Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1991 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: October 16, 1991 Fiscal Impacts: None anticipated Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager 0,15e AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Special Event Permit Request for October 26, 1991, Village Halloween Costume Walk Recommended Motion: 1. Conditionally approve the Costume Walk on October 26, 1991, authorizing the Assistant to the City Manager to issue a Special Event Permit once the conditions of the City's Special Event Ordinance have been satisfied. 2. Authorize closure of Turkey Track Lane between 10 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Report Summary: The Saratoga Village Association will be sponsoring the fifth annual Halloween Costume Walk on Saturday, October 26, 1991, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. in the Village. As in the past years, most of the event activity will be confined to sidewalks with the exception of Turkey Track Lane which will be closed for event registration and costume judging. Attachments: 1. Application letter of 9/25/91 to City 2. Map showing route of event 1991 -199; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR JO MATHESON President (Pacific Western Bank) 244-1700 ANN FITZSIMMONS Vice President (Corinthian Corners) 867-4630 MADELINE MARTIN 2nd Vice President (Fox Carskadon) 741 -2700 C.J. TOMAINO Secretary (Mitre Box) 867-4102 MAGGIE PORTER Treasurer (Bank of America) 277-7.324 TIM RICHARDS Past President (Country Store Cafe) 867 -2440 MARILYN WHITE Honorary Member Parliamentarian (M. White Carpet Care 867 -9417 SHIRLEY WEST Membership (Fox Carskadon) 27 SEPT 1991 DEAR MRS. KING, SEP 3 0 1991 CAROLYN KING, COMMUN I TY SERVICES DIRECTOR 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 SUBJECT: FIFTH ANNUAL SARATOGA VILLAGE HALLOWEEN COSTUME WALE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT THE FIFTH ANNUAL HALLOWEEN COSTUME WALK WILL BE HELD ON SATURDAY. OCTOBER 26, 1991 BEGINNING AT 10:0() A.M. AT TURKEY TRACK LANE AND ENDING BY 1:30 P.M. AT TURKEY TRACK LANE. AS LAST YEAR, APPROXIMATELY 250 PERSONS WILL BE PARADING, IN COSTUME, AROUND THE VILLAGE, MAINLY ON BIG BASIN WAY (SEE ATTACHED ROUTE MAP). MANY OF THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS WILL BE PARTICIPATING BY HANDING OUT TREATS TO THE CHILDREN AS THEY PASS THEIR PLACES OF BUSINESS. THIS EVENT IS BEING SPONSORED BY THE SARATOGA VILLAGE AS= SOCIATION. WHO IN TURN WILL BE HANDLING THE FILING FEES. REFUNDABLE CLEANUP DEPOSIT. LIABILITY INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT. SINCE THE WALI WILL BE ON THE SIDEWALKS THERE WILL NOT BE ANY NEED TO REROUTE TRAFFIC. OTHER THAN CLOSING OFF THE SECTION OF TURKEY TROT LANE AS INDICATED ON ATTACHED MAP. PARKING WILL OCCUR AS IT NORMALLY DOES. ON THE STREETS AND IN THE PARFING DISTRICT AREAS. EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE EFFECTED. NO FOOD OR MERCHNDISE OF ANY KIND WILL BE SOLD. IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR DURING. THE WALK OR THE REGISTRATION PERIOD PRIOR TO THE WALK. A SMALL P.A. SYSTEM WILL BE USED DURING THE REGISTRATION PERIOD FROM 10:00 A.M TO 1:00 P.M. PARTICIPANTS THAT REGISTER FOR THE WALk WILL BE SIGNING A "HOLD HARMLESS" CLAUSE. P. 0 BOX 725 SARATOGA, CA 95071 1991-1992 BOARD OF DIRECTORS JO MATHESON President (Pacific Western Bank) 244-1700 ANN FITZSIMMONS Vice President (Corinthian Corners) 867-463O MADELINE MARTIN 2nd Vice President (Fox Carskadon) 741-2700 C'J. TOMAINO Secretary (Mitre Box) 867-4102 MAGGIE PORTER Treasurer (Bank of America) 277-7324 TIM RICHARDS Past President (Country Store Cafe) 867-2440 MARILYN WHITE Honorary Member Parliamentarian (M. White Carpet Care), 867-9417 SHIRLEY WEST Membership (Fox Carskadon) PAGE 2 OF 2 H3PEFULLY, ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL (AT THE CROSSWALKS) WILL BE VOLUNTEER LABOR. HOWEVER, SHOULD THE NEED ARISE TO HIRE ANY RESERVE OFFICERS, THE SARATOGA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THEIR EXPENSES FOR THIS EVENT. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ACTIVITY, PLEASE CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED. SINCERELY YOURS, MS. C. J. TOMAINO-CHAIRWOMAN MR. SHIRLEY WEST, CO-CHAIRWOMAN SARATOGA VILLAGE COSTUME WALK THE MIRE BOX 20605 THIRD STREET SARATOGA, CA. 95070 867-4102 (BUSINESS) 378-4990 (HOME, C.J~) 354-4590 (HOME, SHIRLEY) 30 MATHESON-PRES. SARATOGA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION 14401 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CA. 95070 244-1700 (BUSINESS) cj/11 S P. 0 BOX 725 SARATOGA, CA 95071 DIST. #5 N v M (79 PARK. DIST. #2 DIST. #4 1"-: 7 U 69 E (1 (n �a 7 e7 n 77 76 73 dd es ba e� ai si ac 59 000, °O 0 0 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 WAY 0 0 0 0 ■0 7 0 0 0 0 "THE INN" PARK. DIST.#1 00 WILDWOOD PARK M °AT®GA WRIAR 00000000a000000000000000000000 RA Al C OST v rrn e L4/Ac C T 2 -(0 199/ Csv) OAK ST. p,f Az 6 Ra)re �E��i✓ Tiail ,7vD6iN, SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SOTO AGENDA ITEM 6D' MEETING DATE: October 16, 1991 0 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Route 85 Prospect Road to Stevens Creek Blvd.: Approval of Design and Authorization to sign plans Recommended Action: 1. Approve project design. 2. Authorize City Engineer to sign plans. Report Summary: The Traffic Authority has submitted the final plans and specifications for MSA 102 -10, Prospect Road to Stevens Creek Blvd.. While it is not possible to reproduce the plans and specifications for your packets, they are available for your review in the Engineering office. Staff has carefully reviewed the plans and specifications and is satisfied that the project design adheres to the criteria established by the City. Further, all conditions of the Performance Agreement between the City and the Traffic Authority have been incorporated into the design. The following summarizes key elements of the project which directly impact City facilities and adjacent residents and how they are addressed. Soundwalls: There is only approximately 1000 feet of soundwall on this project along the west side of the freeway corridor south of Prospect Road. The soundwall heights average approximately 14 feet to achieve top of wall elevations of 302 feet which is consistent with the recommendations of the Stage II noise report. The walls will maintain the same aesthetic pattern as those presently under construction and have been moved further into the freeway right -of- way as requested by the residents along Marilla Court. A second soundwall wraps around the freeway corridor onto Prospect Rd. and extends along Prospect Road one house shy of the corner of Covina Court. A request was made to extend this wall all the way to the corner, however due to utility conflicts, the request could not be granted. This soundwall is designed to a 14 foot height, also 302 foot top of wall elevation, and is intended to mitigate visual intrusion caused by the raised profile of Prospect Road. prospect Road Overcrossing: Prospect Road will be elevated over Route 85. The roadbed will be aproximately 7 feet above existing grade on the east side of the bridge and 6.5 feet above existing grade on the west side of the bridge. The overcrossing structure will be 90 feet wide and will accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction separated by a 14 foot wide median. There will also be 6 feet bicycle lanes and a 5 foot sidewalk on each side of the bridge. Bridge aesthetics will conform to the City's guidelines except that under the bridge, slope paving will be used. Detour and Construc Staging: The staged construction plans for Prospect Road during construction of the overcrossing have been reviewed by both Saratoga and San Jose and meet both cities' requirements. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are maintained along Prospect Road throughout the entire construction period. Freeway Profile: The freeway profile is consistent with what has been presented to the City in the past. In general, the freeway is depressed aproximately 7 feet below existing grade at the southerly end of the project and lowers to approximately 16 feet below existing grade as it crosses under Prospect Road. Construction impacts: The City's Noise Ordinance, permitted work hours and truck route requirements are all reflected in the project specifications. Construction Schedule: The schedule for this project is as follows: Advertise: 1 -27 -92 Bid Opening: 3 -17 -92 Start Construction: 5 -4 -92 Complete Construction: 8 -31 -94 The Traffic Authority is prepared to submit the complete project package to CALTRANS' headquarters in Sacramento for their final review and approval. Before they do so however, the affected cities are requested to approve the project design and sign off on the plans. As the plans and specifications appear to conform to all of the City's requirements, staff is prepared to sign the plans with the Council's authorization. Fiscal Impacts: None. All work is to be funded with Measure A funds. Attachments: None. Motion Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL r,, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2,0 AGENDA ITEM `O CITY MGR. APPROVAL MEETING DATE: October 16, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: SD 90 -004 (14555 Big Basin Way): Pache Final Map Approval for Two Lots Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution SD 90 -004 granting Final Map Approval of Tract 8466. 2. Authorize the Mayor ,-to execute. the Contract for the Improvement of Tract 8466. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 90 -004 which, if adopted, will grant Final Map Approval for two lots located at 14555 Big Basin Way. I have examined the final map submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tenta- tive map. 2. All conditions of the tent map :as" contained in Plann- ing Commission Resolution No _SD90 -004 have been completed or are covered by the standard Improvement Agreement and secured by appropriate and sufficient securities. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been com- plied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's Certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14- 40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments; I. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 90 -004. 2. Resolution No. SD 90 -004. 3. Contract for the Improvement of Tract 8466. Motion Vote: SECTION 1: by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. SD 90 -004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 8466 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follow: lots 1 and 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract No. 8466" prepared by Kier and Wright Civil Engineers, dated August, 1991, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on October 16, 1991, are approved as two (2) individual parcels. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of October MAYOR 19 91 RESOLUTI NO. SD -90 -004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP FOR Pache, 14555 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Map Approval of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No.SD -90 -004 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdi- vision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 11/28/91 being hereby made for further par- ticulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accordance with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 20th day of July, 1990 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). 2. Construct Storm Drainage System as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. b. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 1 DONE. Developer fees for work and Bond for tion Done. DONE. has paid design provided Construc- On improvement plans. f SD -90 -004; 14555 ...g Basin Way 3. Obtain Encroachment Permit from CalTrans for work, if any, to be done within State right -of -way, prior to final map approval. 4. Obtain encroachment permit from the City Engineer for any improvements to be constructed in the public right -of -way. 5. Engineered Improvement Plans are required for: a. Street Improvements. b. Storm Drain Construction. Plans are to be approved by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. 6. Pay Plan Check and Inspection fees as determined from Im- provement Plans prior to final map approval. 7. Enter into Improvement Agreement prior to final map approval for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 8. Post performance and labor and material bonds in amounts required by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. 9. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of installing a sidewalk on Fourth St. along the San Jose Water Company's property. The reimbursement amount shall be determined by the City Engineer based on the estimate of the cost of installing the sidewalk and shall also include the cost of modifications to the Water Company's building to accommodate the sidewalk. 10. Replace deficient curb, gutter and sidewalk along Big Basin Way and Fourth Street as required by the City Engineer. Replace- ment will be for site frontage areas only. Details of the re- placement is to be shown on improvement plans. 11. Applicant shall pay park in lieu fee prior to final map approval. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT (S 1. Install sanitary sewer system in accordance with the Sanita- tion District's requirements prior to final map approval. 2. Inspect existing building lateral and grease interceptor and replace, if necessary, prior to final map approval. Done. Done. With Building Permit s PECIFIC CONDITIONI WUILDIc INSPECTION DIVIS? 1 Obtain a demolition permit prior to the demolition or removal of anY structure on site. SD -90 -004; 14555 Big Basin Way SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The barn structure located on the site shall be removed. The wood from the barn shall be stored for future use subject to the approval of the planning Director. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay for the recordation of the Adopted Negative Declaration prior to final map approval. 3. All future construction shall be subject to the conditions of Resolution DR -90 -0:39, Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condi- tions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirement of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall ,become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of February, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, FORBES, MORAN, TUCKER NOES: none ASSENT: TAPPAN pp ATTEST: �,{LZL lagiC. Jy� airman, Plannin Commission Se e a i P nn� Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF TRACT 3466 AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 16 day of October 19 91 by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City and Klaus Pache subdivider and Owner, hereinaft collectively called Subdivider: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that certain tract of land known and designated as TRACT 8466 situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California; and WHEREAS, a final map of Tract 8466 has been filed with the Cfty Clerk of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the Council for its approval which map is hereby referred to and by said reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has requested approval of said final map prior to the completion of improvements of all streets, highways or public ways and sewer facilities which are a part of or appurtenant to the abovemen- tioned subdivision, including, but without limiting the foregoing, the neces- sary paving, catch basins, pipes, culverts, storm drains, sanitary sewers where required, street trees and street signs where required, and including a water system and fire hydrants acceptable to the San Jose Water Works and the City of Saratoga, all in accordance with and as required by the plans and spec fications for all of said improvements in or appurtenant to said subdivision, which plans and specifications were prepared by KIER AND WRIGHT Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer and now on fil, in the offices of the Clerk of said City and /or the City Engineer's Office of said City, and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the 16 day o` October 19 91 adopt a Resolution approving said Final Map, rejecting certain dedications therein offered which rejection did not and does not, however, revoke the offers of dedication therein contained and re- quiring as a condition precedent to the future acceptance of said offers of -2- dedication that the Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon shown in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, of the City of Saratoga and in accord with the improvement plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and requiring as a condition precedent to the release of said final map for recordation that the subdivider agree in writing to so improve said streets and easements in accord with this agree- ment, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and in consideration of the City accepting all of said dedications after the hereinafter agreed to covenants on the part of the Owner and Subdivider have been complied with and in accord with Government Code Section 66462(a) of the State of California, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Subdivider at his cost and expense shall construct all of the im- provements and do all of the work hereinafter mentioned, all in accordance with and to the extent and as provided in the above mentioned plans and speci- fications on file in the office of said City, for the construction of said improvements, in, for, or appurtenant to said subdivision, and all in com- pliance with Ordinance No. 60 as amended and the laws of the State of Califor- nia, and shall complete the same within one year from date hereof and shall maintain the same for a period of at least one year after the satisfactory completion of the same. 2. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as condition precedent to recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file wi the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in form to be approved by the City Attorney, securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of all work and the construction of all improvements herein in this Agreement mentioned within time specified, and securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of the maintenance of said improvements for a period of at least one year after completion of the same, and for such additional period of time as may be necessary in order that Subdivider may cure and correct all deficiencies of construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in all events at least 15,000.00 of said bond to be in cash, with the right of City to use the same in its discretion for emergency maintenance and re- pairs in addition to any other rights of use) the total amount of said bond to be in the sum of 15 000.00 and also a good and sufficient surety bond in form to be approved by the City Attorney securing the payment by subdivider of all bills for labor and ma- terials incurred in the construction of any and all of said improvements, and the doing of all other work herein agreed to be done by the said Subdivider, the amount of said bond to be Fifteen Thousand Dollars 15,000.00 3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City and in their capacity as such, its councilmen, officers, boarcjs, commissions and its employees, from any and all loss or damage, and from any and all liability for any and all loss or damage, and from any and all suits, actions, damages, or claims filed or brought by any and all person or persons because of or resulting from the doing by Subdivider or any and all things re- quired of Subdivider by this contract, or because of or arising or resulting from the failure or omission by Subdivider to do any and all things necessary to and required by this contract or by law, .or arising or resulting from the negligent doing by Subdivider, his agents, employees or subcontractors of any and all things required to be done by this contract, or arising or resulting from any dangerous or defective condition arising or resulting from any of the above said acts or omissions of subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or employees. Subdivider having heretofore certified, by the certificate upon the abovementioned subdivision map, that he can convey clear title to the land within said subdivision, and City having relied upon said certificate and the representation contained therein, the foregoing provisions of this paragraph are specifically made to apply to any destruction or damage to or removal' of utilities, water lines or pipe lines of any kinds, and any other improvement, whether said destruction, damage or removal is required or caused by the plans or specifications or by direction of an officer, agent or employee of the City. 4. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City, and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk certificates or policies of public liability and -4- property damage insurance in form satisfactory to divider shall at all times during the entire term the same in full force and effect, which policies the City Attorney, and Sub of this agreement maintain shall insure the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and employees against loss or liability for bodily injury and property damages arising or resulting from subdivider's operations and activities in the construction of any and all improvements mentioned in this agreement and the doing of any and all work mentioned in this agreement, within or outside the abovementioned subdivision, and /or arising or resulting from the doing or failure of subdivider to do all things required to be done pursuant to this agreement. Said policies of in- surance shall cover bodily injury and property damage on both an accident and occurrence basis, with completed operations coverage for one (1) year after completion and acceptance of improvements, and shall be in amounts of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each person, ONE MILLION DOLLARS 51,000,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage coverage of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence. Said policies of insurance shall in addition contain the following endorsement: "Other insurance the coverage afforded by this insurance shall be primary coverage to the full limits of liability stated in the declarations. If the assured has other insurance against the loss covered by this policy, that other insurance shall be excess insurance only, after the entire face value of this policy shall have been exhausted by payment." 5. In consideration of City allowing Subdivider to connect said sub- division to certain existing or proposed out -of -tract storm sewer lines, and in consideration of City relieving Subdivider of any obligation which City might legally impose on Subdivider to acquire any right -of -way for, and /or to construct, any out -of -tract storm sewer drainage pipe lines and appurtenance which might reasonably be necessary to drain said subdivision and carry storm waters from said subdivision to natural drains, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recorda- tion thereof, pay the City the sum of 0.0 dollars 0.0 7. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay to the City the sum of 6. In consideration of City agreeing to accept, in accord with this agreement, the in -tract storm drain lines and facilities constructed or to be constructed by Subdivider within or outside of said subdivision in accord with the plans and specifications now on file with the City offices, including the streets and other easements in or beneath which said facilities lie, Sub- divider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City the sum of 0.0 Dollars 0.0 TWO THOUSAND AND 00 /100 -5- Dollars 2,000.00 to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be incurred by City for engineering and inspection services to be performed by the City in connection with said subdivision. 8. Upon Subdivider completing in accord with this agreement all of the improvements to be made and done by said Subdivider as hereinabove set forth and as shown on the plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and upon Subdivider having properly maintained the same for a period of at least one year after the completion of said improvements as hereinabove specified, and upon the Subdivider complying with all covenents and conditions on his or its part to be done and performed in accord with the within agree- ment, then and in that event, City agrees to rescind its rejection of the offers of dedication of streets and storm drain easements contained on the aforesaid final map, and at that time accept said offers of dedication. 9. Should the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to not be the same person, firm or corporation, then this agreement shall only be effective upon both the subdivider and the Owner separately executing the same, and c,.ti„A,.,, 4 er is used, the same shat 1 inc]”. -r and whereve the term Owner is used, the same shall include Subdivider. 10. This agreement shall be binding.upon the heirs, personal represen- tatives and assigns of Subdivider and Owner, and time is of the essence hereof, save and except that the City Council of the City of Saratoga may, but need not, extend any time or times for the doing or performing of any acts as required under the terms of this agreement by resolution, if in the opinion of the City Council any such delay is without fault on the part of the Sub- divider and Owner. Execution of the within agreement by the Owner or Subdivider shall constitute an irrevocable authorization to City to insert the date of passage of the Council resolution approving the final map, and to insert the date of this agreement as of the date of such resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporatic By: Mayor By: a a.._.. By: Subdivider (Owner, if different from Subdivider) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.2-047 9 AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: October 16, 1991 0 CITY MGR. APPROV ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Route 85 Saratoga Creek to Los Gatos Creek: Approval of Design and Authorization to sign plans Recommended Action: 1. Approve project design. 2. Authorize City Engineer to sign plans. 3. Declare City's intention to construct Bonnet Way sound wall. Discussion: The Traffic Authority has submitted the final plans and specifications for MSA 106 -21, Saratoga Creek to Los Gatos Creek. While it is not possible to reproduce the plans and specifications for your packets, the documents are available for your review in the Engineering office. Staff has carefully reviewed the plans and specifications and believes that the project design complies with the terms of the Performance Agreement between the City and the Traffic Authority and meets, to the extent possible, the various City objectives. The following summarizes the key elements of the project: $oundwalls: In general, soundwall heights conform to the recommended heights in the Stage II noise study and /or to the heights which the City has requested. The following describes the wall heights along the various sections of the freeway corridor: West of Saratoga Ave. Wall heights west of Saratoga Ave. on both sides of the corridor are 12 feet. Saratoga Ave. to Quito Rd. heights are 14 feet. The (north side) portion of soundwall along the Paul Masson Winery property will probably not be built until that property develops. Bonnet Way Bonnet Way to Quito Rd. The wall height is 16 feet as re- (south side) quested by the City. Quito Rd. to San Tomas Creek (south side) All soundwalls conform to the City's aesthetic standards. Freeway Profile: In General, the freeway profile falls from Saratoga Ave. to Quito Rd. and then rises to cross over Wildcat and San Tomas Creeks as it extends easterly. The profile is approximately at existing grade at Saratoga Ave., is depressed approximately 13 feet below existing grade midway between Saratoga Ave. and Quito Rd., is depsressed approximately 16.5 feet below existing grade at Quito Rd., is elevated approximately 7.5 feet above existing grade at Wildcat Creek, and is elevated approximately 12 feet above existing grade at San Tomas Creek. This profile is consistent with what has been presented to the City in the past and reflects what the Traffic Authority insist is the lowest profile prossible. Ouito Rd. Overcrossing: As stated above, Quito Rd. will be elevated elevation of the southerly end of the bridge above existing grade while the elevation of the bridge will be roughly 10 feet above existing sight distance problem on Quito Rd. To be determined. The Traffic Authority is proposing a wall that is mostly 10 feet high but steps up to a maximum height of 16 feet at its westerly end. Berms and combination berm /walls are proposed. The City's request is to achieve top of barrier elevations which are 16 feet above the profile of the freeway. This criteria is met except for approximately the last 270 feet west of San Tomas Creek. The top of baidrrier elevation drops from 16.feet above the freeway pro- file at station 358 to 13 feet above the freeway profile at San Thomas Creek. The Traffic Authority has indicated that these are the maxi- mum heights which can be achieved and which will conform to CALTRANS' design standards. over the freeway. The will be roughly 6 feet the northerly edge of existing grade. The in the vicinity of the Route 85 corridor will be corrected by the new road profile. The new bridge structure will be 52 feet wide and will accommodate two lanes of traffic in the northbound direction, one in the southbound direction and sidewalks and bicycle lanes in both directions. The City of San Jose has requested the two northbound lanes to accommodate traffic turning right onto Westmont Dr.. Bridge aesthetics will match City guidelines. Detours and Construction Staging: The staged construction plans for Quito Rd. have been checked by Saratoga and San Jose staffs and meet both cities' requirements. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are maintained along Quito Rd. throughout the entire construction period. construction Impacts: The City's Noise Ordinance, permitted work hours and truck route requirements are all reflected in the project specifications. Construction Schedule: The schedule for this project is as follows: Advertise: 2 -10 -92 Open Bids: 4 -7 -92 Start Construction: 5 -26 -92 Complete Construction: 7 -29 -94 Bonnet Way Soundwall: The Bonnet Way soundwall has been designed to Traffic Authority standards. However, the City has committed to building a 16 foot high soundwall along the entire length of Bonnet Way. The Traffic Authority has agreed to allow the City to build this wall on City right -of -way and will reimburse the City the equivalent amount of the cost of the wall which the Traffic Authority is committed to building, approximately $288,000. I have been working with a structural engineer to ascertain whether the City could construct a 16 foot high soundwall for the approximately 1600 foot length along Bonnet Way and which would cost no more than $288,000. The structural engineer's report is attached. In summary, the report suggests that the City could select from numerous options of either a wood wall or a pre -cast concrete panel wall, achieve all of the design requirements of both the City and the Traffic Authority, and do so for significantly less than the $288,000 the Traffic Authority would give the City. The excess funds might then be used by the City to provide additional mitigations elsewhere along the corridor including those to which the City has already committed. Renderings of potential soundwall options as well as a more detailed financial analysis of the commitments the City has already made will be presented to you at your meeting. However, as it now appears the City could build the Bonnet Way soundwall to the desired height and not incur any additional financial burden, it is recommended that the Council declare its intention to build the Bonnet Way soundwall and direct staff to notify the Traffic Authority of its intention. The Traffic Authority is prepared to submit the complete project package to CALTRANS' headquarters in Sacramento for their final review and approval. Before they do so however, the affected cities are requested to approve the project design and sign off on the plans. As the plans and specifications appear to conform to all of the City's requirements, staff is prepared to sign the plans with the Council's authorization. Fiscal Impacts: Other than for the Bonnet Way soundwall, none. All freeway work is funded by the Measure A program. Depending on the Council's decision regarding the Bonnet Way wall, the City may recoup additional Measure A funds to expend on other freeway mitigations. AttaChments: 1. Letter report dated October 9, 1991, from Mesiti Miller Engineering. Motion Vote: 000 D 0 October 9, 1991 Larry Perlin City Engineer City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING Civil and Structural Engineering Re: Highway Noise Barrier Adjacent to Bonnet Way Our File No. 91169 Dear Mr. Perlin, At your request, Mesiti= Miller Engineering has prepared this letter report summarizing our efforts to date in connection with the above project. The purpose of this study was to explore the alternatives available to the City for construction of a highway noise barrier meeting the following criteria. 1. Barrier shall extend sixteen feet above existing grade for a distance of 1,560 feet. 2. Barrier shall be constructed of materials suitable for use in a residential neighborhood. 3. Barrier shall meet the highway noise attenuation requirements of the Traffic Authority. 4. Barrier shall have a useful service life of at least fifty years. 5. Total project cost, including design and construction can not exceed $288,000. What we found was that for the stated budget figure, the City of Saratoga could choose from several materials constructed in a variety of ways, providing an almost unlimited number of visual appearances. Based on discussions with you and our perceptions of the needs and desires of the neighborhood inhabitants, we believe a natural wood wall offers a warmth of character and aesthetic quality which would be most pleasing. Further details of our efforts to date follow. INTRODUCTION: We have investigated numerous materials and alternative designs for a sixteen foot high highway noise barrier to be located adjacent to the southern edge of the proposed Highway 85 right -of -way, between stations 388 22 and 403 81. The following report specifically addresses costs for two precast concrete noise barriers and two wood noise barriers. Representatives from the "Permapost Products Company" were contacted for wood preservative and wall longevity information. DESIGN VALUES: After examining seismic and wind loads, a wind load of 22 PSF was determined to be the governing lateral design load for the wall. All topographical data was taken from sheet L -6 and L -7 of plans by Bissel Karn, Inc., Job CJ 04285 EA 437741. All soils data was taken from a materials report by "Woodward -Clyde Consultants CA 85, Vol. 2A 4- SCI -85 PM 10.2/17.7 Bascom Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard, Sections 14.8 to 14.8.2 and Table 20. From the soils report, a passive soil pressure of 500 PSF /foot, neglecting the top one (1) foot of soil, was obtained. Design strengths for building materials were taken from the 1988 UBC. 224 Walnut Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95062 408 426 -3186 MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING 91169, Page 2 COST ESTIMATES: In order to accurately estimate the range of costs for the wood noise barriers, numerous lumber and hardware suppliers were consulted. Labor costs were determined by a licensed Engineering Contractor retained by us. Material quantities for wood walls were taken from preliminary designs by this office. Prices for concrete noise barriers were obtained from numerous bay area companies specializing in precast concrete noise barriers. All costs estimates are suitable for preliminary budget considerations only. After examining a number of design options, two wood and two precast concrete noise barriers were chosen to be represented in this report. The first wood option consists of horizontal 3 x 8 boards and precast concrete posts at 24' o.c. at a cost of $201,000. The second wood option consists of a herringbone pattern of 3 x 8 planks and precast concrete posts spaced at 24' o.c. at a cost of $236,000. Two different precast concrete walls are examined in this report, ranging in price from $176,000 to $223,000. See attached drawings for all cases. Costs quoted herein are preliminary estimates suitable for budget purposes only. Costs are based on a turnkey project and as such include costs for design development, preparation of construction documents and construction of the wall. WOOD WALLS: ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: PRECAST CONCRETE WALL: ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: DISCUSSION Given the proximity to an established neighborhood, aesthetics should play a major role in the selection of building materials. The warm tones and textural quality of real wood could provide an attractive and harmonious addition to the neighborhood. A wood wall would be much easier to repair or replace when damaged. The wood wall is made primarily from a renewable resource. The quality of wood required for a soundwall would not need to come from old growth forests. In fact, glue laminated timbers produced from tree farms may be the most economical choice. Wood, when subjected to contact with the ground and exposed to weather, is subject to decay. However, the USDA Forest Products Laboratory has, after extensive testing, determined that preservative treated wood will have a useful service life in excess of fifty years. Precast concrete walls can be cast in a large variety of patterns and textures. Properly constructed, precast panels should have excellent durability. Although precast concrete walls can be a cost effective solution to situations of this nature, it should be noted that precast walls of this height may be inappropriate in an established residential setting, due to their cold impersonal nature. Precast walls are also difficult and expensive to repair when damaged, and the original texture is hard to match. The reinforcing in the panels can rust, promoting unsightly spalling of the adjacent concrete. MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING 91169, Page 3 Several other wall materials, such as masonry, steel and aluminum were investigated, but, due to their perceived poor aesthetic qualities and higher costs, were excluded from this report. We believe that the walls represented in this report offer cost effective solutions to the City of Saratoga's noise barrier requirements, and the costs and aesthetics of the wood walls make them an exceptional value. There are many similar wood walls in Colorado, the Northwestern and Eastern States that are performing well .in- much more demanding environments.- Many aspects of our design were taken from the National Forest Products Association's "Guide Specifications for Wood Highway Noise Barriers" and incorporate accepted standards of wood noise barrier design. We trust this letter report satisfies your present needs regarding this project. We look forward to working with you in the design of this wall. Should you have any questions or comments, please call. Respectfully yours, MESITI- MILLER ENGINEERING Mark Mesiti Miller Principal Engineer Encl. cc: File JRT :MMM:svv t LSSI0 ESIT 0. ll No. 40945 Exp.3/31/95 CiV1". EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-0 q 3 MEETING DATE: Oct. 16, 1991 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM 4f) SUBJECT: Contract for Reformatting and Printing Municipal Code Recommended Motion: Report Summary: Authorize City Manager to execute contract and purchase order with Book Publishing Company in an amount not to exceed $12,395.00. In 1986, Saratoga's former City Attorney reformatted and reprinted our City Code. The Code was prepared on a dedicated word processor which was incompatible with the City's equipment and with our supplementing service's equipment. As a result, only his office could issue supplements to update the reformatted Code. Since he is no longer employed by the City, it is necessary to find a new way to issue supplements. In addition, for the long -term efficiency of the supplementing process, the entire Code should be reformatted. Book Publishing Company has proposed to reformat our Code in a two column style which will condense our code from about 1,000 pages to about 700 pages and from three volumes to two. In addition, BPC offers a software program called CodeMaster. Among other things, this program makes it possible to retrieve information quickly, print individual code sections, supplement the Code, and include printed ordinance citations in the Code. Codemaster is compatible with the City's equipment and the current City Attorney's equipment. It can also be placed on the City computer network for use by all staff. Staff recommends having BPC perform the initial reformatting on their computers and provide the Code to us on disks (or transfer it to us by modem) for our computers. In this way, rather than being forced to rely on a single individual or office for supplements, we can have them prepared either by the codifying service, City staff, or the City Attorney. BPC has been in business for many years and, in fact, supplemented our code before the City Attorney took it over. Other codifying services have similar services, but Book Publishing is recommended because of their previous reliable performance and more advanced compatible software. They provided us with a demonstration computer disk which performed as expected. Finally, in case of a regional disaster, the complete code will exist both on our computer and on the computer in Seattle. Fiscal Impacts: The City Clerk's budget includes $12,535 for this purpose in 1991 -92. (To put this in perspective, for the 1986 reformatting we paid $12,173 for word processing costs alone and over $4,000 for printing and other costs.) Attachments: Purchase Order Contract DEPARTMENT NAME ORDERED BY TO Book Publishing Co. 201 Westlake Ave. North Seattle WA 98109 -5293 L City Clerk TITLE 1. SEND TWO COPIES OF INVOICE. PURCHASE ORDER CITY OF SARATOGA FINANCE DIRECTOR 7 J DELIVERY TO 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. PHONE 867-3438 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 We will not assume responsibility for marterial shipped not covered by this order or not shipped according to instructions. ORGANIZATION 7076 ACCOUNT NO. 5330 INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS CLAIM NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. 11155 DATE 10/10/91 THIS ORDER NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY CLERK PROJECT 2. ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ORDER PROMPTLY, ADVISING WHEN SHIPMENT WILL BE MADE OR WORK PERFORMED. 3. SHOW PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES, DELIVERY SLIPS AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THIS ORDER. CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 I CERTIFY THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THIS ORDER. AND THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. QUANTITY ARTICLES AND DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT CodeMasterPlus Software $3,295.00 Code conversion and printing 50 copies NTE 9,100.00 NTE $12,395.00 NTE $12,395.1 DEPARTMENT NAME ORDERED BY TO Book Publishing Co. 201 Westlake Ave. North Seattle WA 98109 -5293 L City Clerk TITLE 1. SEND TWO COPIES OF INVOICE. PURCHASE ORDER CITY OF SARATOGA FINANCE DIRECTOR 7 J DELIVERY TO 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. PHONE 867-3438 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 We will not assume responsibility for marterial shipped not covered by this order or not shipped according to instructions. ORGANIZATION 7076 ACCOUNT NO. 5330 INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS CLAIM NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. 11155 DATE 10/10/91 THIS ORDER NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY CLERK PROJECT 2. ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ORDER PROMPTLY, ADVISING WHEN SHIPMENT WILL BE MADE OR WORK PERFORMED. 3. SHOW PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES, DELIVERY SLIPS AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THIS ORDER. CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 I CERTIFY THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THIS ORDER. AND THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. CERTIFICATE OP FEE EXEMPTION Department of Fish and Game To County Clerk County of Santa Clara 191 No. First St. San Jose, CA 95113 Project Title: yrojecIt Location: 20301 Hill Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 _Project Descript t» .P.equ.est to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very ,Low Density Residential. The request also involves ..amending the zoning ordin4nce..in order to reclassify a parcel in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district 1- 40,000 in order to conform with the revised property lines created by a lot line adjustment. Y'Wings of Exemption: Estate of Audrey Smith (GPA -91 -001 ZC -91 -002) An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the potential for this project to cause an adverse effect ei ifidiviuuaily of e:uniuiat on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code) 2. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. Certification: I hereby certify that Santa Clara County, as lead agency, has made the above findings and that the proposed project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. 0 Signature Title` ;:Date de Ninimis Impact Finding From: City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 X7,014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 7.-0 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: 10/16/91 4 9 6 1 1111---- ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL' SUBJECT: Request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. The request also involves amending the zoning ordinance in order to reclassify a parcel in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district to R -1- 40,000 in order to bring all parcels under common ownership into one zoning classification Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request as- presented. Report Summary: On August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments to zone four lots currently designated as R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000. The City Council has the authority to either approve, modify or reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission. However, any modification of the proposed amendments, not previously considered by the Planning Commission, shall be referred back to the Planning Commission. The zoning amendment was initiated by the applicant, the owners of the Smith Estate, to place all lots in the same zone district. Currently, the estate is bisected so that one lot is zone R -1- 40,000 and four lots are zoned R -1- 20,000. Due to the parcels being redesignated to a lower density, which would restrict additional subdivisions, preservation of the low density character of this neighborhood is achieved. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Staff memorandum 2. Planning Commission Report dated 8/28/91 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/28/91 4. Environmental Negative Declaration 5. Exhibit "A Plans 6. Resolution amending GeneralPlan Mot i o nrdananu o rezoni ng certain territory TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OVERVIEW: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council DATE: 10/16/91 Planning Staff General Plan and Zone Change Amendments at 20301 Hill Avenue; Estate of Audrey Smith (GPA -91 -001 and ZC -91 -002) On February 11, 1991, staff received a request to alter a lot line boundary which divides two separate properties at the subject residence. Subsequently, the lot line also separates two different General Plan designations and two different zoning classifications. Under these conditions, staff directed the applicant to request a General Plan and Zone Change Amendment for the two parcels involved. In completing the request for General Plan Amendment and the zone change, the applicant chose to include all four lots currently zoned R -1- 20,000 to the lower R -1- 40,000 to be consistent with the one remaining lot. On August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential (RLD) to Very Low Density Residential (RVLD). The approval also involved amending the zoning ordinance in order to reclassify four parcels from the R -1- 20,000 zone district to R -1- 40,000. The application was initiated by the applicant to move a lot line within the Smith Estate. The purpose of the lot line adjustment was to locate the main house and its accessory structures on one lot in order to retain the home within the family and to sell the remaining portions for development. The Commission specifically discussed Lot #3 as this lot will be approximately 47 feet less than required lot width for this zone district. The Planning Commission concluded that it was probable that future development of these lots would require the approval of a new tentative map which would provide the City with the opportunity to create conforming lots. GPA -91 -001 and ZC -91 -002; 20301 Hill Avenue General Plan: The following are the two descriptions of land use categories involved in this General Plan Amendment: As the Council can see, the redesignation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential is more restrictive in terms of allowable density and coverage. Staff finds that the zoning change and General Plan amendment which reduces both density and intensity of development achieves the City's objective to preserve the low density, open space character of this well established neighborhood. Although this is not within the City's designated hillsides, the site is a transitional foothill property. Zoning: 1. Very Low Density Single Family Maximum density of 1.09 DU /net acre or 3.38 people /acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 35% of site area. This is the General Plan designation requested by the applicant to incorporate all five lots. 2. Low Density Single Family Maximum density of 2.18 DU /net acre or 6.76 people /acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 45% of site area. This is the General Plan designation that currently applies to one lot within the property that would be removed from these sites. The reclassification of the R -1- 20,000 zone district to R -1- 40,000 is also more restrictive due to the inability to create additional parcels. For example, Lot #1 is approximately 49,397 square feet, Lot #2 is approximately 161,172 square feet, Lot #3 is approximately 40,000 square feet, Lot #4 is approximately 66,120 square feet and Lot #5 is approximately 51,761 square feet. With the new zoning classification, Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5 will not be subdividable. Therefore, a preservation of open space land is further achieved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request as presented. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: GPA -91 -001, ZC -91 -002 and LL-91-002; 20301 Hill Ave. Applicant /Owner: Estate of Audrey Smith Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: August 28, 1991 APN: 517 -19 -033 and 517 -19 -034 Director Approval: (e) 4710 511 11 -3o (4) 2031 517-t9 -21 (s) 20 sole. 519. 19 -22 (2) 203 517 -11 -19 C(,) 2 5171i-25 7) 20t7p 517 19 -24 14100 519 27 (5, 4.3, 2 517 -:9 34 20411 (A■ on 5 -15 15 00 1 517 -,g -21 0) 15000 517-2E -109 14102 517 -22 104 (1) legal 517-19.37 511.20- 70231 517 -2o- 2� 0 I4 85C 20250 517-1 o 11 20 ,0 0 1517.20 -I8 20230 S17-20- 20 1517 -s2 ;7 File No. GPA- 91 -004., ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002; 40301 Hill Avenue CASE HISTORY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DISCUSSION: ATTACHMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 2/11/91 Application complete: 6/17/91 Notice published: 7/24/91 Mailing completed: 7/25/91 Posting completed: 7/18/91 Request for lot line adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The proposal involves amending the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential to conform with the revised property lines. Subsequently, the parcels involved will also be rezoned from R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The subject properties are located at 20301 Hill Avenue, within the R -1- 20,000 and R -1- 40,000 zone districts. Lot #1 is approximately 3.6 acres and Lot #2 is approximately 1.3 acres. Approval of the lot line adjustment will create a 1.13 acre parcel from Lot #1 (Parcel A) and a 3.7 acre parcel from Lot #2 (Parcel B). Because the lot line adjustment is proposed over two land use designations, a General Plan Amendment is necessary to ensure that property lines conform to the General Plan boundaries. Staff feels the affected parcel should be reclassified as Very Low Density Residential instead of Low Density Residential due to the former being more compatible with existing hillside development. The lot line adjustment is also proposed over two different zoning districts which requires an amendment to the zoning ordinance. The proposed change will reclassify the R -1- 20,000 designation to R- 1- 40,000 for areas within the proposed lot lines. Both parcels will be well over the minimum gross site area requirement for the R -1- 40,000 zone district. The proposal is in compliance with all applicable zoning regulations and will not increase any existing non conforming situation on the subject parcels. Staff is able to support all three applications as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve applications GPA -91 -001, ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002 by adopting the attached resolutions. 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions GPA -91 -001 and ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002 3. Environmental Assessment 4. Negative Declaration 5. Map, Exhibit "A" File No. GPA -91 -001, ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002; 20301 Hill Avenue ZONING: R -1- 20,000 and R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (RLD) and Very Low Density Residential (RVLD) PARCEL SIZE: Lot 1 Lot 2 AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Lot 1 Lot 2 LOT COVERAGE: SETBACKS: Parcel B Existing 3.55 acres 1.28 acres Existing 14% 21% House: Cabana: Garage: Lrg. Cottage: Sm. Cottage: Pool Eq. Rm.: TOTAL Front: 4 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Interior Side: 50 ft. Exterior Side: 0 ft. PROPOSAL 2,760 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. 640 sq. ft. 1,568 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 70 sq. ft. 5,688 sq. ft. Existing non conforming setbacks STAFF ANALYSIS Proposed 1.13 acres (Parcel A) 3.7 acres (Parcel B) Proposed Parcel A 29% (14,400 sq. ft.) Parcel B N/A FLOOR AREA: Parcel A 19% (Parcel A) 15% (Parcel B) CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 35% (17,289 sq. ft.) 35% (56,410 sq. ft.) 5,688 sq. ft. N/A 8,670 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Interior Side: 20 ft. Exterior Side: 25 ft. File No. GPA- 91 -00�, ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002; 20301 Hill Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for lot line adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The proposal involves amending the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential to conform with the revised property lines. Subsequently, the parcels involved will also be rezoned from R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to adjust a lot line between two separate parcels. In order to do so, the applicant must first obtain General Plan Amendment and Zone Change approval. Lot #2 is located in the R -1- 20,000 zone district and has a Low Density Single- Family Residential (RLD) General Plan classification. Lot #1 is located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district and has a Very Low Density Single Family Residential (RVLD) General Plan classification. Presently existing on Lot #1 are eight separate structures consisting of two cottages, the main residence, a garage, a cabana, a pool equipment room, a storage shed and a lath house. All of the structures were constructed prior to the incorporation of the City. However, none are on the City's heritage resource inventory list and, therefore, are not historically protected. Lot #2 is a vacant parcel consisting only of dense vegetation and gradually sloping terrain. Surrounding uses consist of single family residences to the northeast and northwest, vacant parcels to the north and single family residences to the south. The residences to the northeast and northwest are zoned R -1- 20,000 while the residences to the south are zoned R -1- 40,000. ANALYSIS: General Plan: The applicant is proposing to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan in order to propose a lot line adjustment over two different land use designations. Lot #1 is classified as RVLD (1.09 DU /net acre) while Lot #2 is classified as RLD (2.18 DU /net acre). Staff feels that Lot #2 should be reclassified to the Very Low Density Residential designation for the following reasons: 1. The reclassification will only affect one 1.28 acre parcel which is immediately adjacent to the RVLD land use. Therefore, the change will only encompass a very small portion within the City. 2. The reclassification will become more restrictive, not less. Therefore, the new designation would only allow 1.09 DU /net acre as compared to the existing 2.18 DU /net acre. Further, the new designation will be compatible with existing development within the hillside area. File No. GPA- 91 -00i, ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002; 40301 Hill Avenue Staff believes the reclassification will not only be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, but will be consistent with the City's interest of open space preservation. Zoning: The proposed lot. line adjustment involves the movement of a property line which not only separates two different land uses, but separates two different zone districts. The adjusted lot line will encroach into the R -1- 20,000 zone district, thereby creating a parcel with two different zoning classifications. Therefore, staff directed the applicant to apply for a zone change in order to conform to the revised property lines. Staff feels that lot #2 should be rezoned to the R -1- 40,000 classification due to it being consistent with the General Plan as well as the preservation of open space in this area. If the lot line adjustment and zone change amendment are approved, the size of both new parcels will be greater than the minimum lot size required for the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Lot Line Adjustment: According to Section 14- 50.040 (B) of the City's subdivision ordinance, the Planning Commission shall not approve a lot line adjustment unless it makes all of the following findings: 1. That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 2. That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter. 3. That the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the subject properties. For the purpose of defining finding #2, the lot line adjustment shall be deemed consistent if no new violation of the City's zoning regulations are created by the lot line adjustment. Staff has recognized several issues in its review of lot line adjustment. The proposal will need to conform with the required lot width, depth and area; and the proposal will need to conform to required setbacks, allowable floor area and impervious coverage requirements. One cottage, closest to Vine Street, presently crosses the parcel boundary line between lots #1 and #2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will move the property line away from the structure in order to bring this structure into conformance with the required rear yard setback of 20 feet. The exterior non- conforming side yard setback, however, will not change. Therefore, no new violation of the City's zoning ordinance will occur. File No. GPA- 91 -00,, ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002; 20301 Hill Avenue The newly created Parcel A will have approximately six separate structures on its premise totalling 5,688 square feet. However, taking into consideration the City's slope adjustment, the allowable floor area for the proposed parcel is also 5,688 square feet. Therefore, the proposal will conform to floor area requirements. Additionally, the impervious coverage will be well under the allowable. Two cottages will exist within Parcel A. The larger of the two cottages has a kitchen while the smaller has none. Therefore, the larger cottage is considered a second unit. However, the City has no record of a use permit issued to legalize this unit. The applicant will then need to submit proof that a second unit use permit has been obtained or apply for such a permit prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment. The applicant's have recently submitted their request for legalization of the second unit which will be processed for Planning Commission review at the earliest possible public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Approve applications GPA -91 -001, ZC -91 -002 and LL -91 -002 by adopting the attached resolutions. WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment has been filed with the Planning Director of the City of Saratoga and an environmental negative declaration has been prepared, for the reclassification of APN 517 -19 -034 from a Low Density Residential land use to a Very Low Density Residential land use for four lots per Exhibit "A and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the City; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, the subject properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does recommend approving the General Plan Amendment reclassifying the Low Density Residential land use designation to Very Low Density Residential, making the following findings: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. GPA -91 -001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA Smith; 20301 Hill Avenue 1. The reclassification is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan; 2. General community welfare and good planning practice are served by the new classificatior:; 3. The reclassification will not have a significant effect on the environment. Refer to the Negative Declaration reviewed by the Planning Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, this 28th day of August, 1991 by the following roll call vote: airperson, Planning Aommission Smith; 20301 Hill Avenue ATTEST: S cretry t the Planning Commission The foregoing is her accepted. ature f 9 Jo --7f Date WHEREAS, a zone change amendment has been filed with the Planning Director of the City of Saratoga and an environmental negative declaration has been prepared, for the rezoning of lots #2 (now referred to as Parcel B), #3, #4 and #5 from R -1- 20,000 to R- 1- 40,000 per Exhibit "A and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That certain real property referred to in the attached Exhibit "A" is recommended to be rezoned R -1- 40,000. Section 2: follows: Section 3: The designation is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of August, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. ZC -91 -002 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING REZONING OF CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA Smith; 20301 Hill Avenue The reasons for such recommendation are as 1. The zoning is consistent with the minimum one acre standard found in the adjacent zone districts. 2. The reduced, density is compatible with the hillside topography which requires more open space to off -set the impacts of development. 3. The zone change will not have a significant effect on the environment as indicated in the Negative Declaration reviewed by the Planning Commission. Smith; 20301 Hill Avenue ecre anning Commission The foregoing is here -de 9J Si ure of Appli nt Date Chairperson, Planninj Commission ATTEST: PROJECT: Estate of Audrey Smith FILE NO: ZC -002 GPA -9j -001 LOCATION: 20301 Hill Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA CRITER?A FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PU9LIC AGENCY) I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6 Lawridge Rd. Stuart Smith. Trustee 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: April 2, 1991 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Saratoga 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: FORM EIA -lb Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Request for a General Plan Amendment and a zone change due to a proposed lot line adjustment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X -r e. Any inct e in wind or water erosion of so- either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or f the rate and amount of surface water runoff? -2- YES MAYBE NO b. The creation of objectionable odors? X X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X X d. Change .he amount of surface water or an water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants) b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? YES MAYBE NO X X X X c. Introdu :n of new species of plants into area, or in a ...Arrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life.. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X X X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? -4- r YES MAYBE NO X X X 8. Land Use. the proposal result in a subst. _al alteration o. the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -5- YES MAYBE NC X X X X X X b. Effects c xisting parking facilities, or d .id for new paying? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -6- YES :MAYBE NO c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X X b. Substar. 1 increase in demand upon existi. sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- t io n o y scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quanti rf oxisting recreational opportunities? YES `1AYBE NO X X X X 20. Cultural Res. .es. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) 8- YES MAYBE NO X X X X c. Does th. ,.roject have impacts which are in, .i dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -9- YES MAYBE NO EV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: i) I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. DATE: 5/28/91 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. O I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: For: Steve Emslie, Planning Director -10- (rev. 5/16/80) File No. GPA -91 -001 and ZC -91 -002 DECLARATION TEAT 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 or Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. The request also involves amending the zoning ordinance in order to reclassify a parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zone district to R- 1- 40,000 in order to conform with- the revised property lines created by a lot line adjustment. NAME AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The applicant's request is not categorically exempt under the CEQA guidelines. Therefore, environmental review is required. An environmental assessment and initial study for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change amendment indicate that the development will not result in a substantial alteration of the present land use and could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 8th d Estate of Audrey Smith 20301 Hill Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dir st, 1991. of Planning Director's Authorizat Staff Member 000117 Chair Moran reiterated that the Planning Commission does not hear public hearings after 11:30 p.m and asked if anyone in the audience wished to request that their item be continued to a future meeting. It was requested that Item #8, DR -91 -023 (Sinsley) be continued. MOTION to continue DR -91 -023, Sinsley, to September 11, 1991. M/S Tucker /Forbes Ayes 6 5. DR -91 -043 Saratoga Pacific Oaks, 19160 Crisp Ave., request for design review approval to construct a new 4,993 sq. ft. one -story residence on a 42,427 sq. ft. parcel within the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is Lot #20 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision. Planner Walgren reviewed the staff report for this item, indicating that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 10:40 p.m. MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:42 p.m. Commissioner Caldwell requested that on page 85, item #19 be revised to include a requirement for native vegetation and that the second #18 be corrected to #20 and the second #19 be corrected to #21. MOTION to approve DR -91 -043 with modifications as noted. M/S Caldwell /Tucker 6. LL -91 -002 Smith, 20301 Hill Ave., request for lot line ZC -91 -002 adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot GPA -91 -001 line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The proposal also involves amending the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential to conform with the revised property lines. Subsequently, the parcels involved will also be rezoned from R- 1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Planner Walgren presented the staff report to the Planning Commission indicating that staff was recommending approval. Commissioner Tucker asked for a definition of the term "cottage" and Planner Walgren responded that the City is looking into the issue of whether this structure will function as a second unit. Commissioner Tucker indicated she would prefer to see the smaller 9 Ayes 6 "cottage" labeled a guest house. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 10:47 p.m. David Elgart, 20301 Hill Avenue, stated he is trying to purchase the improved portion of the property for his home and will be selling the unimproved portion of the property. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, reported that they had reviewed the map for potential re- zoning which will put the property in better relationship and give the City more control. He indicated that the applicant is going for less dense zoning. Mr. Heiss indicated that lots 4, 5 and 3 are being re- zoned; they are not changing the lots at this time, just re- zoning the property consisting of these lots. Planning Director Emslie clarified that it is possible for the Planning Commission to include the remaining parcels in the re- zoning if it sees fit to do so. Regarding non conforming lots, Chair Moran asked staff if it is possible to make a non conforming lot less non conforming. Planning Director Emslie responded that you cannot increase the degree of non conformity but you can improve the situation. Commissioner Caldwell asked if we have legal grounds to condition an applicant that ultimately all lots will be conforming in all respects. The City Attorney responded that we cannot condition a re -zone but will have to wait for the subdivision review to come before the Commission. Planning Director Emslie indicated that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to look at this matter again at the subdivision level. MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:10 p.m. M/S Caldwell /Tucker Ayes 6 MOTION to approve GPA 91 -001 to be all inclusive for all lots designated Residential Low Density to Residential Very Low Density. M/S Tucker /Caldwell Ayes 6 MOTION to approve ZC -91 -002 per staffs language to rezone all R -1- 20,000 lots to R -1- 40,000 per the applicant's request. M/S Tucker /Forbes Ayes 6 MOTION to approve LL -91 -002 per the resolution. M/S Tucker /Caldwell Ayes 6 10 CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION Department of Fish and Game de To: County Clerk County of Santa Clara 191 No. First St. San Jose, CA 95113 Project Location: Findings of Exemption: Certification: Minimis Impact Finding From: City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Project Title: Estate of Audrey Smith (GPA -91 -001 ZC -91 -002) 20301 Hill Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 Project Description: Request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. The request also involves amending the zoning ordinance in order to reclassify a parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zone district to R -1- 40,000 in order to conform with the revised property lines created by a lot line adjustment. 1. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the potential for this project to cause an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code) 2. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. I hereby certify that Santa Clara County, as lead agency, has made the above findings and that the proposed project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Signature Title Date ,ax t t Clara (Tlmmtg 56uprriar (Slum Office of the County Clerk 191 North First Street San Jose, California 95113 (408) 299-2968 EVISED 6/91 NAME OF LEAD AGENCY: City of Saratoga NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Saratoga CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF PREPARATION NO FEE 2. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION /STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION NO FEE FOR COURT USE ONLY ;FILING NO. 3. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 3 A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 21080(C) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE $1,250.00 (Twelve Hundred Fifty Dollars) STATE FILING FEE $25.00 (Twenty -five Dollars) CLERK FEE [XX] B CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION DE MINIMIS IMPACT FINDING NO FEE 4. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 21152 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE $850.00 (Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars) STATE FILING FEE B CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION DE MINIMIS IMPACT FINDING NO FEE *THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND FILED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK S OFFICE_ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COUNTY CLERK Notice of Determination To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 XX County Clerk County of Santa Clara 191 North First St. San Jose. CA. 95112 Estate of Audrey Smith (GPA -91 -001 ZC -91 -002) Project Title State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Project Location (include county) Signature (Public Agency) Date received for filing at OPR: From: (Public Agency) City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95 (ss) 1. The project ❑will will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 2 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures ❑were were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ❑was [was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings [®were ❑were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Date Title Appendix H Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension Contact Person Stephen Emslie, Planning Director City of Saratoga (408) 867 -3438 Project Description: Amendment to the General Plan from Low Density Resid. to Very Low Density Resid. The request also involves amending the zoning ord. in order to reclassify a parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zone district to R -1- 40,000 in order to conform with the revised property lines created by a lot line adjustment. This is to advise that the City of Saratoga has approved the above described project on X(S] Lead Agency Responsible Agency and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project (Date) This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Saratoga, Planning Dept., 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 Planning Director Revised October 1989 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NAME AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. The request also involves amending the zoning ordinance in order to reclassify a parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zone district to R -1- 40,000 in order to conform with the revised property lines created by a lot line adjustment. File No. GPA -91 -001 and ZC -91 -002 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 or Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this 8th d Estate of Audrey Smith 20301 Hill Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 The applicant's request is not categorically exempt under the CEQA guidelines. Therefore, environmental review is required. An environmental assessment and initial study for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change amendment indicate that the development will not result in a substantial alteration of the present land use and could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Director's Authoriz st, 1991. Dir'cto of Planning 6 k 0 on Staff Member meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 15th day of 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Myles, Peterson, Stutzman, and Mayor Anderson NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: MAYOR L-4- 1 s I 1 1 1 i 4 NA 0 =dm wee this; dVW Ndld 71/83N39 EX HIBIT A C a ti' 11i soc t ■r* W l M e V s u a i A D T W I dVw 14v7d1d83N3 II li1111 r 1 :gull Ott ih! mg um iiif 13 1 1 g w i• w i w e RESOLUTION NO. GPA -91 -001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 517 -19 -033 AND 517- 19 -034 Smith; 20301 Hill Avenue WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment has been filed with the Planning Director of the City of Saratoga and an environmental negative declaration has been prepared, for the reclassification of APN 517 -19 -033 and 517 -19 -034 from a Low Density Residential land use to a Very Low Density Residential land use for four lots per Exhibit "A and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the City; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, the subject properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saratoga does recommend approving the General Plan Amendment reclassifying the Low Density Residential land use designation to Very Low Density Residential, making the following findings: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council, this 28th day of August, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1. The reclassification is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan; 2. General community welfare and good planning practice are served by the new classification; 3. The reclassification will not have a significant effect on the environment. Refer to the Negative Declaration reviewed by the Planning Commission. Smith; 20301 Hill Avenue CITY CLERK ATTEST: MAYOR ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REZONING CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 517 -19 -034 AND 517 -19- 034 FROM R -1- 20,000 TO R -1- 40,000 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines as follows: (a) An application has been filed by the owner of that certain real property located at 20301 Hill Avenue, Saratoga, California, identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 517 -19- 033 and 517 -19 -034, to rezone said properties from R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000. (b) Following the conduct of a public hearing, on August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga adopted Resolution ZC -91 -002 recommending to the City Council that such zoning change be adopted. (c) The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's General Plan and consistent with the density of development in the adjacent area. SECTION 2: The real property located at 20301 Hill Avenue, Saratoga, California, identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 517- 19 -033 and 517 -19 -034, is rezoned from R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 40,000. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduce and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1991, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2■0 Z pp� AGENDA ITEM 61 MEETING DATE: October 16, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Response to Mr. Thomas Reddick's questions to the City Council Members on September 18, 1991 Recommended Motion: That the Council approve attached letter in response to Mr. Reddick's questions. Report Summary: On September 18, 1991, Mr. Reddick posed two questions before the City Council concerning senior citizen's garbage rates and also the applicability of the rate to the rolling carts currently available for rent from Green Valley Disposal. The attached letter responds to Mr. Reddick's questions. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Draft letter Motion and Vote: IM'W ©2 0 Printed on recycled paper. October 17, 1991 Mr. Thomas Reddick 12378 Larchmont Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Reddick: Sincerely, Willem A. Kohler Mayor 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 D R A F T COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman This is in response to your questions to the City Council members on September 18, 1991, concerning Senior Citizen's garbage rates and also the applicability of the rates to the rolling carts. The Senior rate is equal to the cost of one -can service, and results from the option that seniors have to select one -can service. This option is available to senior citizens only, and has been in effect since 1983 when the unlimited can service was instituted in Saratoga in response to the needs of various senior residents who had smaller households and therefore produced less waste than the average household. The second issue concerns the use of the rolling cart that is now available for rent from Green Valley Disposal for $2.00 per month. The rolling cart (Toter), presently available from Green Valley Disposal Company,has a 95 gallon capacity which is equivalent to three regular cans. With the onset of the city -wide variable rate can service on April 1, 1992, staff has requested that Green Valley consider offering smaller rolling carts for rent. Green Valley will make available a cart that is equivalent to two cans. However, due to inventory constraints, Green Valley will not be able to offer a one -can equivalent rolling cart. Residents who wish to select one -can service, such as senior citizens, have the option to buy one of several rolling carts available in hardware stores, such as the one shown in the attached advertising, which was included in the Mercury News. As you know, on April 1, 1992, every resident will have the opportunity to participate in the unlimited yard clipping recycling program. Several residents have expressed their intention to use the 95 cubic yard rolling cart for the yard waste clippings. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact either the Council or staff. 32 GAL. WHEELED BRUISER® CONTAINER r exza e 100 CT. 33 GALLON 80 CT. 40 GALLON