HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-1984 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSAGENDA BILL: --70
DATE: September 13, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty
City Mgr. 2C
SUBJECT: Acceptance and Acknowledgement of Donation for Hakone
Issue Summary
Jeff Conway of Sunset Solar Systems, Los Gatos, has given the City a $50.00
contribution for use at Hakone Gardens.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Donation of $50.
Exhibits /Attachments
None.
Council Action
9/19: Accepted donation 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1570 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Jerry Schiffman
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION l:
The 1.142 Acre Parcel shown as Parcel 1 on the Final Parcel Map
prepared by H. P. Lorimer, Civil Engineer and submitted to the City*
Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) induvidual building
site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
i ..
meeting held on the day of 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial
AGENDA BILL NO. %fi. Dept. F.
DATE: C. Attu
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Conditional Final Building Site, SDR -1570, JERRY `SCHIFFMAN, Sobey Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue S
1. The SDR -1570 is ready for Conditional Final Map Approval.
2. All Bonds and Agreements have been submitted to the City.
3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have
been met except Parcel Map.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution 1570 -02 attached; approving the Conditional
Final Map of SDR -1570 and authorised excution of Building.Site Appro-
val Agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
NONE
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1570 -02.
2. Location Map.
3. Status report for building site approval.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
Council Action
77;p-
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1570, Jerry Schiffman
(&) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 1984
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for.all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N.A.
AWx*Xx1X&fXXtDry or arcel Map yes
Storm Drainage Fee $1100.00 Date Subm;
All Required Improvement Bonds $3000.00
All Required Inspection Fees $450.00
Building Site Approval Agreement yes
Park and Recreation Fee $1300.00
fitted
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date Submitted
Date Submitted
'9 -24 -84 Receipt
Submitted 9 -24 -84
Submitted 9 -24 -84
Signed 9 -24 -84
Submitted-9-24-84
N.A.
# 6518
Receipt# - - - - --
Receipt# 651_8
Receipt #.6518
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Conditional) (FA &W) Building Site Approval for Jerry Schiffman
SDR -.1570 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
1. ..Submit Final Parcel Map
xoderr b. bnoox
Director of Community Development
Tall
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Sarato(r
APPROVED BY:
DATE:_ DATE: 6/5/84
INITIALS: Commission Meeting: 6/13/84
SUBJECT: SDR -1570, & A -967, Jerry Schiffman, 14925 Sobey Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of: 1) Tentative Building Site for a
new single.family dwelling.
2)' Design Review for a two -story
structure over 26' in height
on an infill parcel.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED:
Building Permits.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Final Building Site Approval and
GENERAL PLAN: Residential -Very Low Density Single Family.
Project complies with all applicable General Plan goals and policies.
_q TMR TIATA
PARCEL SIZE: 1.1 AC
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Oak and orchard trees. Site
modified by previous grading for a single- family dwelling which
as been removed from the site.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Over 10%
GRADING REQUIRED:
(per applicant)
Cut - 0 Cu. Yds
Cut Depth - 0 Ft.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 8%
Fill - 20 Cu. Yds.
Fill Depth - 3 Ft.
BUILDING SITE ISSUES: The applicant has submitted information
indicating that the garage is located on a slope of about 46.5 %.
Section 13.9 -3(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance states that "No
site shall be approved which bears a slope of over forty percent
Report to the Planning Commission 6/5/84
SDR -1570, A -967, Jer Schiffman Page 2
at the area on which any structure is to be built ". An exception
to this provision can be granted under Article 15 of the Subdivision
Ordinance if the Commission makes certain findings. If an
exception is not granted the garage will have to be relocated
on an area of the site with a less than 40% slope.
To grant an exception under the Subdivision Ordinance the
Commission must make one of the following findings:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property.
or
2. The'exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of the substantial property rights of the petitioner.
In addition to making one of the findings above, the Commission
must also find that:
3. The granting of the exception will not be materially detri-
mental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious
to other property in the territory in which said property
is located.
In the case of this particular site, staff is of the opinion
that findings 1 and 3 apply to this particular situation. The
40% slope is not the natural slope.of the site and a fill slope
created by previous grading on the site. The original slope
was probably 20 -25% under the garage. The applicant proposes to
remove and redistribute this soil forming a gentler slope. The
garage would be supported by a pier foundation connecting the
garage to undisturbed cemented sand and gravel (see supplemental
soil and Geologic Investigation dated.May 14, 1984). If this
system meets with the approval of the City Geologist, staff
anticipates no adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
Staff recommends that the Commission make .findings 1 and 3
listed above and grant an exception to Section 13.9(c) of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
It should be noted that the grading previously done by the
applicant on the site was done without a grading permit.
,Report to the PlannincT Commission
SDR -1570, A -967, Jer: Schiffman
J
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
6/5/84
Page 3
objectives of
and
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the
County of Santa Clara Recorders' Office relative to the
environmental impact of this project, if approved under this
application. Said determination date: May 25, 1984
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1570 (Exhibit "B" filed April 23, 1984) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordiance No. 60, including without limitation, the
submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect the time of final
approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department . regulations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further
particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with
any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto,
applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord
with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation
(Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on
6 in. aggregate base from "Sobey Road" to within 100
ft. of proposed dwelling. Slope of access road shall
not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes betweeen 12 -1/2% and 15%
shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on
6" aggregate base.
Report to the Planning Commission 6/5/84
SDR -1570, A -967, Jer: Schiffman Page 4.
2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17h%
shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough
surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in
excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
3. Access roads having slope in excess of 17 -1/2%
are not permitted.
Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42
ft.
b) The minimum vertical clearance above road
surface shall be 15 ft.
c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall
be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic
loading.
d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through
the use of culverts and roadside ditches.
D. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved
equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or
better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed
dwelling.
E. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property
line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double
seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 aggregate
base.
F. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe
culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of
Community Development.
G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions
of view as required at driveway and access road inter-
sections.
H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
I. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and
fills.
J. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community
Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings
of City Street.
K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Access Road Construction.
L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
Report to the Planniy Commission
SDR -1570, A -967, Jeri-_t- Schiffman
6/5/84
Page 5
M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improve-
ments to be completed within one (1) year of receiving
Final Approval.
N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required im-
provements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Geology
2. Soils
3. Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to
building permit being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fill; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design.by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan
using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos..,
owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service is available to this project.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. The existing water system shall be extended.to the site;
contact San Jose Water Company.
B. Provide parking and turnaround details at proposed building
site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be
shown on building plans. (See Central Fire Districts
"Standard Details and Specifications" manual).
Report to the Plannir - Commission
SDR -1570, A -967, Jer.,_.. Schiffman
6/5/84
Page 6
C. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water
supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for
2 hours.
D. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Central Fire
District's specifications. Contact should be made with
the water company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering
delays.
E. The developer is to grant an easement to make the hydrant
. public.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and
certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to
issuance of permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures
shall be reviewed by the.Planning Department to evaluate
the .potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall
provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or.cooling opportunities on /in the sub-
division building site.
C. Tree removal prohibited unless in.accord with applicable.
City Ordinances.
D. A supplemental geotechnical report addressing those
issues outlined by the City Geologist in his letter dated
May 14, 1984 shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the City Engineer and Geologist prior to Final Building
Site Approval and issuance of .Building Permits.
E. If an exception to Section 13.9(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance
is not granted by the Commission, then the proposed garage
must be relocated on a portion of the site with a slope less
than.40 %. Revised plans showing this will be submitted to
staff prior to Final Building Site Approval.
Report to the Planning Commission
SDR -1570, A -967, Jer Schiffman
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE DESIGN REVIEW A -967
SETBACKS: Front - 70 Ft.±
Left Side - 20 Ft.
HEIGHT: 30'
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 14.5 %±
6/5/84
Page 7
Rear - 127 Ft.±
Right Side - 28.5 Ft. (Garage)
SIZE OF STRUCTURE (Including Garage) Per Applicant
First Floor:
Second Floor:
Garage:
2532
Sq.
Ft.
1031
Sq.
Ft.
594
Sq.
Ft.
4157
Sq.
Ft.
Par Staff
2532 Sq. Ft.
1231 Sq. Ft.
594 Sq. Ft.
4357 Sq. Ft.
The discrepancy between staff and applicant calculations is due to
staff counting the attic as part of the allowable floor area
(consistent with past procedures) which the applicant has not.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed project complies with ordinance setback,
height, and coverage limits. The project, even using staff
calculations, would be 1843 sq. ft. smaller than the 6,200 sq. ft.
allowable floor area permitted in the R -1- 40,000 District.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Exterior Materials: Brick and brick veneer; cement plaster -
putty gray; wood trim (around windows) - dark brown
Roof Materials: Medium Wood Shakes - Natural
Impact on Privacy and Views: The windows for the proposed second -
story are either oriented away from adjacent private areas or
screened by vegetation so as not to create adverse privacy impacts.
The main structure will be screened or partially screened by
existing vegetation on three sides. However, the structure will
have some visual impact to the east and southeast of the site.
This partially mitigated by the location of the second story por-
tion of the structure about 30' further west than the lower level.
This impact could be further reduced if a lower pitched roof were
used.
Compatibility: The proposed structures are well within the maximum
allowable floor area for the R -1- 40,000 district and is considerably
smaller than other structures recently approved or constructed in
this area.
Design Considerations: The proposed detached garage may have to
be relocated and /or attached to.the main dwelling to comply with
building site approval requirements which would require modifications
to the design of the structure.
Report to the Planni. Commission 6/5/84
SDR -1570, A -967, Jerry" Schiffman Page 8
Other: The applicant has indicated that in the future he may
wish to use the lower level of the garage for a storage area.
This will-.not increase the visible mass of the structure.
FINDINGS
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy: The windows of
the proposed second .story are oriented or screened so as not to
adversely impact privacy. The potential impact on views is
mitigated by existing vegetation and the location of the proposed
second- story.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape: The major trees on the
site will be preserved. The topography of the site had been
modified by a previous single family use and grading after its
removal. No further significant grading is proposed by the
applicant.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk: There should be no perception of
excessive bulk due to the screening provided by existing vegetation,
the orientation of the structure,.and the changes in roof height
incorporated in the decision of the structure.
4. Compatible Bulk & Height: The proposed structures are within the
size.limits of the zoning ordinance and are comparable in size
with other structures in the vicinity. The project will not
interfere with the light, air, or solar access of adjacent properties.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards: The applicant will follow
the recommendations of a _professional geotechnical consultant •as ..
part of.the construction .procedure for this project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated
June 5, 1984, Exhibits "B ", "C," and "D ", subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit the following for
staff review and approval:
A. Any modifications to the site development plan or elevations
of any of the structures.
B. Detailed grading and drainage plans.
*C, Landscaping plans showing how the privacy of adjacent properties to
the South and East shall be protected. Landscaping to be installed
prior to final inspection /occupancy.
*2. Any decking proposed on the West of the property shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
APPROVED
MF /bjc
n !. A __ -J_ r 11 1 In A
Michael ores
Assistant Planner
AGENDA BILL NO: -) y 3
Initial:
Dept. Head: —
DATE: September 26, 1984 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Great Montalvo Griffin Chase
Issue Summar
The City has been contacted by the Montalvo Center for the Arts requesting
permission to hold the Great Montalvo Griffin Chase on Sunday, October 28,
at 9:30 a.m. The race will begin at the entrance to Villa Montalvo, across
the dirt road to Peach Hill Road, around to Glen Una to Pepper Lane, to
Mendelsohn Hill, back to Montalvo and finishes on the lawn area in front
of the pavilion. This route will not require the closure of any State
Highways.
Recommendation
Approve the route of the footrace.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Race request letter.
Map showing race route.
Council Action
10/3: Approved with provision that sponsors provide cleanup 5 -0.
E
onm o center for e Ares
P.O. Box 158, Saratoga, California 95071 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Telephone (408) 867 -3421 Gardiner R. McCauley
Virginia Fanelli, Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Mayor Fanelli:
September 24, 1984
The Board of Trustees of the Montalvo Association would
like the permission of the Council to conduct a 10K Race on
Sunday, October 28, at 9:30 a.m. I am enclosing a map indi-
cating the route of the race.
We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Wen el
Development
encl.
s
D
jr
d
vl
(ilea. U ac6 S wmsa
G -
4` J
w
J
n.
0
�4
L A 6\ G. aV �X-
r
d
iv i `k
re M oHia►� v o (
Q!A o'� Course
� � �e Govrsc c_ov� l�t'S o+
cops us iA
off- t-1ne 1rm-
lQwv..
GA ti►t
Au u
X aww,
4iv��t�.
pgv � � �vow�r
►ltov�,,
KOTA. V0
IaA ld�s
O 19,
0
_a
0
Lc4w%, Awce.,
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL N0. 1(2!L
DATE: September 18, 1984
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Animal Control Ordinances
Issue SuTmary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.�-
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
The County of Santa Clara has requested various amendments
to the City's Ankrla.l. Control Ordinances, as described in
the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith.
The amendments are intended to facilitate the animal control
services provided by the County of Santa Clara to the City.
Recommendation
Adoption of Ordinance
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memorandum to City Council from City Attorney.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
Council Action
10/3: Public hearing to.be set; Callon, Clevenger, Moyles to bring ideas to City
Attorney;representative from County,to be ".present.
10/17: Public hearing held; ordinance amended and introduced.
11/7: Ordinance 38.122 adopted 2 -1 (Callon opposed; Clevenger, Fanelli absent).
-(,
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
STEVEN G. BAIRD
JACK L. BRIDGE
GREGORY A. MANCHUK
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Hal Toppel, City Attorney
Amendments to Animal Control Ordinance
September 18, 1984
J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
The County of Santa Clara provides animal control service to the City, such as
the impoundment of stray dogs and testing for rabies or other infectious diseases. In
order to provide a uniform system of regulation, the City has enacted the same
ordinances pertaining to animal control as adopted from time to time by the County.
The County has recently amended such ordinances and has requested the City to
incorporate these amendments into the Saratoga City Code. The amendments can
be summarized as follows:
1. Addition of Section 8 -3.2: Existing ordinances do not cover the situation
of a dog that strays but later returns to the home of its owner. As
amended, the owner can now be cited for violating Section 8 -3 of the
City Code, which prohibits the owner from allowing his or her dog to run
at large. If the owner is not home, the dog may be impounded and notice
of impoundment shall be left on the front door of the residence. This
provision will allow action to be taken where the owner has.
demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to properly control the
animal.
2. Addition of Section 8 -7.1: The existing County ordinance prohibits the
sale or exchange of any dog or cat under 8 weeks old. The intent of this
ordinance is to prevent the sale of kittens or puppies before they can be
removed from their mothers. The County has amended this ordinance to
exempt a licensed or county operated animal shelter from the restriction
against sale of animals under 8 weeks °of age. Because the shelters did
not have either the facilities or the funds to care for the animals, in
most cases they were destroyed. As amended, the ordinance would now
permit sale or adoption of these animals.
SIE
3. Addition of Section 8 -7.2: This provision has been added to require that
any person adopting a dog or cat from any humane society animal
shelter, public pound, or shelter operated by a society for the prevention
of cruelty to animals shall have the animal spayed or neutered on or
before a certain date.
4. Amendment to Section 8 -8.1: The only change is the addition of sub-
paragraph b to permit the impoundment of an animal suspected of being
a threat to the public health or safety even though the owner of such
animal is present. Under the existing ordinance, if a dog has attacked a
person or another animal and returns to home before being caught by the
animal control officer, it can only be impounded if the owner is not
home. If the owner is home, the County is required to conduct a pre -
seizure hearing before the dog can be impounded. This procedure is
appropriate if the owner assumes responsibility for the animal and takes
immediate steps to assure continuous control while the question of
impoundment is being decided. However, if the owner does not assume
this responsibility, the amendment would allow impoundment where the
animal control officer determines that such action is necessary to
protect the public health or safety.
5. Amendment to Section 8 -17: This section has been amended by adding
sub - paragraph d which authorizes the health officer to charge a fee for
the County's cost of quarantining animals and inspections for quarantine
of animals. By resolution, the County Board of Supervisors has
established such fee at $20.
-2-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE I, OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO ANIMAL CONTROL
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara provides animal control services for the
City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, the County has adopted various amendments to its own ordinances
relating to animal control; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested the City to adopt similar amendments in
order to bring the Saratoga City Code into conformity with the County ordinances
and thereby provide a uniform system of regulation and enforcement,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 8 -3.2 is hereby added to Chapter 8, Article I of the
Saratoga City Code, to read as follows:
"Sec. 8 -3.2 - Condition related only to seizure of dogs running at
large.
The Poundmaster shall not seize or impound a dog for running at large in
violation of Section 8 -3 when the dog has not strayed from and is upon
private property owned by the dog owner or the person who has a right to
control the dog, or upon private property to which the dog owner or
person who has a right to control the dog has a right of possession.
A dog that has strayed away from but then returned to the private
property of its owner or the person who has a right to control the dog
shall not be seized or impounded merely for violation of Section 8 -3, but
in such a case a citation for such violation may be issued; provided,
however, that if in such situation the owner or the person who has a right
to control the dog is not home, the dog may be impounded, but the
officer shall post a notice of such impoundment on the front door of the
living unit of the owner or person who has a right to control the dog.
Such notice shall state the following: that the dog has been impounded,
where the dog is being held, the name, address and telephone number of
the agency or person to be contacted regarding release of the dog, and
an indication of the ultimate disposition of the dog if no action to regain
it is taken within a specified period of time by its owner or by the person
who has a right to control the dog.
Rev. 10/17/84 -1-
This section shall not otherwise affect the authority of the Poundmaster
to seize or impound a dog or issue citations as a result of the violation of
sections of this Article other than Section 8 -3."
Section 2: Section 8 -7.1 is hereby added to Chapter 8, Article I of the
Saratoga City Code, to read as follows:
"Sec. 8 -7.1 - Sale of Cats or Dogs.
No person or establishment other than a licensed or County operated
animal shelter shall sell, exchange, or barter any cat or dog under eight
(8) weeks of age. Proof of age of the dog or cat may be required by the
health officer. Proof of age may include, but not be limited to, a
certification by a licensed veterinarian attesting to the animal's age."
Section 3: Section 8 -7.2 is hereby added to Chapter 8, Article I of the
Saratoga City Code, to read as follows:
"Sec. 8 -7.2 - Adoption of Animals.
(a) Any person adopting an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat from
any humane society animal shelter, public pound or society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals shelter in the County of Santa
Clara shall have said animal spayed or neutered on or before a date
specified in the adoption agreement unless a licensed veterinarian
states in writing that the date specified in the adoption agreement
is inappropriate for the animal in question. On submission of such
written statement to the person at such shelter or pound
responsible for insuring compliance with this section, the adoption
agreement will be modified accordingly.
(b) Violation of this section shall be deemed to be an infraction and
shall be punished in accordance with Chapter 2.5 of the Saratoga
City Code.
(c) As a condition for adoption, the person adopting an animal may be
required to deposit with the pound or shelter an amount sufficient
to cover the cost of spaying or neutering such animal by a
veterinarian or spaying or altering clinic designated by the person
adopting the animal. The deposit shall be fowarded to the
veterinarian or clinic upon receipt by the pound or shelter of a
notice from the veterinarian or clinic that the cat or dog has been
spayed or neutered."
Section 4: Section 8 -8.1 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended, to read
as follows:
"Sec. 8-8.1 - Summary Seizure and Post - Seizure Hearing.
(a) Except as provided in Section 8 -3.2, the Poundmaster may seize
and impound an animal for violation of any provision of this Article
Rev. 10/17/84 -2-
or state law prior to a hearing in any of the following situations
where the owner is not present and where the Poundmaster
reasonably believes it is.necessary:
(1) To protect public health, safety and property;
(2) To protect an animal which is injured, sick, or starving
and must be cared for; and
(3) To protect an animal from injury which has strayed
onto public property or public right -of -way.
(b) Even when the person owning or having charge of an animal is
present, the Poundmaster may seize or impound any such
animal he reasonably believes to be infected with disease
transmittable to man or to be vicious so as to be a menace to
public health or safety. Such seizure or impoundment may be
made even though the animal is at the time of seizure
confined by the person owning or having charge of the animal
if the Poundmaster reasonably believes that such seizure and
impoundment is necesary to protect the public health or
safety.
(c) If the owner or person who has the right to control the animal
wishes to challenge the impoundment, he shall personally
deliver or mail a written request for a hearing such that it is
received by the Poundmaster within seventy -two (72) hours of
the seizure and impoundment.
(d) The Poundmaster shall promptly set the time and place for
the hearing before him which shall be not more than seven (7)
days after receipt by the poundmaster of a request for
hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be
deposited in the mail to the party requesting a hearing at
least five (5) days before the date of the hearing.
(e) The hearing shall be conducted as set forth in Section 8 -12."
Section 5: Section 8 -17 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended, to read
as follows:
"Set. 8 -17 - Animal bites; quarantine, violation and examinations.
(a) Any person having knowledge that any animal is known to
have or is suspected of having bitten any person shall
immediately report that fact to the animal control division or
health officer with full information in regard to the incident.
(b) Upon receipt of such a report, an animal contorl officer shall
seize and quarantine such animal for a period of fourteen (14)
days or such other period as may be prescribed by the state
department of health. The health officer may order the
owner to quarantine the animal on his premises.
Rev. 10/17/84 -3-
t
(c) Any person who fails, refuses, or neglects to quarantine any
animal as ordered by the health officer, or who refuses to
allow the health officer to inspect any private premises
where the animal is kept, is guilty of a misdemeanor. No
animal shall be removed or released during the quarantine
period without written permission of the health officer.
(d) The health officer may charge a fee, as set forth in a
resolution of the Board of Supervisors, for the County's costs
of quarantining animals and inspections for quarantine of
animals. Any fee charged shall be paid by the owner or
person who has legal custody of the animal. Such a fee shall
be in addition to the actual costs of the health officer in
housing, feeding and otherwise caring for a quarantined
animal.
(e) The head of any animal which dies or is destroyed while under
quarantine shall be submitted to the laboratory of the County
Health Department for rabies examination.
Section 6: 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 remaiing 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 7: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on the day of
1984, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Rev. 10/17/84 -4-
Mayor
f
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 705
DATE: September 24, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD BIKE PATH
Issue Sunu ary
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
Initial:
Dept. Hd.___J&A
C. Atty.
C . mgr.
On May 2, 1984 the City awarded the contract for -Quito Road Bike
Path to Saldivar Construction, Inc. of Mt. View in the amount
of $29,647.00. This project was a combination of two approved
TDA projects. The total cost of construction came to $25,049.09.
The contractor's portion of the project is completed and is now
ready for acceptance. The approved TDA allocations for this project were
as follows: Phase I ( Allendale to Yor%ton)- $20,000 Phase II ( Yorkton to
Baylor)- 21,000 for a total of $41,000
Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion
on the above project.
Construction:
Engr. & Insp:
Printing -& Advertisir
Total Project Cost
Reimbursed
by TDA (9/30/84)
To Be Claimed at
a later date- 11 -15•
$25,049.09
3,694.43
gi 227.72
$19,561.12
3,694.43
227.72
$2,759.19
Coo 0*71 ') n
'I no*3 0"7
n In
Total Cost to City-: $28,971.24 - (23,483.27 + 2,759.19)= $2.728.78
—1'==1tS/Attactumnts
1. Notice of Completion
2. Final Progress Payment
3. MTC approval letter for claim request
Council Action
93
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
I
Name
11"',
Add...
s d L J
c "-
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
'N1tirr of (IAIltpirttiot
XilftrP herebygiven that....... I .............. . the undersigned, ..J: 1Vayne Dernetz
t5 ..........................
.................... ............................................................................................................ ...............................
............................. /lhe agent of]* the owner...... of tit............. certain lot............ piece..............., or,
parcel ............. of land situated in the .� ?.ty of Sarato$ a............. ............................... County of
............................................... ............................... State of California, and described as follows, to -wit:
J
QUITO ROAD BIKE PATH
That... C tY.... Qf.. S4TA tQ.9 a ................................................................... ...............................
................................................. ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, on the sd x.th......
day of... J.un.e ............. ............................... 19 .84............ , enter into a contract with .........................
Saldivax...CQZiS.t.T:u.Qt.7.Qn ..... I. nQ .......................................... ............................... for
................... Qu G.o..Roa.d..i.i ko.. P. a. th.............................................................. ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
............... ......................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on
lltc................. ............................... day of ................. ............................... , 19 ............;
That on the... thi Xt.y...£irst ................... day of ... August.. ............................... 19 ..8.4....
the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
............ $.aldi vax...C.o.ns.t r.uc.ti Dn,... Inc_ ..................................................... ..............................:
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................. ...............................
STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA City o£. ..Sarato.ga ... Owner ............
liy ............... ...............................
" ' J . IVayne . r Dernetz ,tejlt
COunhof ............................. ...............................
.......................................................................................................................... ...............................
being duly sworn, ... Dexme.tz ..................................... ......................
I ant .......... (the agent ofd* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have
read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof; and the same is true of my own knowledge.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
.......................... day uf...................... 19.......1 ................................................. ...............................
........................................... ............................... J
................................................ ...............................
' Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
cry' clbrtrt-\ tr' 7' ro= NOFt(' ,YOt�C'BMPttT10N�fiYOWtfF.k- /". ".R�i�9}ry prllrtcQ+ry"/t
�t
K
PROGRESS PAY ESTI14ATE
PROJECT: QUITO ROAD BIKE PATH City of Saratoga
CONTRACTOR: SAT,DTVAR CONSTRI_TTON. INC.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
DATE: September 10,1984EST. NO. 2 Saratoga, CA. 95070 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 338
FROM: 6/26/84 _ TO: 8/31/84 Mt. View, CA 94042
1'inuncr. T mnn 4Q ,)- 471 -n66 n11b aaiA 'n..A +� Vnrkrnn lr_2HONE�,i 415) 961 -2197
UNIT
WORK DONE
4ORK DONE
TOTAL
v °
WORK
ITEM
DESCPIPTION
UANTITY' -.
UNIT
.PRICE
TOTAL.
PREVIOUS ES
THIS EST.
WORK DONE
TOTAL DUE-
-DONE
REMARKS
1
clearing & grubbing
lump sum
L.S.-
- - - --
7,700.00
100%
0
100%
7,700.00
100
complete
2
3" asphalt concrete
4,000
S.F.
1.15
4,600.00
3,382
0
3,382
3,889.30
84.61
complete
3
1Y' A.C. Overlay
1,300
S.F.
0.56
728.00
2,113
0 1.
2,113
1,183.28
162.
complete
6" solid and dashed
4
white stripe
5,000
L.F.
0.19
950.00
0
4 008
4,008
761.52
80.2
complete
messages and
5
arrowed
lump sum
L.S.
- - - --
140.00
0
100%
100%
140.00
100%
complete
6
R -81 signs
7
ea.
71.50
550.00
0
7
7
550.00
100%
complete
--T
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT:
$14,668.00
RECORD OF PREVIOUS
PAYMENT
TOTAL DUE:
$14,224.10_
P.O.# 17767
EST.
NO. DATE
AMOUNT
MADE BY
i 8 A
1422-41
FUND # 47
DATE
LESS 10% RETENTION:
1 7/18/84
$11, 495.32
CHECKED BY:
/,t
TOTAL PAYMENT:
12,801.69
ACCT. # 4522
DATE
ROVED BY:
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS:
11 49r -19
PROGRAM # 936
Director of C mmuni y Development Date
PAYMENT
DUE THIS EST.:
$1,306.37 1
DIVISION # 72
TOTAL:
$11,495.32
SHEET
]_ OF _2
,f
Lj�ntADZ 11
I IrO J-
e
IULKLU11 UL.
LU na 1
i HVe.
PROGRESS PAY ESTI14ATE
PROJECT: QUITO ROAD BIKE PATH City of Saratoga CONTRACTOR: SALDIVAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
DATE: September 10,1984;5_. NO. 2 Saratoga, CA. 95070 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 338
Mt. View, CA 94042
FROM: 6/26/84 TO: 8/31/84
PHONE: ( 415 ) 961 -2197
Lj�ntADZ 11
I IrO J-
1U /O -UOU
IULKLU11 UL.
LU na 1
i HVe.
UNIT
WORK DONE
WORK DONE
TOTAL
u °
WORK
ITEM
DESCPIPTION
QUANTIT.f.
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL...
PREVIOUS ES
THIS EST._
WORK DONE
-TOTAL-DUE-
DONE
REMARKS
1
clearing and grubbing
lump sum
L.S.
- - - -
o clearing & grub
--
----- - - - - --
---------
--------
__________
____
ing on this phase
2
3" asphalt concrete
6,000
S.F.
.15
6,900.00
4,080
0
4,080
4
complete
3
1k" A.C. Overlay
10,700
S.F.
.56
5,992.00
7,625
0
7,625
complete
4
& dashed white
stripe
6,000
L.F.
.19
1,140.00
0
4 821
4,821
complete
5
painted messages and
arrows
lump
L.S.
- - - - --
210.00
0
100%
100
complete
6
R -81 signs
11
Ea.
71.50
737.00
0
11
11
7,17 QQ
complete
TOTAL
CONTRACT AMOUNT:
RECORD OF PREVIOUS
PAYMENT
$14,979.00
TOTAL DUE:
$10,824.99
P.O.#
17767
EST.
NO. DATE
AMOUNT
MADE B
9 /O 84
1,082.50
FUND #
4 7
LESS 10� RETENTION:
DATE
7/18/84
CHECKED BY:
PAYMENT:
9,742.49
ACCT. #
4522
DATE
TOTAL
APP VE BY
PROGRAM #
936
LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS:
2 Q 6
Director of Community
Development
ba e
PAYMENT DUE THIS EST.:
$1,676.69 DIVISION #
72
TOTAL:
$8,065.80
SHEET 2
OF 2
MTC
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
Q
oir
September 17, 1984
METROCENTER
1018TH STREET
OAKLAND, CA 94607
(415)464 -7700
William Parsons
Santa Clara County Auditor - Controller
JOSEPH P. BORT
VALANCE GILL Santa Clara County. Transportation Agency.
contra Costa County 1555 Berger Drive, Room 203
ROBERT I.SCHRODER San Jose, CA 95112
— Vice Chair
STEVE WEIR Attn: Ms. Donna Mahin
Mann County
ROBERT 6.STOCKWELL Dear Mr. Parsons:
Napa County
WILLIAM L. `HEW By letter of September 13, 1984 ( copy enclosed) , the City of Saratoga
San Francisco —
City and County requested disbursement authorization for a combined total of
DORISW.KAHN $23,483.27 of FYs 1981 -82 and. 1982 -83 TDA Article 3 pedestrian /bicycle -
QUENTIN L. CO" funds to be used for the Quito Road Pathway Project.
San Mateo
JANECounty
MTC has approved the City of Saratoga I s request. Enclosed are MTC
ARLINGREGORIO Disbursement Authorizations Ref. Nos. 82- 971 -060 and 83- 1078 -080
Santa Clara County authorizing drawdown of these funds. Please release the money to the
ROD DIRIDON City. of Saratoga at your earliest convenience.
ROY E. LAVE
Solano County
WILLIAM JENKINS
Sonoma County
WILLIAM R. LUCIUS
Association of
Bay Area Governments
RALPH C. BOLIN
S. F. Bay Conservation
and Development
Commission
EARL P. MILLS
State Business,
Transportation and
Housing Agency
BURCHBACHTOLD
U.S. Department
o1 Transportation
ROBERT F. MOER
Executive Director
LAWRENCE D. DAHMS
Deputy Lsecutive Direow
WILLIAM F. HEIN
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Leticia
Munguia at (415) 464 -7793.
Very truly yours,
William F. Hein
Deputy Executive Director
LM /vb
enclosures
cc: Robert S Shook, City of Saratoga
' 198«:
198.'
RECEIVED MTC
1981
ING
1:s7717 FRULTVAI.E :1VENUI: • S.;Ul.ATOGA, C.A1,1FORNIA 05070
( :1081 867- 3-1:38
OFFICE: Community Development
September.13, 1984
Shanna O'Hare, Planning
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA. 94607
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
RE: Quito Road Bike Path - Allendale Avenue to Yorkton Dr. - TDA #82 -971 -0
'and Yorkton Dr. to Baylor Avenue- - TDA #83 -1078 -080
Dear Ms. O'Hare:
Attached please find cost breakdowns and documentation of costs that
we have incurred in the construction of the Quito Road Bike Paths
which were funded for fiscal year 1981 -82 and fiscal year 1982 -83.
The costs are as follows:
I. TDA #82- 971 -060
A. Construction (Saldivar Construction, Inc.) - - -- $11,495.32
B. Engineering and inspection (City of Saratoga 2,229.67
C. Printing (San Jose Blue Print) ---------- - - - - -- 67.10
D. Advertising (Meredith Newspapers)------- - - - - -- 46.76
Subtotal:
II. TDA #83- 1078 -080
A. Construction (Saldivar Construction Inc.) ----
B. ' Engineering and Inspection (City of Saratoga
C. Printing (San Jose Blueprint) ---------------
D. Advertising (Meredith Newspapers) ----- - - - - --
Subtotal
Total Amount:
$13,838.85 ✓
$ 8,065.80
1,464.76
67.09
46.77
$ 9,644.42
$23,483.27
With these documentations, we can anticipate receiving the monies
allotted. There will be an additional claim for payment under
TDA #83- 1078 -080 prior to 12/31/84. If you should have any questions
or comments, please contact either Erman Dorsey of this Department
or Steve Peterson, Finance Director.
Very truly yours
I
Robert S. Shook
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. '706
DATE: 9/24/84
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: A -1001 - Lazlo and Anna Sipos, Allendale Ave., Appeal of Planning Commission
----- - - - - -- Denial of New Single Family Residence Design
Issue Summary
The applicant applied for Design Review Approval fora 6,600•sq. ft. two -story residence on
Allendale Ave. in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. The square footage of the lower floor
includes 840 sq. ft. for a garage and shop and 2,460 sq. ft. designated as basement by the
applicant. This area extends more than 2 ft. above the ground and, therefore, is counted as
floor area by City ordinances. The standard square footage allowed in the R -1- 20,000 zoning
district is 4,800 sq. ft. Most of the surrounding residences are one - story.
Recommendation
'�'Hold the public hearing and make your determination.
Staff recommended denial.
Fiscal Iipacts N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Staff Report dated 8/16/84
2. Exhibit "B" '
3. Minutes of Planning Commission, 8 /22/84
4. Letter of Appeal dated 8/29/84
Council Action
5. Petition from neighbors
10/3: Approved appeal 3 -2 (Clevenger, Moyles opposed).
l
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 8/16/84
Commission Meeting: 8/22/84
SUBJECT A -1001, Lazlo & Anna Sipos, Allendale Avenue
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ACTION REQUIRED: Design Review Approval for a two -story residence on an in -fill site
which exceeds the 4,500 sq. ft. Design Review Standard.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: The site received Tentative Site Approval on August 8,
1984 SDR -1575. Prior to building, Final Site Approval and a Building Permit are required
in addition to Design Review Approval.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION
ZONING: R -1- 20,000
GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Single Family
SITE DATA
PARCEL SIZE: 21,010 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Several significant trees and smaller fruit trees on
a fairly flat site.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.5%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 15 Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: 3-1, Ft.
HEIGHT: 23'6"
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 34%
Fill 15 Cu. Yds. (for driveway)
.Fill Depth: 2.5'
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor 3,300 sq. ft.
*Lower Floor 3,300 sq. ft. (includes 840 sq. ft. of garage
Total Square Footage: 6,600 sq. ft. & shop)
*This lower floor is more than 2' above the ground (it will be 4' above the ground) and
Report to Planning Commiss4n�
A -1001, Sipos, Allendale Ave.
8/16/84
Page 2
therefore, is not .a basement as defined by the Design Review Ordinance. The applicant
states that it is to be a storage area and will only have a height of 7'6 ".
COLOR & MATERIALS: Brick, stucco painted an earth tone, shake roof.
COMPLIANCE: The proposed residence complies with setback, height and impervious
coverage requirements. It exceeds the 4,800 sq. ft. of Design Review Standard by
approximately 1,800 sq. ft.
OTHER: Enclosed is a petition from the three adjacent neighbors stating they have seen
the plans and approve of them.
FINDINGS:
1. Unreasonable.Interference with Views or Priva
The proposed residence will not significantly interfere with views or privacy of the
adjacent owners. The first floor study and bedroom will overlook the neighboring
property, but the adjacent residence has a garage on this side. Landscaping for
screening would mitigate these impacts. The proposed deck is 58' from the rear
property line.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landsca
The proposal does not result in significant grading or tree removal.
3. Perception.of Excessive Bulk
The residences on Allendale in the same zoning district and behind the proposed resi-
dences are one story and appear smaller in size except for the adjacent home, owned
by the.applicant. Homes across the street are on 40,000 lots (which allows 6,200 sq. ft.
standard residences) and are generally one story. The vacant lot across the street has
had an approval, after modification, for a two -story home, 6,682 sq. ft. in size (A -924,
Barr). This proposed house would have more bulk than the majority of homes and exceeds
the standards by 1,800 sq. ft. Staff cannot make this finding.
4. Compatible Bulk & Height
The height and size of the proposed residence is not compatible with surrounding homes
as most are much smaller, single story residences. Additionally, the subject residence
does exceed the standard floor area for the zone. Staff cannot make this finding.
5. Gradinq and Erosion Control Standards
The proposal meets grading and erosion control standards.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Findings #3 and 4. If
the Commission wishes to approve the project, the necessary findings are required and staff
would recommend the following condition:
1. Landscaping for screening of the study and bedroom windows from the yard to the east shall
be installed prior to final building approval or a bond may be posted to insure installa-
tion within six (6) months from final building approval.
Approved: �, ✓�i�,�
Kathy./Kerd6t %
P.C. Agenda: 8/22/84 Planner
WE
Owl PIP
40
mom
WII
iii j.�- _ :.�
IN . oil
9
Commission
Minutes 8/22/84
5DR- 1576, A -997 and V -652 (cont.)
Page 8
parking required by the theatre currently, and the fact that this .use requires
less parking is another basis.
The findings for the rear yard setback were discussed. Staff commented that
the applicant now proposes an 11 ft. rear yard and 17 ft. is required. Com-
missioner Peterson made the findings for that variance, based on the fact that
the applicant has dedicated an additional 8 ft. right of way. Commissioner
Crowther also commented that the setback will be greater than that of the
existing building, so it actually is an improvement.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion to approve V -652. The motion was
carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A -997, per the Staff Report dated
August 1, 1984, with the following changes: Condition 1 to read: "The structure
shall be no higher than 32� ft. maximum in its front elevation measured from
top of roof." Condition 2 was deleted. It was noted that the approval would
be per Exhibit B -1. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve SDR- 1576, per the Staff Report dated
August 1, 1984, amended as follows: The width of the sidewalk shall be 6 ft.
and therefore the street is 32 ft. The brick sidewalk shall be put in front,
to be consistent with the adjacent property. Condition II -M was amended to
read 21 ft. and II -N amended to read 20 ft. Mr. 11eid asked for clarification
of Condition II -C regarding the 30 ft. half- street on Third Street. Staff
stated that they would review this and inform the applicant as to what the
width on both II -C and II -D should be. There was a consensus that this would
be left to Staff, and it can come back to the Commission if there is a problem.
There was also a consensus to leave the two parking spaces in the back and to
keep the tree planting area near the parking district, as shown in Exhibit B -1.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
It was clarified that the Commission has no choice relative to leaving the
Vi.taphone Theatre on this site.
9. A -1001 - Lazlo and Anna Sipos, Request for Design Review Approval to
construct a two -story single family residence with a total floor
area which exceeds the 4800 sq. ft: allowable floor area standard
next to 18883 Allendale Avenue in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district
Staff explained the project, indicating that the main issue is that the lower
floor of this proposal is more than 2 ft. above ground, and therefore is not
considered a basement under the definition of the Design Review Ordinance.
They recommended denial, having been unable to make the findings.
The public hearing was opened at 10:23 p.m.
Mr. Sipos, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He stated that
the lower floor is a substandard floor and is not considered to be living area
and should not be included. lie indicated that it is considered clearly for
storage and is substandard in height and lighting. He disagreed with the find-
ings, stating that he feels the comparison of the structure to be with the
structures on Allendale, since they are larger parcels, and not with those
behind Allendale. lie noted that the neighbors are in support of the proposal.
Mr. Sipos described the basement area, indicating that he was going to store
a speedboat and antique furniture there. He commented that he feels that,
relative to environmental impact, it would be better to utilize the basement
rather than cluttering up the land with another accessory structure. Dis-
cussion was held on the definition of a basement.
Commissioner 1-Iarris'commented that the home looks like a 2 -story house from
the back. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that, aside from the basement issue,
she cannot make the findings for the 1,000 sq. ft. that it is over. She com-
mented that maybe the City Council is the body to decide, because the Commis-
sion is bound by the ordinance. She added that she cannot make the findings
#3 and 114.
Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny A -1001, per the Staff Report and Exhibit
B. Commissioner Crowther commented that the lot size, in his view, is also an
- 8 -
g Commission Page 9
,g Minutes 8/12/84
A -1001 (cont.)
issue. lie stated that if this lot were larger and similar to the other lots
on the street, which have larger homes, lie would feel differently about it.
lie indicated that he is going to vote for the motion and lot size is a big
factor in his decision. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed. Commissioner Harris
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. The 10 -day appeal
period was noted.
10a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1578 - William Lisac
10b. A -1.003 - William Lisac, Request for Design Review and Tentative Build -
10c. SDR -1578 - ing Site Approval for a two- story, single- family dwelling
over 26' in height on a hillside lot in the NHR District at
21045 Comer Drive
The project was explained by Staff. They noted that they were unable to make
the findings and were recommending denial of the Design Review and approval
of the Building Site. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report.
She stated that there had been some discussion about the possibility of the
City Geologist giving an alternative whereby it would be closer to the creek
and further off the top of a knoll. However, if that does not come through,
she indicated that there was no opposition on the part of the applicant to put
landscaping on all sides of this house. Commissioner Harris commented that
the applicant had stated that the property is not for sale, and Mr. Layne
specifically indicated that this house is designed for the Lisac family of six
children.
Commissioner Crowther asked about the required lot size in the NHR district.
He stated that he objects to the statement in the Staff Report that it meets
all of the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, since it is
really a substandard lot for the NHR district, which he feels can be a factor
in the bulk issue. Staff commented that it is a substandard lot, but since it
is a pre - existing legally created, nonconforming lot, it is still consistent
with the ordinances.
The public hearing was opened at 10:41 p.m.
Michael Layne, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project,
explaining the topography and the proposed grading. He noted that the appli-
cant would like to move the house closer to the creek side if geology permits.
He submitted a drawing, discussing windows, deck and height of the roof.
Commissioner Crowther commented that it was his understanding, when the ordi-
nances were implemented related to the Specific Plan or NHR, that the height
was computed by taking the minimum of the structure to the maximum elevation
of the structure. Staff clarified that they measure from the higliest point
of the structure itself to the grade below that high point, either the finished
grade or natural grade, whichever gives the greatest dimension. They added
that the height is not defined differently in the NHR.
Fernando Gonzales, owner of the adjacent property, agreed with the Staff Report.
He discussed his privacy and preservation of the natural landscape. The
drainage in the area and the proposed grading were also addressed.
Yu T. Wang, 21027 Comer Drive, also agreed with the Staff Report. He listed
the following concerns: (1) the distance is short and the house is looking right
at his home, (2) it is not compatible with the area, and (3) the drainage pro-
blem. lie stated that he could approve a one -story coupled with landscaping.
He noted that the lot is on the market for sale.
Bev Javahari, 12881 Corte de Arguello, stated that her property abuts this site.
She noted concerns of drainage and the visual impact on her privacy. She
agreed with the Staff Report, and requested, if this is approved, that the
property to the northeast also be added to the condition regarding landscaping
plans. She added that she feels that a one -story would be more in line, and
submitted a letter for the record.
Mr. Layne indicated that they are aware of the drainage problem. He commented
that he feels the present scheme provides a solution to some of the drainage
problem. Fie stated that he feels the driveway acts as a barrier to the drainage
problem. The impervious coverage was discussed.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thinks there are a lot of problems with
- 9 -
,, � - •yam,' ;ri:'�
AUG 2 9 1964.
rr�AWINITY DEVELOP'-
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
17e
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant: L.ciS - 0 '5-)"p �S
Address:
Telephone: 6z lOy 3�
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:C
Decision Being Appealed: 1 5;Q►, QQ- „J►e,w d2nI', � (�.^ S+q-(k”
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
R .��t'. �G,iG I rily �' �� LS ►'L :;� S-�.. •.,1 � I I � z C.: �, �cs.�" t l�L 2 w � �' h, i��' ,
v�, fir` ( � �'•C�•i � I ♦ . • v � J � V ✓ `� �iO �/� � v y� �� � ! \ \ 1�r� �� \V� � V � 1
rtc� Lj-+2. �...�ti.�c,,ce.a io . �� S�c>,.�I� 5L1�S�: S�ocy t`�.S'�d�'.►'�.C�S
bQ'twq -' , Kiln >� iac�
yes Uv.c� co�1a� ►��� ;��:t� w��p:�� ►t� b,;lk to a
Appellant's Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
TPP. nATF. or. TPP nrrTgTnv
We the undersigned. neighbors do not abject the
Sipos family to build. their home as indicated. on this plan.
v � ,
enc/6t /-z-
Cow
/0 9h1: 0Ile dale-,
It C. 144! WCL)
198
F FRP41T Rr1/1"."1
CITY Or SAR11I` Qr
~AG;aIDA BILL NO. 707
DATE: September 21, 1984
CEPARTMENT: Community Services
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. At .
C. Mgr.
SUaJECr: Replacement of City Representative to the County HCDA
Citizens Advisory_Committee
Issue Summary
Larry V. Hughes has served as the City's representative to the
Santa Clara Urban County Housing and Community-Development Act
Program, Citizens Advisory Committee since February, 1982. Current
time demands of his business dictate that he can no longer represent
the City on the CAC.
Recommendation '
Send letter commending Mr. Hughes for his valuable service to the City
(attached) and begin recruitment for a new City representative to the
CAC.
It is also recommended that the Volunteer Center be utilized to recruit our new CAC
representative. This is a departure from our previous recruitment procedure for
this committee, however, the Volunteer Center was not in existance� when previous
recruitments were undertaken.
Fiscal Imoacts
None
E- hibits /Attachments
1. Letter of resignation
2. Staff Report
3. Letter and Certificate
commending Mr., Hughes
Council Action
from Mr. Hughes
of Appreciation from City Council
r
CARDINET, HUGHES AND COMPANIES
CARDINET- HUGHES PENSION SERVICE, INC. • THE CLAYTON INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. SINCE 1867
Walter M. Cardinet
Larry V. Hughes, CLU
Barry W. Cummings
Bernard J. Clinton, CLU
Ulrich Storz, CLU
Kendall J. Parsons
September 5, 1984
Stan Carnekie
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Stan:
Due to the time requirements of my business, it has
become impossible for me to continue to serve as the
City of Saratoga representative to the BCD Advisory
Committee.
The past several years as Saratoga's repr-esent-ative
has been very worthwhile and informative. I would like
to thank the City Council for having appointed me to
this position.
Effective immediately, I am resigning from this posi-
tion.
Sincerely,
Larry V. Hughe
1390 S. WINCHESTER BLVD. SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95128 (408) 370 -1266
9919W o 0&MZ19QX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
September 21, 1984
Memorandum to: Community Services Director
From: HCD Coordinator
Subject: Replacement, due to resignation, of the City
representative to the Urban County HCDA Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC)
Larry V. Hughes has served as the City's representative to the
CAC since February, 1982. The current demands of his business
dictate his resignation.
The CAC is the policy recommending body to the HCD Council
Committee for the operation of the Urban County CDBG Program.
Membership consists of one City Council- appointed representative
from each participating jurisdiction (non- entitlemen£�' city) and
one appointee by each county supervisor, with two additional at-
large members.
The CAC averages one meeting per month. These are held at the
County Government Center, usually on the second Thursday, from
7:00 to 10:00 p.m. The Urban County Block Grant Program will be
undergoing some restructuring, reevaluation of priorities and
general refinement subsequent to the execution of a new three -
year Joint Powers Agreement. For these and other reasons it is
advisable that the City appoint a new CAC representative as soon
as possible. I would suggest use of the Saratoga Volunteer
Program as the primary recruitment vehicle for filling the
vacancy.
Mr. Hughes has served the City well over the past several years,
presenting and advocating for the City's position on various
Housing a d Community Development issues. The attached letter of
commendation is presented for City Council consideration.
]m
Enclosure