve Emslie and Commissioner Moran. Each of our presentations was based on input from the entire exchange of ideas. I am concerned about Commissioner Caldwell's perception that I thought staff was incompetent, inept, etc. I have enclosed a copy of the outline from my presentation, for clarity's sake. Perhaps the reference to lay- people determining acceptable design cast a derogatory light on staff. Ultimately staff reviews the project to determine compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff can neither approve or deny an application, so the decision rests with the "lay people" in accordance with the intent for creating a Planning Commission in the first place. Another commissioner indicated his dissatisfaction with lawyers and CPAs having review boards made up of members of the profession. Unfortunately most people can't even prepare a tax return, much less determine whether their accountant is interpreting an I.R.S. policy correctly. Is the goal to legislate or achieve the most desireable community? The planning commission could provide the input for design development at the early stages rather than an Architectural Review Board. Unfortunately our legal system hinders this option. On a personal note, I was a member of Saratoga's Building Department Staff from 1979 -1983. I am aware of the difficulties staff encounters. In addition many of the current staff members are friends, I have worked with for the last 13 years. If I felt that a staff member was Incompetent, I would take it up with them personally, not in an open forum study session. Scott M. Cunni4 ham OUTLINE FOR A.R.B. PRESENTATION SARATOGA ORDINANCE HEARING JULY 2, 1991 LAY PEOPLE AND THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS HISTORICAL ROOTS OTHER PROFESSIONS NOT SUBJECTED TO LAY PEOPLE REVIEW PAST CENTURY'S RESULTS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: IS IT A GOOD IDEA WHEN AT PRELIMINARY DESIGN STAGES PRIOR TO MAJOR EXPENSE FOR THE APPLICANT ALLOWS INPUT FROM STAFF EARLY ON AVOIDS LONG DELAYS AND CONFLICT HELPS DETERMINE BEST SITING OF STRUCTURE WHO SCOTT DESIGN ASSOCIATES 14375 SARATOGA AVE. SUITE J SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867 -7447 ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER A PLANNING COMMISSIONER A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER INPUT FROM CITY ENGINEER BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT SANITATION WATER WORKS CITY GEOLOGIST OTHER APPROPRIATE AGENCIES 7/1/91 PURPOSE WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO INCORPORATE CITY'S DESIGN POLICIES DEVELOP PARAMETERS FOR GRADING AND "BEST" SITE USAGE ADDRESS POTENTIAL PROBLEMS DEVELOPING THE SITE DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE BULK ENVELOPE FOR THE STRUCTURE ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING MASSING AND DETAIL EMPOWERED TO DEVELOP A DESIGN PROGRAM TO SUGGEST VARIATIONS TO THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIC TO A GIVEN SITE ENCOURAGE ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY TO REVIEW PROGRESS DRAWINGS AT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST PROVIDE A REPORT OUTLINING THE DESIGN PROCESS ON EACH PROJECT PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING ARTICLES RELATED TO CLUSTERING 4 Planning Septernber t990 Selling Cluster map A persuasive advocate has given new life to old arguments for compact development. Arendt makes his pitch in Bridgton, Maine (right). Below, three CRM scenarios for roadside development in the Connecticut River Valley. The typical layout produces a barren rest area (to left in middle drawing) and industrial park. The alternative screens the rest area from the road, sites buildings and parking on less than half the land, and keeps much of the former farm. By Ruth Eckdish Knack Existing conditions Conventional development At 1 ;i.r%.i: ......-Co 4r v .t{ x '1 luster development ranks right up there with citizen participation and in- clusionary zoning as a planning good. In 1968, William H. Whyte prophesied in The Last Landscape that cluster would soon become the dominant suburban residential form. Yet over the years, despite an almost universal recognition of its virtues, par- ticularly in preserving open space, compact residential development has had relatively little impact. Part of the reason is the association of clustering with high density apartment and condominium development. Recently, though, researchers at the Center for Rural Massachusetts in Amherst have taken what may be a more promising tack promoting cluster as an alternative form of single family development in exurban areas. In 1988, the center, part of the University of Massachusetts, published a design manual, Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley, that has caught the attention of plan- ners, citizens, and developers in New England and elsewhere in the country. Power of presentation The center's ideas have been vigorously publicized by both its founder, Robert Yaro, who is now with the Regional Plan Associa- tion in New York, and Randall Arendt, as- sociate director and a principal author of the design manual. (The other two col- laborators are landscape architects, Harry Dodson and Elizabeth Brabek.) For two years, Arendt has been traveling around the country with a two hour -long, two screen slide presentation on cluster— Creative development J or, to use the term he prefers, open -space development. Last year, on his own, he commissioned a one -hour video version. The slide show reproduces some of the design manual's widely praised graphics, the work of an illustrator named Kevin Wilson. (APA's Planners Bookstore stocks the manual, listed by its subtitle, Design Manual for Conservation and Development, for $32 and the video, Rural Design, for $100.) The manual and Arendt's slide show have both stirred audiences throughout the country with a simple but compelling message: "Checkerboard" subdivisions based on conventional zoning are monoto- nous and wasteful. In contrast, cluster layouts produce developments that are pleasanter, cheaper, and environmentally t Planning September 1990 sounder. Originally aimed at a New England au- dience, Arendt's pitch is virtually the same wherever he goes. In July, for instance, he spoke to an audience of planners, commis- sioners, and state officials in Greenville, North Carolina. He uses the double screen to make telling contrasts between tradi- tional New England villages (including the first, Plymouth Plantation) and the sprawl- ing subdivisions on their borders, and be- tween recent conventional and alternative (cluster) developments, such as the standard -issue Orchard Valley and its clus- ter counterpart, Echo Hill, in Amherst. When Orchard Valley was first proposed in 1964, the town turned down a creative cluster plan —which would have saved the orchard. But the zoning allowed conven- tional development, and that's what the de- veloper did." Echo Hill, built around the same time, is Arendt's star example of creative develop- ment. He notes that it took months of discussion with the planning board before the zoning bylaws were revised to make it possible. And what are the characteristics that make the compact towns special? For one thing, he says, setbacks are narrow ("Why have big front yards now that plastic flam- ingos are out of style and many of the roads are only 18 feet wide. Most impor- tant: The houses are organized around a commons or green, or other open space. Rather than allowing the entire parcel to be built on, the jurisdiction involved sets aside a large portion to forever remain wildlife a nik Contrasts are a staple of Arendt's slide show. Here's a conventional subdivision street in Cranbury, New Jersey (note the wide roadway and deep sethucks/, and below it, a 16- foot -wide street "a sweet little street") in Suffolk, Virginia. Above, Harry Dodson's plan fora 35 -home cluster on 18 acres in Amherst. Almost half the site is preserved as open space. habitat, farmland, or some other a propriate use. Anticipating questions ab( maintenance of the open space, Arendt eludes a slide of a Vermont developmL where neighbors voluntarily mow wed, of a commonly owned meadow. Want it to happen here? Then, sa Arendt, you must change your zoning la to make compact development mandate in certain areas. You must also requ. builders to submit two concept plans. '1 conventional one can be used to deternti how many units the existing zoning wot allow on the site. The other would show t cluster alternative, with houses only on t environmentally suitable portions of t land. "That's how to prevent develop( from sneaking in greater density," he sa The alternative, he adds, is to subscr: to the Vanna White school of planning: "Spin the wheel and hope that the next de- velopment will be better." To convince recalcitrant local officials, he suggests, show them a map like one done by the center for Hadley, Massachusetts. Red dots indicate where building is allowed by the zoning, which turns out to be just about everywhere. "People in Hadley call it the measles map. It showed them that their en- tire town was zoned for development.' The enemy is not the developer,' he says often, "but the pattern of development. You must change your planning to provide .a real framework for development, one that takes into account what makes each town special. The first step in creating that plan, he says, is to go down your streets with a tape measure, noting the curb -to -curb and door -to -door dimensions. "That will give you the pattern for new building.' Afterward, he's asked to defend the "economics of cluster" in eastern North Carolina. "You need comparables,' he says. "Then you analyze how much more people are willing to pay for a view or a greenway." In fact, a recent study published by the Cen- ter for Rural Massachusetts compared sales and resale prices for conventional and clus- ter developments in two communities. The conclusion: The cluster houses have ap- preciated at a significantly higher rate. (The study, by Jeff Lacy, is part of the center's monograph series and is available for $9.50, including postage, from CRM, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, Hills North, University of Massa- chusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.) Arendt dismisses the argument that man- datory cluster requirements constitute il- legal taking of property, noting there is no reduction in the number of buildable units. And where, he adds, does it say in the U.S. Constitution that developers have a right to create sprawl? Or, for that matter, to have parking in front of a commercial development? As part of his proposal for reclaiming ex- urban roadsides, Arendt would, in fact, re- quire all parking to be in the rear. Fast food restaurants and other roadside businesses would be clustered along service lanes, with relatively little arterial frontage. He models his ideas after famed regionalist Benton MacKaye's proposals for a "townless highway;" one not cluttered with town functions. Where it all comes from There's a picture in the slide show of little 7 Randall, age five, on the curb in front of his house on a tree -lined street in Cranford, New Jersey, where he lived as a child. "It was a traditional small town;' he says. which has since succumbed to suburban sprawl. Now he knows the cause: "They had zon- ing, but no vision of what they wanted to be Today, he says, "we're breeding a whole generation of children who don't know what a town is, or what the countryside is. His presentation includes a colorful com- munity plan, drawn by his young son, who obviously does know what a town is. "Every planning commission should have a 10- year -old on it, at least as an advisory member," says Arendt. Those memories of New Jersey towns as they used to be are obviously still a factor in his thinking. Even more significant is his experience in Great Britain, as a graduate student and later as a practicing planner. In 1968, in his senior year at Wesleyan Univer- sity, "for a lark," he applied for a scholar- ship to the University of Edinburgh, open to students of Scottish descent. British influence Applying first to the architecture depart- ment, he wound up in a new program geared for planners in developing coun- tries. Then, he and his wife spent two years in the Caribbean with the Peace Corps, after which he returned to Edinburgh for a degree in regional planning. From that he landed a job in England with the Norfolk County planning department, where he spent two years working on policies for guiding development. "I learned from that experience that plan- ning could be done better than it is in the U.S.," he says. "It proved to me that you can have growth and conservation, too." Nor- folk County is part of East Anglia, some 100 miles north of London, a region that has been growing steadily. Arendt's work in- volved looking at the costs and benefits of "dispersed" versus "concentrated" settle- ment patterns, the latter analogous to clus- ter. "Our report, which concluded that concentrated growth was more cost effective for the county, became the philosophical underpinning of its rural area planning policies. "Last spring, I went back for a visit and saw that the policies were being im- plemented, and that the villages were basi- cally unchanged:' When he was ready to return to the states, he limited his job search to rural areas. "I see them as having manageable problems, and I feel 1 can make a difference." For eight years, he was a planner for a regional pian- 8 Planning September 1990 ning commission in southern Maine. The still-rural region encompassed the coastal villages near Portland, popular second home destinations. As part of his job, Arendt wrote compre- hensive plans for several towns, often drawing up alternative plans to show developers that they could do better than their cookie cutter designs. In 1982, following the suggestions in a plan Arendt prepared, South Berwick became the first township in New England to adopt com- pulsory open -space (cluster) zoning. He also wrote what he thinks is the first growth management law in New England for Arundel. "Our town was ripe for plan- ning," recalls former planning commis- sioner Marian Wilson, "and Randy put a lot of himself into helping us. People were pouring in when we still didn't have the ser- vices to take care of them. He started us off right." Among his recommendations: Allow long driveways to count for road frontage as a way of avoiding a row of houses lining the main road. After eight years in Maine, Arendt became the director of the Lowell, Massa- chusetts, historic board "doing my hobby"), where he stayed until 1986 when Bob Yaro recruited him to work at the newly created Center for Rural Massachu- setts. The center is part of the College of Food and Natural Resources, which also houses the Department of Landscape Ar- chitecture and Regional Planning. There's also a connection with the cooperative extension service, whose aim, like the center's, is to translate theory into real -world practice. For the center, that means, in Arendt's words, "helping local jurisdictions come up with solutions that they can implement without an expensive consultant." Arendt was project manager and general editor of the design manual, which he describes as a way of "showing people very graphically what formal zoning and subdi- vision regulations would do to wonderful rural landscapes." The side -by -side views are the essence of the book, he believes. They capture the imagination of people who aren't professional planners or designers, and that's what you have to do if you're going to make a difference." For months now, he has been traveling the country, a veritable Johnny Appleseed of cluster. His reward comes when it's clear that somebody out there is listening. "I got a call this morning that made my day," he said recently. "It was from a guy named Tom Gambino in Cranbury, New Jersey, near Princeton, where I gave a slide presentation to the June town meeting. He said the com- munity has made a 180- degree turn in favor of cluster." Gambino said later that he had read about Arendt in Tony Hiss's article last year in The New Yorker. He then spent six months trying to drum up interest to bring him to town. "The public response to his slide show was excellent, but there was no reaction from the planning board. Then, last Thursday, a board subcommittee de- livered a report saying cluster was the best way to preserve the historic village core and to save the farmland in the western part of the town." Another Cranbury resident was quoted in the local paper as saying: "I loved that guy. His ideas are the only sensible thing Cranbury has seen in 20 years." This criticism hurts Arendt is hard on planners who promote conventional zoning —and those who train them. "Zoning is why this country looks the way it does," he says. "It's essentially a legal instrument to accomplish three objectives: development, development, and develop- ment." Planners, he adds, should be the ones pointing out what towns will actually look like if their present zoning is fully im- plemented. "Just show them what changes other towns like them have undergone under zoning. They'll recoil in horror." What happens, he says, is that towns adopt zoning, and then they think they've done planning. In fact, all they've done is to make sure every acre of ground will be sold for development:' The worst offenders are those jurisdictions that think they have protected their open space by adopting one- or two -acre zoning, which Arendt believes actually leads to suburbanization. Moreover, he says, planners have ceded too much power to the engineers and surveyors who have taken over many aspects of suburban design. "Engineers do wonderful things," he says, "but they don't understand town design." And they don't understand context. "I don't want to sound as though I'm parroting Prince Charles, but I believe a lot of what he says is precisely on the mark —that architects, and planners too, have lost their way." The problem starts with education. "In Edinburgh, he notes, he got a heavy dose of design as part of his planning training. That's not true in the U.S., and, as a result, no one is looking after design." In Arendt's view, zoning historically has been a tool of the real estate development industry. But his history may be off, for in the early days of the century, zoning was part of a social reformers' movement. It's also not clear that zoning, as he claims, is responsible, for commercial sprawl along rural arterials; surely, changing transp tion patterns and even consumer tast, equally to blame. Much of Arendt's criticism is on money, says Chicago -area planning sultant Robert Teska, whose firm has duced a plan incorporating sin ideas—including the concept of the 1 cluster —for Kane County outside Chi, "But it's not zoning as an art form tha, produced these disasters. It's the wa■ process has been undermined." CIL plans, he notes, have been on the boo: many places. "You have to dig deep, find out why they're not being plemented. The idea that any kind of ing is downright unconstitutional is s major factor in rural areas." Then, adds Teska, there's the "one syndrome," which causes homebuye think of clustering as high density anc acre as an estate. Land -use lawyer Jerold Kayden, au of Zoning and the American Dream, cont, that Arendt, in making zoning the villa: setting up a "straw person." "Zoning greatly evolved since its inception in 1 and has become far more sophisticated Arendt would have us believe," Kayden. "lb claim that everyone today simply cookie cutter zoning is simply untruL though !agree that many traditional, E. dean ordinances are still being used. that's because many communities them. And, by and large, suburban plan are responsive to what people wan which is not to say, he adds, that plan: could not be more creative. The great farmland debate Arendt's claims for cluster as a farml preservation tool have come in for t own share of criticism. "Clustering all you to take a 100 -acre farm, put house 30 to 40 acres, and save the rest for t. fields," he says, citing such examples a: development known as Farm Colon Standardsville, Virginia, which comb a sheep farm and a residential subdivis He qualifies his argument, noting that preservation approach advocated by center is most relevant in metropol fringe areas. "We're not talking about middle of Iowa, where there's no dem: But in the Northeast, moat of our fermi is within commuting distance of jobs.. it's all up for grabs." The question for Robert Wagner, northeast field director of the Amen Farmland Trust, in Northampton whether open -space or cluster zoning make enough of a dent. "Besides," he s. "there's no way to assure that the farml. A sign for Clearview Estates (top) suggests that the end result will be wall -to -wall housing. Arendt did the two layouts (the creative one is below) to show alternatives for a project in Wilbraham, Massachusetts. 9 you save by clustering will remain farm- land.' AFT generally advocates wholesale purchases, with cluster development as a last resort. Similarly, some conserva- tionists, quoted in a March 1989 Landscape Architecture article, fear that a plethora of housing clusters could create their own sort of sprawl. On the other hand, Edward Holmes, planning director of the Bluegrass Area De- velopment Council in Lexington, Ken- tucky, praises the design manual for helping him convince residents of Wood- ford County to try something new. The county, known for its large horse farms, has been experiencing growth pressure, and Holmes said he has long thought that clustering would be an effective approach. After hearing Arendt's presentation at an APA conference, he ordered a copy of the manual, which he shared with county plan- ners as they prepared a new rural residen- tial zoning ordinance. The new zoning, true to the manual, permits clustering in the southern part of the county, while raising minimum acreage in the remainder to 30 acres from the present 10. Northwest version Across the continent from rural Massachu- setts, a group of researchers at the Univer- sity of Washington are refining cluster zoning's legal aspects. In an article appearing in this month's Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, planning professor Gary Pivo and landscape archi- tect Robert Small, together with Charles R. Wolfe, a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut, present 11 guidelines for drafting a rural cluster ordinance. Pivo says the guidelines are based on a survey of some 30 jurisdictions across the country that have some form of rural clus- ter ordinance. A recurrent problem reported by those interviewed was the con- flict that often arises between old and new residents. Sometimes, says Pivo, the old resi- dents see the newcomers in the cluster de- velopments as intruders. Meanwhile, new residents may be disap- pointed if their cluster lots are too small to accommodate the kinds of activities raising chickens, gardening —that brought them out to the country in the first place. Another finding was that the open space set aside is often not permanently _used for the purposes intended originally. "You can't just transplant suburban -type cluster de- velopment to a rural setting,' says Pivo. You have to understand what "rural" means. The 11 guidelines recommend that clus- ter zoning be limited to areas in transition between agricultural and suburban, that clusters be kept small —no more than six 10 Planning September 1990 Tots —and that they be separated by substantial open -space buffers. Other recommendations: that local planning and zoning authorities develop inventories and maps of areas they want to protect; that the ordinance include specific standards for the development; and —most important, says Pivo —that there are criteria for select- ing the open space and for maintaining it. Steal this idea It won't be a revolution;" says Tam Richter, the planner for the North Carolina Depart- ment of Community Assistance who ar- ranged Arendt's visit to Greenville. "But when the big homebuilders like Weyer- haeuser get interested in cluster, you're likely to see a lot of trickle- down" That's the kind of statement that keeps Arendt optimistic. So does the growing list of places that have adopted mandatory cluster ordinances. New York has a state enabling law on the books, and a number of towns in Massachusetts and Maine have adopted local versions. There's less pro- gress in other parts of the country —but an optimist like Arendt would say their time is coming. Design guidelines are part of the package. McDonald's agreed to hide its fast food restaurant on a busy arterial in Freeport, Maine, in a restored historic building. "That's what keeps me going," he says, the possibility of making an impact." Burnout is, of course, a danger, and that's why, he says, he "would love to have peo- ple in North Carolina and New York State and 'Washington make their own design manuals based on their own building and landscape traditions. Nothing would tickle me more than other people picking up on my ideas.' Arendt and his colleagues at the center are now in the process of outlining a sequel to the design manual, a handbook for designers and local officials. It will, he says, include more photos and site plans of actual examples of compact development. It will cover several topics not in the design man- ual: mixed use, town center development, road standards, and affordable housing. Lately, too, he's been making contact with some of the neotraditionalist designers whose ideas are very similar to his. In the fall, he'll take part in a design charette in Lancaster County, Penn- sylvania, with Florida architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater Zyberk, and he' been asked to lecture to their classes at the University of Miami. "We' working for the same things, says, but from opposite directions. I k at development as something that flows of an open -space framework. For DPZ, open space flows out of the developm design. Mine is a more rural standpo theirs is more suburban.' Competitioi not an issue, Arendt says. "I think its ti for all of us to formally announce that w, going in the same direction. "During this next decade, I think w, going to see both groups getting togetl and I think we're going to accomplish as much as we would separately." At last spring's nationalAPA confere in Denver, Luther Probst, director of Conservation Foundation's Succes. Communities Program, called cluster z ing "the Rodney Dangerfield of land planning." To gain some respect for idea, he said, planners must do sev, things. They must never use the term c ter, which has the connotation of dens they must figure out some gdod intent, for developers —and they must get Ran. Arendt to speak. Ruth Knack is the senior editor of Plannink Score for the planning and early construction process —a chart developed by the owners for the first year of planning. Al Boeke, Director of Planning for Oceanic Properties. The first "cluster" of houses designed around a hedgerow and linking all houses into a villagelike quality. Each house has a protected garden, roof lines control wind and follow the line of the cypress hedge. Ocean front left completely open. Pac4,6 a zewt, WOW( etUATUr (Matta utivan. Mutt' 1IC Performance (P). It is now possible to look at and judge performance. Early housing clusters and condominiums lie beautifully in the land, work within an understanding of the major intentions of the score, and make major inputs into the how of Performance (P). irt r. MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS NATALIE E. WEST ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK MOLLY T. TAMI MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION FREDERICK S. ETHERIDGE WENDY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN -1,0 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK WEST A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 MEMORANDUM PENINSULA OFFICE 1220 HOWARD AVE., SUITE 250 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 -4211 TELEPHONE: (415) 348 -7130 FACSIMILE: (415) 342 -0886 MARIN OFFICE 1202 GRANT AVE., SUITE E NOVATO, CA 94945 TELEPHONE: (415) 892 -8878 REPLY TO: San Leandro TO: City Council DATE: September 13, 1991 FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Draft Ordinance Pertaining to Assuring Completion of Improvements or Conditions in Connection with Final Map Approval An ordinance amending various sections of the City's Subdivision Ordinance relating to completion of improvements or conditions prior to final map approval or other specified dates. Over a period of time the staff and City Council have recognized problems with the completion of certain improvements and conditions on previously approved subdivisions. These problems involve the failure on the part of subdividers to fulfill obligations imposed as conditions of a subdivision map approval. Certain of these obligations relate to improvements, both_offsite and onsite, and others relate to "maintenance type issues Often it will be in the City's best interest to have certain improvements and conditions completed by a specified date. This date may be prior to final map approval. The type of improvements the City may wish to assure completion of by a date prior to final map approval include: completion of missing or damaged street improvements fronting the property, and completion of trails and pathways in and around the property. Additionally, there are other, primarily offsite, improvements that will provide a benefit to the public in general that staff may wish to have completed prior to either final map approval or prior to actual construction of the project itself, TO: City Council FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Draft Ordinance Pertaining to Assuring Completion of Improvements or Conditions in Connection with Final Map Approval DATE: September 13, 1991 PAGE: 2 in order that the construction of these improvements coincide with other City projects such as the annual street maintenance work. The City staff may also recommend that certain maintenance issues be addressed prior to final map approval or prior to commencement of construction of the project such as: the maintenance of trees on the site, the repair of fencing on the site, and the removal of dilapidated structures on the site. The draft ordinance is intended to respond to these issues by providing the City greater flexibility to require that certain conditions, including certain improvements, be completed in a timely manner, consistent with the needs of the City. The City Manager, City Engineer, Planning Director and City Attorney met with Mr. John Di Monto and three other repre- sentatives of the development and insurance /surety communities on September 10 to discuss the draft ordinance and its impact. There was a good deal of discussion aided greatly by the explanation from the City Engineer of the City's practical concerns with assuring completion of certain improvements and conditions of approval. I believe it is fair to state that at the conclusion of the meeting there were no further objections to the text of the ordinance, based on the staff's explanation of the City's intention in implementing the ordinance. Additionally, the draft ordinance now contains a definition of "Geotechnical Clearance In addition to the draft ordinance, staff is further recommending that a standard condition of approval be placed on all tentative map and tentative building site approvals and recorded with the County Recorder, prohibiting the issuance of zone clearances for individual lots until all onsite and offsite improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City and construction acceptance of the improvements is issued by the City Engineer. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the draft ordinance be favorably considered and introduced by the Council and that the Council by TO: City Council FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Draft Ordinance Pertaining to Assuring Completion of Improvements or Conditions in Connection with Final Map Approval DATE: September 13, 1991 PAGE: 3 motion authorize staff to include a standard condition of tentative map and tentative building site approvals prohibiting issuance of any zone clearances until all required improvements are completed and construction acceptance of all impr is issued by the City Engineer. Michael S. Riback City Attorney MSR:dsp cc: City Manager City Engineer Planning Director nnrw \273 \memo\drattord.msr ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTION 14- 10.125 TO, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 14- 20.050(b)(2), 14- 20.050(b)(6), 14- 30.130(b), 14- 40.020(b)(2), 14- 40.040(a)(2) AND (3) AND 14- 60.020(a) AND (b) OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ASSURING COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH MAP APPROVAL The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby Ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 14- 10.125 is hereby added to Chapter 14 of the Saratoga City Code to read as follows: "5 14- 14.125 aeotecb Cleara "Q_et_ehipai Clearanc means a written acknowl dgemignt from the City Engineer indicating that: Lai The applicant has ent fied all olo 'ca and of i ha rds nd onstr i nts r nt t site. 121 141 is t s ev uate those h r s nd QmiatKainta n 'ed a hie would affect the 2r2Romilly_cie s ite or impact a. jacent tironerties, a eauired by th Cit Geotechn Consultant, j.j T plicant has developed appropri a su to avoid and /or mitigate those hazards and const a,„nts evaluated in (b) to the satisfaction of the Ci v Engineer and City Q otechnical Consultant. The epp t I s paid all fees associatgd with the c ca l ns a nti rev h applioaia n.� c a e -s n• and -hal ,o •e c•, tr fts_g_gnstakting a ova or entitlement s1_any farm or, type 2 Section 2. Sections 14- 20.o50(b)(2), 14 20.050(b)(6), 14- 30.130(b), 14 40.020(b)(2), 14 40.040(a)(2) and (3), and 14 60.020(a) and (b) of Chapter 14 of the Saratoga City Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 1 S 14- 20.OS0 Distribution for review; departmental reports (b)(2) Engineer's report. The City Engineer shall investigate the manner in which the individual lot or lots, streets and overall drainage is to be achieved in the subdivision or site. He and the advisory agency shall determine suitability, adequacy and safety of the proposed lot or lots, and in this regard shall adhere to the following: The intended use must not interfere with the natural drainage of surface water from the land constituting and surrounding the intended lot or lots, without adequate drainage thereof; the intended structures and improvements to be constructed upon said lot or lots must be adequately supported by the surface and subsurface Soil so there will be no hazard to occupants and property therein; the intended use must not create an unreasonable risk and hazard to adjoining persons or property by reason of fire, flood, landslide or other calamity; the proposed lot or lots, and their proposed use, shall not create an unreasonable traffic hazard. The City Engineer shall also determi the ade of th ex in tune ruin a site w ich m y be imoacted by the pr000sed development. The City Engineer shall also recommend to the advisory agency whic r is and ndit sh completed by the applicant prior to the filing of ma certi ation wi som yther specified time. (b)(6) Planning Department report. The City Planning Department shall study and investigate the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision or site in relation to the General Plan and any applicable specific plans which affect the property, and in relation to all applicable zoning regulations, and specifically including proper grading and erosion control and provisions for the prevention of sedimentation or other damage to offsite property, and shall report on the quality of proposed design from the standpoint of function, safety, and aesthetics. In the case of 2 those subdivisions and building sites whim the City naineer dines a aeotechnicai clearance is necess such staff report shall include a statement indicating th t th s property has received a ceotechnica1 clearance from the City Engineer. The Planning Department report shall either summarize, or incorporate by reference, all the other departmental reports received as hereinabove specified, and shall indicate whether an environmental impact report has been required or will not be required, and shall itemize such conditions as it deems appropriate to be imposed by the advisory agency if tentative approval is recommended. 14- 30.130 Additional requirements In addition to all the provisions of this Article, the advisory agency may,, /Al Require special improvements or structures to be constructed other than as specifically enumerated herein in order to carry out the purposes of this Chapter or the policies of the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, and as may reasonably be required by the circumstances of each case. (b) UPon recommendation of the City Engineer. requires c r ments d co nd ions t e co u d cte ana completed pri to the filing of the fina map for certification, or__within a spec ified period of time. S 14- 40.020 submittal and approval of final map by City Engineer (b)(2) Whether all conditions of tentative approval have been completed, or if incomplete, are matters which are includable in an improvement agreement with the City; grovided. however. if conditions of tentative map approval expressly quire certai improvements or diti,o t be completed prior to f m ob appl the completion f such improvements or tions 11 no be the subiect of an improvement agreement and the final map shall not be found to substantially comply with the approved tentative man until such improvements or conditions are completed. S 14- 40.040 Filing of final map When all certificates required on the final map (except the certificate of the County Recorder and the approval certificate of the City Clerk) have been executed, said final map may be filed with the City Clerk for action by the City Council. No final map shall be accepted for filing by the City Clerk unless, 3 in addition to the above, the following requirements have been satisfied: (a) The final map is accompanied by: (1) A blue line print thereof; (2) The improvement plans accompanied by a statement el approval thereof, signed by the City Engineer; (3) Two copies of the City's standard form of improvement agreement executed by the owner or owners of the property, together with the security required to be furnished thereunder, the requisite monument bond guaranteeing payment of the cost of setting monuments (Government Code Section 66496), and County certification that the requisite tax bond has been posted (Government Code Section 66493) and such other agreements and bonds as may from time to time be required by law; 5 14- 60.020 Improvement security (a) The subdivider or owner shall furnish to the City good and sufficient security, in one or a combination of the forms as authorized under Paragraph (b) of this Section, in the following amounts and for the following purposes; (1) An amount equal to one hundred percent of the total estimated cost of the improvement or of the act to be performed, as determined by the City Engineer, securing faithful performance of the act or agreement; and (2) An amount equal to one hundred percent of the total estimated cost of the improvement or of the act to be performed, as determined by the City Engineer, securing payment to the contractor, the subcontractors, and persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment for the improvement or the performance of the required act. As part of the obligation guaranteed by the security and in addition to the face amount of the security, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the City in successfully enforcing the obligation secured. (b) The security required under Paragraph (a) of this Section shall be one or a combination of the following, at the 4 option of and subject to the approval of the City Manager: A performance bond, substantially in the form set forth in Government Code Section 66499.1, and labor and material bond, substantially in the form set forth in Government Code Section 66499.2, issued by a corporate surety duly authorized to transact business in the State. A deposit held by the City in cash or, if accepted by the City Manager, negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing deposits of public monies. An instrument of credit from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the State or Federal government and pledging that the funds necessary to carryout the act or agreement are on deposit and guaranteed for payment, or a letter of credit or set aside letter issued by such a financial institution. The form and content of such instrument ee letter of credit or set aside letter shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney. Bact$on 1. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing 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 of Saratoga held on the day of 1991, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: (3) City Clerk September 13, 1991 anrw\ 5 MAYOR