HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1998 Staff Reports 4 I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO? 471 l AGENDA ITEM
4, 1998 CITY MANAGER: i�
l�
MEETING DATE: MARCH
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Letter from Laura Kim requesting consideration for naming a future street
after Nigerian human rights activist Ben Charles Obi
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to refer the letter to the Heritage Preservation Commission for future consideration.
i I
REPORT SUMMARY:
The attached letter dated February 18 from Laura Kim of Saratoga requests the City to consider
naming a future street after the Nigerian human rights activist Ben Charles Obi. For Council's
information, I have attached a copy of the City's policy for naming streets which was adopted in
1991. For new streets, the policy states that the Heritage Preservation Commission is responsible
for reviewing the appropriateness of street names taking into account the character and history of
the City, and recommending names to the City Council. The City Council is ultimately
responsible for approving the names of all streets. Since the author of the letter is requesting
consideration for naming a future street, it is recommended that the letter be referred to the HPC
for their consideration when reviewing proposed street names for new subdivisions.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A copy of this report was transmitted to Ms. Kim.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The letter would not be referred to the HPC. Council could then direct staff otherwise.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The letter will be forwarded to the HPC.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Laura Kim.
2. City street name policy.
I I
i
Laura Kim
20812 Fourth Street 1122
Saratoga, CA 95070
18 February 1998
Saratoga City Council
Civic Theater
13777 Fruituale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
D ears Council member:
My name is Laura Kim, and I am a senior at Saratoga High School, where I lead an Amnesty International club.
Our club is participating in Amnesty International's national student campaign for human rights reform in Nigeria.
Along with other Amnesty International student groups throughout the United States, our club is moving to name
or rename streets in commemoration of Nigerian activists who have worked to improve human rights conditions in
Nigeria. Nigeria's rrnlitary government holds a notorious record of human rights violations; individual freedoms are
severely limited and those who attempt to defend their human rights have often been brutally tortured, imprisoned,
or executed by the military regime. Student activists, in particular, have been especially repressed.
One of our club's campaign goals is to name a street in S aratoga in honor of the Nigerian human rights activist, Ben
Charles Obi. Obi is a Nigerian journalist who was secretly tried, convicted and jailed by a special military tribunal on
false charges of plotting to overthrow the rrnlitary government which now rules Nigeria. We are aware of the
construction of new homes and streets throughout Saratoga, and we believe that the naming of a future Saratoga
street will be a unique vehicle to discuss human rights issues, conditions in Nigeria, the plight of student activists
around the wo rld, US foreign policy toward Africa and how everyone can and should get involved in their
comrrnmities.
Please consider our proposal to name a future street in Saratoga after Ben Charles Obi. If there are any questions,
feel free to contact me by phone at (408) 741-5771. or by email at S olskenljk@aol.com. I thank you for taking the
time to read this letter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely.
(auk
Laura Kim
A Fc.„
cgum cpg oADA ivc
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: The City Council DATE: 2/6/91
FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Process for Naming Streets
Requests for new street names are currently processed and approved
in two different ways. The first, as part of approval of
subdivision final maps. The second, when not part of a
subdivision, by adoption of a resolution by the City Council.
Naming new streets or changing street names requires review by the
Building Department who is responsible for assigning new addresses.
Review and approval of the County Communication Department is also
required in order to avoid conflicts with existing street names.
The current process does not include specific review of proposed
names for appropriateness to the character or history of Saratoga.
The Planning Department developed and proposes a process for naming
streets which incorporates the necessary review by various
departments and agencies. The Heritage Preservation Commission
will be responsible, according to this process, for reviewing the
street names for appropriateness. Notification will be sent to all
the involved departments and agencies as part of the proposed
procedure.
Government Code 34091.1 deals with adoption or change of street
name and suggests that the legislative body may adopt a resolution
designating a name for or change the name of a street.
The review process of street names for new subdivisions and
proposals for street name change are similar. However change of
street names will require the Building Department review at an
early stage of the process and will not require adoption by the
City Council. Street names of a new subdivision will require
adoption by the City Council as part of the final map approval.
The street names will be recorded with the County Recorder together
with the final map.
I I
Change of street names initiated by the street residents will
require submittal of a petition of at list sixty percents (60 of
the residents requesting the change.
The proposed procedure attempts to clarify the process and ensure
that appropriate names will be approved, recorded and noted by the
public agencies.
Staff Recommendations
Approve the proposed procedure.
Attachments
1. Chart of the proposed procedure
2. Copy of a section from the Government Code related to street
names.
046114d—
I I
DRAFT
PROCESS FOR NAMING STREET
1
Request for Change Tentative Map Approval
Street Names* By the PC
1
1 I
I I
Building Inspection I
Review
County Communication
Tentative Review
v
Heritage Preservation
Commission Review
Final Map- Review
By the City Council
V V
Notify the Owner, County Recordation Office, the County
Communication Dept., Utility Services, County Assessor,
Registrar of Voters, County Sheriff, U.S. Post Office, State
Board of Equalization, City Departments
IN CASE OF A REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF AN EXISTING STREET NAME A
I' PETITION OF AT LIST SIXTY PERCENT (60 OF THE STREET RESIDENTS
SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS
34091.1. Adoption or change of street name; resolution
Whenever the legislative body finds that a name should be adopted and
applied to any city street, or that the existing name of any city street should be
changed, the legislative body may adopt a resolution designating a name for,
or change the name of, such street.
(Added by Stats.1957, c. 686, p. 1879, 1.)
Forms
See West's California Code Forms, Government.
Cross References
Action by resolution or ordinance, see 50020.
Library References
Municipal Corporations 4 =6511/2.
CJS. Municipal Corporations 1654.
34092. Adoption or change of name or number of street or place; duty
of city clerk
Whenever the name of any street, boulevard, park, or place is adopted,
established or changed, or any house numbers have been changed on any
street, boulevard, park or place, by any city or other authority, the city clerk
shall promptly forward a copy of the resolution, order, or other instrument
providing for such new name or change of name or house number to the
board of supervisors of the county within which such city is situated.
(Added by Stats.1953, c. 891, p. 2252, 1. Amended by Stats.1955, c. 749, p. 1244,
1.)
Cross References
City clerk, see 40801 et seq.
Library References
CJS M p a m Corporations 4=651
Co 'Y2.
Municipal Corporations 1654.
34093. Petition; definition; misrepresentations concerning
contents or
effect; circulation of petition containing false or forged
names; punishment
As used in this section, "petition" means any
petition prescribed, by statute
or city charter, as a necessary prerequisite to the institution of proceedings by
the city, and includes, but is not limited to, initiative petitions, referendum
petitions, recall petitions, petitions pertaining to the annexation of territory to
a city, the consolidation of cities, or the dissolution of a city, and petitions to
institute proceedings under an improvement act.
Every person is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment, who, circulating, as principal or agent, or
having charge or control of the circulation of, or obtaining signatures gnatures to, any
petition, willfully misrepresents or willfully makes any face statement con-
e; cerning the contents, purport or effect of the petition to any person who signs,
or who desires to sign, or who is requested to sign, or who makes inquiries
with reference to it, or to whom it is presented for his signature.
Every person is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or b
both such fine and imprisonment, who circulates or causes to be circulat
any petition knowing it to contain false, forged, or fictitious names.
(Added by Stats.1963, c. 1262, p. 2783, 1.)
Library References
Words and Phrases (Perm.Ed.)
I I}
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S AGENDA ITEM cL
MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 1998 CITY MGR.: L.
ORIGINATING DEPT.: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT PREPARED BY: yl
SUBJECT: Approval of payments for storm related emergency
work performed by Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to approve storm related construction purchases.
Report Summary:
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's authorization to
pay for a number of storm related emergency construction purchases.
Total cost for this work is $93,384.29. Of this total amount
$24,312.36 will be reimbursed to the City from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for work to the Calabazas creek bank adjacent
to Padero Court, and the remaining $69,071.93 will be submitted to
FEMA for reimbursement under the President's declaration of
disaster for storm damage caused to Santa Clara County, FEMA
Disaster No. 1203.
The following summarizes the various work Stevens Creek Quarry has
performed:
1. Padero Court: The placement of rock rip -rap to armor the creek
bank adjacent to the roadway for protection against immediate and
long term erosion from Calabazas Creek.
Cost: $24,312.36
2. Old Oak Way: The Placement of K -Rail and temporary asphalt
berms to contain drainage within the curbs because of the rupture
of a storm drain outfall pipe.
Cost: $4,692.94
3. Quarry Creek Watershed: The cleanup of debris and sediment from
Quarry Road and from various components of the Quarry Creek
drainage system.
6
Cost: $6,943.90
4. Michaels Drive: The construction of a inlet structure to allow
drainage to enter an existing culvert under Michaels Drive which
lay buried under approximately 10 feet of sediment and 15 feet of
standing water.
Cost: $51,237.48
5. Pierce Road, Damon Lane, Mt. Eden Road, Diamond Oaks Lane: The
cleanup of debris and sediment from the roadways.
Cost: $6,197.61
All of the above work has been completed by Stevens Creek Quarry
under emergency conditions and in a satisfactory manner.
Consequently, it is recommended that Council at this time approve
the entire above list of emergency storm related construction
purchases so that payment to the contractor can be made.
Fiscal Impacts:
Sufficient funding to pay for all of the above work currently
exists in the adopted budget in Activity 31 (Street Maintenance),
Account No. 4510, and in Activity 34 (Flood Control /Storm Drain),
Account No. 4510. However, as the fiscal year progresses, it may be
necessary to replenish the above accounts with funds from the
Council's contingency to pay for future emergency and other
unforeseen maintenance and repair work. If this becomes necessary,
staff will prepare the required budget transfer resolutions for
future Council action.
Follow Up Actions:
None.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Either some or all of the above purchases would not be approved.
Staff will follow whatever other direction is provided by Council.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
None.
Attachments:
None.
I
I I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a I AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 1998 CITY MANAGER: r
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Review of wording for Saratoga Creek warning signs
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to approve the wording as recommended.
REPORT SUMMARY:
As instructed by the City Council on November 5, staff has developed wording for new warning
signs to be posted along Saratoga Creek. The recommended wording for the new signs is as
follows:
I
CAUTION
DO NOT WADE OR PLAY IN SARATOGA CREEK
Bacteria levels in excess of water uali objectives for water contact recreation
q t J
have been detected in Saratoga Creek.
For more information, contact Coyote Creek Riparian Station (408) 262 -9204.
City of Saratoga (City Logo)
The proposed wording has been reviewed by Water District and CCRS staff who, along with City
staff, believe that the new signs will provide more accurate and useful information to the public
who may choose to enter the creek than is provided by the existing signs. The new signs will be
18 "x18" in size, with white lettering on a green background. Once approved by the Council, the
signs can be ordered and delivered within seven days. Removal of the existing signs and
installation of the new signs will require an additional two days.
I J
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The cost for the signs, installation hardware and labor is approximately $500. Sufficient funds for
these expenses are budgeted in Activity 28, Stormwater Management.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Copies of this report were transmitted to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Whetstone.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The proposed wording would not be approved and the signs would not be ordered unless
alternative wording is approved by the Council.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The signs will be ordered and installed.
ATTACHMENTS:
II 1. Letter from Mr. Mitchell dated August 29.
iI
ij
II
14969 Jerries Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
August 29, 1997
Larry Perlin
Acting City Manager
City of Saratoga
Subject: Saratoga Creek
I have been following the creek controversy and lawsuit for several years. The Santa Clara Valley
Water District has provided me with a copy of the creek test data and I have performed some
analyses of that data. It is clear to me that the water often exceeds standards for coliform set by
government authorities.
I have also read the Superior Court decision by Judge Infante. Although responsibility for the
pollution remains to be determined by the legal process, the decision clearly states that "the
parties do not dispute that level of pollutants, in particular fecal conform, in Saratoga Creek
exceed water quality objectives, at least at times."
I live beside Saratoga Creek not far downstream from the Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. bridge the
location of the highest values of pollutants. My now grown children spent many hours playing in
the creek when they were young. Thus I have a special interest in the its water quality.
I would like to make two recommendations for consideration and action by the city:
The court and both parties to the lawsuit have agreed that fecal conform is often present.
To my knowledge the city has never officially acknowledged this fact. I recommend that
the city send a letter to all property owners bordering the creek advising them of the true
situation. The letter should also include guidelines from the county health department
similar to those published in the Saratoga News.
The signs which were placed at several locations alongside the creek several years ago are
obsolete and incorrect. The signs say "the city is investigating the possibility of pollutants"
They should be modified or replaced and the message should affirm that at times
pollutants are present. The attachment to this letter provides my suggestions for modified
wording.
In my opinion the city has a responsibility to-notify the affected citizens of the truth. I hope that
you follow through on these recommendations.
Sincerely, Copy: Mayor Moran
Sam Mitche Gay
Existing Sign
DO NOT
WADE OR PLAY IN THE CREEK
The City is investigating the presence of possible
pollutants in this area which may pose a health hazard
Recommended Sign
DO NOT
II
WADE OR PLAY IN THE CREEK
Bacterial pollution in excess of water quality
objectives have been detected in the creek
u\
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO 2, AGENDA IT M: ,t
MEETING DATE: March 4, 1998 CITY MANAGER: A
f
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PREPARED BY: James Wal: f o unity Development Manager
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Temporary Use Permit Fees Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church
p
Recommended Motion
Deny the request and direct the applicants' to submit an application for Temporary Use Permit,
with the $500 permit fee.
Report
Representatives of Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church are requesting that the City Council waive the
$500 permit fee necessary to process and approve a Temporary Use Permit for their planned Celtic
Faire. Their attached letter details the event, to be held on Saturday and Sunday, May 23 and 24,
1998. The Faire is described as the Church's major fund raising event of the year.
Temporary Use Permits are required for these types of special events. A copy of the ordinance is
attached. The permit fee is intended to recover the staff time expended reviewing and issuing the
permit. The City Council has consistently denied fee waiver requests since 1995, when the first of
the City's two recent budget reductions went into effect. With the City's most recent downsizing
and budget reductions, it is even more critical that the City maintains its full -cost recovery policy.
An alternative to waiving the fee would be to not require the Temporary Use Permit. While certain
events such as the Rotary Art Show at the West Valley College are clearly special events unrelated
to the College, the Council could find that a two -day fund raising Celtic Faire at the Saint Andrew's
Church is reasonably within the range of activities that a Church provides. A literal reading of the
ordinance seems to indicate that the Temporary Use Permit is required since the Faire would be a
temporary special event beyond the scope of the Church's basic Use Permit.
The Church's original City Use Permit dated December 26, 1962 is attached for reference. Early
Use Permits issued by the City commonly contained very little in terms of project information,
conditions or restrictions." More recent UsePermits are -very specific as to the scope of the project
and the conditions under which it is to be operated.
Public Notice
No public notice or hearing is required for this request.
Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church
Page Two
I
Fiscal Impacts
None. Either the City will recover its costs by imposing the $500 permit fee, or the permit will not
be required.
Follow -up Actions
A Resolution reflecting the City Council's determination will be prepared for adoption at the next
available meeting.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion
The City will not issue a Temporary Use Permit for the two -day Celtic Faire.
Attachments:
1. Applicants' letter requesting g waiver
n fee w i
q ver
2. Use Permit No. 44 Saint Andrews Parish
3. Article 15 -60 of the City Code Temporary Uses
February 9, 1998 I
FEB 3 1998
City Council, City of Saratoga CI� Ot I. �.'I' �9 O
C/O James C. Waigren
CITY &'it`�T`�!�CaE�i'� OFFICE
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in behalf of the Parish of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church. The application for the Temporary
Use Permit for our Celtic Faire, which will take place on Saturday and Sunday, May 23 and 24, 1998, will
be submitted soon to the City of Saratoga. It is our understanding the fee must be submitted with the
application.
The Celtic Faire will be our major fund raising event for the calendar year. This is the first year for this
faire and it has been in the planning stages for the last 6 months. The objective of the faire is to include
the entire community in a celebration of the Celtic tradition. Plans include areas of interest for all ages,
including children and seniors. There will be live entertainment during the entire event on two outdoor
stages featuring music and dancing in the Celtic tradition. Food and drink booths will offer traditional
fare. A children's area will offer story telling and games. Reinactors will perform in authentic tradition.
A high noon luncheon is planned which we feel will be especially enjoyed by the senior population.
Several Celtic clans will be represented for the purpose of education. Although we do not plan any
competitive games, there will be live demonstrations of the Celtic games.
The front end costs of sponsoring such an event are quite high. We are unable to calculate how many
people will attend the event for the first year, therefore we find it difficult to estimate the funds this event
will raise. Controlling our up front costs is of prime concern.
We respectfully request a reduction in the $500 permit fee for the following reasons:
1. The Faire is planned to be held entirely on the grounds of Saint Andrew's property, at 13601 Saratoga
Ave., Saratoga.
2. We do not foresee the use of any public property or city services.
3. The Faire is our fund raising event for the entire year. As a non -profit entity we must
control our costs as much as possible.
4. The event is geared to entertain and educate the entire community.
We appreciate your consideration in this matter and we look forward to hearing from you as soon
possible. You may contact me or the Rector at St. Andrew's, Rev. Ernest Cockrell at 867 -3493 if further
clarification is needed.
Respectfully,
Patricia Catlin
408/353 -3972
Saint Andrew's Episcopal Church
CC: Carl Sue Beckham
Rev. Ernest Cockrell
USE PERMIT
and /or File No. UP 44
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO, UP -447:
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
State of California
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the applica-
tion of S AINT ANDREWSPARISH for a Use P rmia er Pnpral rh»rrh
—t.. fr.� S�
use of "the property located,at Saratoga Avenue and Crestbrook Drive and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) met the burden of proof required to 4.
support his said application; .z.
NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, 1
facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this natter, the application
V
for the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby (granted) (3eai�,
subject to the following conditions: 1) Building Site Approval 2) Design Review
Approval 3) The City of Saratoga Planning Commission shall retain continuing
jurisdiction over the Use Permit herein granted and expressly reserves the right
to, from time to time, modify, delete or make additions to any or all of the con-
ditions thereof or to terminate or e xtend t he•Use Permit, either on its own motion
or on the application of the applicant, in order to preserve a substantial right of
the applicant or to preserve the health, safety, morals, convenience or welfare of
persons residing or working in surrounding areas, or to preserve existing or pro
spective values of property and improvements, or to prevent a public nuisance.
t
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Report of Findings attached hereto be ap-
proved and adopted, and that the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify
the parties affe:,�ed by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, this, 26th ,day of Decembe 196 by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Cowley, Crisp, Glenn, Johnson and Kellum.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Webster.
r,.
A1144 i V
Chairman, SaratogadPlanning Commission
i
15- 60.030
(i) Burden of proof. Wherever in I Section the (6) Home tours.
legalization of an existing second unit dr the occupancy (7) Fundraising activities conducted on a residential
thereof depends upon the establi .ill ent of any event site for artistic, cultural, educational or political purposes.
occurring on or before a specified d.4 the burden of proof (8) Additional temporary uses added by the Planning
shall be upon the applicant. Commission in accord with Section 15- 60.050.
(j) Numerical limit. U> permits for legalization of (9) Temporary on -site and off -site signs in conjunction
existing second units s I ..d not be subject ,to or included with the above uses.
within the numerical AI 'tation prescribed in Section 15-
56.070. 15- 60.020 Application for use permit; fee.
Application for a temporary use permit shall be filed
15- 56.120 Illegal second units. with the Planning Director, on such form as he may pre-
The es hment or continuance of a second unit scribe, at least thirty days prior to the proposed date of
without a i e permit is hereby declared to be unlawful the event. The application shall be accompanied by a
and sh constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance. processing fee in such amount as established from time
Any v lation of this Article shall be subject to the penalties to time by resolution of the City Council, and shall include
as 'bed in Chapter 3 of this Code. the following:
(a) Name and address of the applicant.
(b) Statement that the applicant is the owner of the
Article 15-60 property or is the authorized agent of the owner.
(c) Address or description of the property on which
TEMPORARY USES the use will be conducted.
(d) Two copies of a site plan which shall include the
Sections: following:
15- 60.010 Temporary uses allowed by (1) Designation of area to be occupied by the use.
permit. (2) Existing structures and improvements.
15- 60.020 Application for use permit; fee. (3) Provision for off street parking.
15- 60.030 Issuance of use permit; (4) Site location diagram.
conditions. (5) Identification of all property owners and uses within
15- 60.040 Applicability of other Code a radius of five hundred feet from each boundary of the
provisions. site.
15- 60.050 Addition of temporary uses. (e) A written description of the event to include:
15- 60.060 Appeals. (1) Activities planned during the event
(2) Days and hours of operation.
15- 60.010 Temporary uses allowed by permit. (3) Sales of goods (if any).
(a) For the purposes of this Article, the term "temporary (4) Number of people involved in operating the event
use" means an activity described in Paragraph (b) of this and number of people anticipated to attend.
Section, whether profit or non profit, conducted on public (5) Explanation of how and where food (if any) is to
or private property for a limited period of time. If such be served.
time does not exceed ten consecutive days or a total of (6) Explanation of the number and location of sanitary
ten days within a thirty day period, the application may facilities to be provided.
be acted upon and a temporary use permit issued by the (f) A location diagram and drawing of any temporary
Planning Director, otherwise, the application shall be acted signs proposed for identification of the use or off -site
upon by the Planning Commission. direction to the use. Off -site sign proposals must be accom-
(b) The following described temporary uses may be panied by written statements of authorization signed by
permitted in any zoning district in the City upon the prior the owners of the sites on which said signs are to be
obtaining of a temporary use permit pursuant to this Article:. 4located.
(1) Art shows.
(2) Craft shows. 15- 60.030 Issuance of use permit; conditions.
(3) Antique shows. (a) The Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
(4) Outdoor sales on public or private property. as the case may be, may grant a temporary use permit upon
(5) Tours of heritage resources, as designated pursuant a fmding that the temporary use is compatible with the
to Chapter 13 of this Code. purposes and objectives of this Chapter, and in doing so
361
I I I
3
i
I 15- 60.030 I
shall impose such reasonable conditions as circumstances 15- 60.060 Appeals.
I may require, including, but not limited to, the following: Any determination or decision by the Planning Director
1 (1) A refundable clean -up deposit, in such amount as or the Planning Commission under this Article may be
I may be appropriate. appealed to the City Council in accordance with the proce-
(2) Limitation on the length of time, the days of the dure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter.
week, and the hours of the day during which the activity
I may be conducted.
(3) Approval by the County Health Department if food Article 15-65
is to be sold in connection with the activity.
(4) Approval by the chief of the fire district in which NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
the activity will be conducted if such activity involves any
risk of fire, explosion, or other similar hazard. Sections:
(5) A roval by the Sheriff's
pp y department if the activity 15- 65.010 Purposes of Article.
requires any traffic or crowd control or involves any 15- 65.020 Continuation in general.
potential threat to the public safety. 15- 65.030 Exemption of nonconforming
(6) Provision for sanitary facilities. single- family and multi -fa
(7) Limitation on the size, number, location and duration dwellings.
of temporary signs advertising the activity. 15- 65.040 Routine maintenance; 1' lation
(b) The Planning Director or the Planning Commission on repairs.
may deny any application which is detrimental to the public 15- 65.050 Change of use.
health, safety or welfare or which is in conflict with the 15- 65.060 Expansion of non nforming
objectives of this Chapter. Approval for the identical use uses.
by the same applicant shall not be given more than once 15- 65.070 Expansion of nconforming
in a twelve -month period. structures.
15- 65.080 Terminatio of nonconforming
15- 60.040 Applicability of other Code uses and ctures by
provisions. abando ent.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, any fair, 15 65.090 Replac ent of damaged or
amusement park, circus, carnival or other similar activity destr i ed nonconforming facility.
for which a permit is required under Section 4- 10.010 of 15- 65.100 Rep cement of damaged or
this Code, or any special event for which a permit is de oyed nonconforming I
required under Article 10 -10 of this Code, or any use of s ucture.
a public park for which a special permit is required under 15- 65.110 limination of nonconforming
Article 11 -10 of this Code, shall be governed by such other uses and structures after lapse of
provisions of this Code and no separate use permit therefor time.
shall be required pursuant to this Article. 15-65.120 Determination of value.
15- 65.130 Determination of age.
15- 60.050 Addition of temporary uses. 15- 65.141 Authorization of nonconforming
Upon application or its own initiative, the Planning uses and structures by use
Commission may add other temporary uses to the list permit or variance.
I thereof set forth in Subsection 15- 60.010(b), so long as 15 -6 150 Unsafe buildings.
such additional uses fall within the definition of "temporary 15 -1 ..160 Nonconforming sites.
use" as set forth in Subsection 15- 60.010(a), and upon a
1 finding that each use will not be detrimental to the public 15 -6 :.010 Purposes of Article.
1 health, safety or welfare and will not adversely affect the is Article is intended to limit the number and extent
1 character of the district in which it will be conducted, and of onconforming uses and structures by°prohibiting their
will not create odor, dust, dirt, smoke, noise, vibration, gement, intensification, re- establishment after abandon-
illumination, glare, unsightliness, hazard of fire or explosion, i ent or restoration after destruction and requiring their
traffic congestion or other objectionable influence. termination after reasonable periods of time. This Article
is further intended to allow certain nonconforming uses
and structures to remain where such uses or structures do
1 362
I
i II
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 1 7;L AGENDA ITEM 7
I l�
e
MEETING DATE: MARCH 4, 1998 CITY MGR.: d,
ORIGINATING DEPT.: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for Tract No. 9028 (5 lots at 14596
Big Basin Way), Owner: KMB, Inc.
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 96 -009 granting final map
approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 96 -009 for five lots
at 14596 Big Basin Way.
2. Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision
Improvement Agreement.
Report Summary:
Attached is Resolution No. SD 96 -009 which, if adopted, will
grant final map approval for five lots located at 14596 Big Basin
Way. I have'examined the final map and related documents
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
tentative map.
2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 96-
009, have been completed or will be completed concurrent
with development of the five lots.
3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance
and all other applicable provisions of law have been
complied 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:
The subdivider has paid $10,822 in Engineering Fees and $26,910
in Park Development Fees required for this subdivision.
Follow Up Actions:
The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company
for recordation along with recording instructions.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City
Council. If the map J is rejected, it would be returned to the
subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected.
Attachments:
1. Site Map.
2. Tract Map.
3. Resolution No. SD 96 -009 granting final map approval.
4. Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 96 009 approving the
tentative map with conditions.
i
i
A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DR -96 -043, V -96 -016 SD -96 -009;
•Application No. /Location: 14596 Big Basin Way
Applicant /Owner: ROSENGARTEN
Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP
Date: October 9, 1996
APN: 517-08-009' Director Approval: 1
1 i r, 1 1 10 ‘..44:
m* J /Ni %Le j r al
s
1 fir
1 I i
i 111-4 i
j 'C \i t 44447, 4 .9 1 4 ,....:411FIR—M-3,\001
11... 1 4 i Air: 114 ftir jt,.. "...:411Pg"
MI 4 alt «_A/ i
f 1 4 411 I 17,/ V
I ESTER.EE AVE ���f
il a IA— 3 0 0 0 i lk, 41417, \wig
t ,v _A-
I lt; 4 4+ A S 1 A I 0
s z sop,
1 r losi 1 4 1 3 co o
so
41 11i
yr-- 7,
1- 1
1
•ice 000 1 4 t i 110'1"---,--- 4 0, 7 10 ,6„ i t t Afp
v rir g
i VA"'
4
R— I 6 I llir W 4 49 d
At
a c Mg 4 4k-1+4411*
Mk "ft V.4
ST 4
R -1 -0,00,
R—
14596 Big Basin Way
"PER PM 558/44
i
FD. PK NAIL
BASIS BEARINGS PER PM 592/23
o
Ih
FD. IRON PIN IN CONC. b•
IN MON. BOX
BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP IS THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF VAT LINE OF BIG BASTA WAY o NORTH C OAST AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 558 OF MAPS AT FACE 44.
o
SAANTA A CLARA LARA COUNTY RECORDS. k b
m
N
1 N W
B EHNKE BEHNKE N•
P 190 OR 1506 C 404 OR 204 b
356.56' 2
I.
.9 13 E 150.00
20.20
Jr� ..00' 26,47' 71.00' F
J500' 53
I; I5I.68• 1 120.00 i
1
(N 13.52'10 "W 151.74') (7. 2)
(6) l
h 5
ro 2094 S.F. N y PER PM 592/2
c op
FD. i 1/4' I.P. NO TAG
ty 71.00' O b Zi I• c O W
y
1,133 W N W W g 4 TRACT 781 1 n
W
c O ti 2059 S.F. ,,,,,1„ g
l r
4346 S.F. 2806 S.F. o I W o o
I
3 0 INGRESS, 71.00' y CO
2 2 EGRESS. •2 m LIST OF REFERENCES o
N I EASEMENT W I (.5.3.
h 1 b I o
2094 S.F. h (1) P.H. BK. 558 MAPS PG.44 (2) TRACT 7811, BK. 564 MAPS. PC. 4 N t
N N (3) R/S BK. 342 MAPS. PG. 18 b
(4) R/S BK. 250 MAPS. PG. 49
W R- T -p0-- (5] BK. A MAPS
PG. YN13 MC CARTYSVILL E y i
CO o I z9 I 71.00' (5) P.M. BK. 592 MAPS, PG. 23
Q A J5.00' N 13 Y 150.00'
(8) R/S BK. 172 MAPS. PG. 8
Cr)
IS 13•52•1061 (267) (8) R/S BK. 139 MAPS. PC. J8
(9) R/S BK. 139 MAPS. PG. 45
CS 13'52•101/ 301.27'7 12.7) yI v
EXS EGRESS 6 DRIVEWAY EASEMENT 20' 20
001- 13738794
I
CIZI
C 1772 2 OR 164 1.
v J
NOTES AND LEGEND
IV FD. MONUMENT AS NOTED
MON. SEARCHED FOR. NOT FOUND
N SET J /4' l.P. LS 4953
C NTIR LINE BORDER
FD. 3/4" I.P. CENTERLINE
RCE 9895 I PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT P.S.E. PO
0.25 SE ON P/L RECORD DATA 7 6 Sl�eel;
PER 558 PM H TRACT NO. 9028
J5.00' I 35.00'
ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. BEING ALL OF LOT 3 AND A PORTION OF LOT 4. BLOCK XI PER
THIS SUBDIVISION CONTAINS 13200 S.F. MORE OR LESS
h w I PLAN OF THE TOWN OF HC CARTYSVILLE" RECORDED
IN BOOK A OF HAPS AT PAGE 43. SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS
MON. SEARCHED FOR
NOT FOUND BEING WI THIN THE CITY OF SARA TOGA
m
SANTA CLARA COUNTY CAL IFORNIA
1.
ti OCTOBER 1997 SCALE 1 =20'
PER PM 558/11- 0 5TH S TREE T
ip FD. BRASS DISC WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC.
"CALIFORNIA DEPT.' i
1
2 OF TRANSPORTATIO
F I" I.P. IN MON. BOX 14563 BIG BASIN VAT. SARATOGA
RCE 7595 i SHEET 2 OF 2
PER 558 PM 44
96099
I
RESOLUTION NO. SD 96 -009
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD 96 -009
14596 BIG BASIN WAY (Kenneth M. Blackwell)
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
II SECTION 1: Lots 1 5 as h wn
s o on that certain map of Tract No.
9028, prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated
October, 1997, and filed with the City Clerk of the
City of Saratoga on March 4, 1998, are approved as
FIVE (5) individual parcels.
SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and
offered for dedication to public use are hereby
rejected on behalf of the public, save and except
for public service easements; and to the limited
extent that any offers for public street purposes
either expressly or implicitly include offers for
easements for utility purposes along or beneath said
street rights of way, then as to such express or
implied offers of easements for public utility
purposes, the same are hereby accepted on behalf of
the public.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga. City Council at a meeting held on the 4th day of
March 19 98 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None ;41
Mayor
ATTEST:
I
Deputy City Cler
I
1
s 1
1
CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SD 96 -009
AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1998, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal
corporation of the State of California, hereinafter' called
"City and Kenneth M. Blackwell subdivider and Owner,
hereinafter collectively called Subdivider:
W I T N E S E T H:
WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that certain
tract of land known and designated as 14596 Big Basin Way
situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California; and
WHEREAS, a final map of SD 96 -009 has been filed with the
City 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 abovementioned subdivision, including, but
without limiting the foregoing, the necessary 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 specifications for all of said improvements in or
appurtenant to said subdivision, which plans. and specifications
were prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. Civil Engineer,
approved by the City Engineer and now on file in the offices of the
Clerk of said City and /or the City Engineer's Office of said City,
and
2
WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the
day of 199 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 requiring as a condition precedent
to the future acceptance of said offers of dedication that the
Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon shown in
accord with the standards of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, 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 agreement,
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 this cost and expense shall construct all of
the improvements 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 specifications on file in the office of said
City, for the construction of said improvements, in, for, or
appurtenant to said subdivision, and all in compliance with the
City's Subdivision Ordinance as amended and the laws of the State
of California, 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 with the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety
bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in form to be approved by
i4
3
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 s'
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 I,
deficiencies of construction to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in all events at least 5,500.00
of said bond to be in cash, with the right of City to use the same
in its discretion for emergency maintenance and repairs in addition
to any other rights of use) the total amount of said bond to be in
the sum of 55,000.00 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 materials 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 Fifty -Five Thousand Dollars($ 55,000.00
3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the City and in their capacity as such, its
councilmen, officers, boards, 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 required 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
4
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 property damage insurance in form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, and Subdivider shall at all
times during the entire term of this agreement maintain the same in
full force and effect, which policies 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 insurance 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 ($1,000,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and
property damage coverage of ONE- HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage
j I
i I
1
5
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 subdivision 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 appurtenances 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 recordation thereof, pay the City the
sum of Zero dollars 0
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, Subdivider
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 Zero Dollars 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 Five Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
I I
5,400.00) to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be
incurred by City for engineering and inspection services to be
6
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 covenants and conditions
on his or its part to be done and performed in accord with the
within agreement, 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 wherever the term Subdivider is
used, the same shall include Owner and wherever the term Owner is
used, the same shall include Subdivider.
10. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal
representatives 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 Subdivider 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.
I
i
7
IN.WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By: [7:7 5 ?6,�Vt
Subdivider
By:
(Owner, if different from
Subdivider)
I i
RESOLUTION NO. SD -96 -009
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Rosengarten; 14596 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 construct a mixed -use development consisting of four
townhomes and two commercial structures in the Saratoga Village;
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 the
Village Specific Plan relating thereto, and the proposed
subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives,
policies and general land use and programs specified in such
General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated October 9, 1996
being hereby made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord 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; and
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.
Ij
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 2nd day
of July, 1996 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:
Completed by Surveyor. 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for
examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to
be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil
Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a
monument at all external property corner locations, either
found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set
at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by
the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map
Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
Completed. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final
Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative I
1
1
I
File No. DR -96 -043, V -96 -016 SD -96 -009; 14596 Big Basin Way
Map, along with the additional documents required by Section
14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for the 1'
examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the I
information required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal
Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: 1
I
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety "(90) days of the date of submittal for the Final
Map.
c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final
I
Map.
I
I e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or
other resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
Fees Paid. 3 The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of
the Final Map for examination.
1 Bond Posted: 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
I prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be
specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses
to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified
I later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City
Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
I guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
All easements 5 The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of
offered on Final 1 Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way on
the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved
1 Map. Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval.
Plans submitted 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the a
and approved. Tentative Map and in accordance with the designr
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
I The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and
1 1 private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map.
Fees Paid. 7 The owner (applicant) (a licant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checkin
fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the ti
Improvement Plans are submitted for review.
I
I
i
I
.II
I
I
I
I I
I II
File No. DR -96 -043, V -96 -016 SD -96 -009; 14596 Big Basin Way
Agreement signed. 8 The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement
Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010
of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
All securities 9 The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in
provided. accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the
manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to
Final Map approval.
Insurance provided. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity
agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Section 14- 05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
All utility 11. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
commitments provided. furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written
commitments from all public and private utility providers
serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all
required utility improvements.
All permits The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from
obtained. the City and any other public agencies, including public and
private utility providers, prior to Final Map approval.
Acknowledged. 13. All public and private improvements required for the project
shall be completed and accepted for construction by the City
Engineer, Community Development Director, and /or the
appropriate officials from other public agencies, including
public and private utility providers, prior to final approval
of any Building permits on any of the lots.
Fees Paid. 14. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and
Recreation in -lieu fees prior to Final Map approval.
N/A 15 Subject to the determination of the Public Works Director,
prior to approval of the Final Map the owner (applicant) may
be required to execute an agreement with the City waiving the
rights of the owner or any successive owners of any of the
lots created by the subdivision to protest the annexation of
the lots into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment
District LLA -1. The owner (applicant) agrees to such waiver.
N/A 16. Subject to the determination of the Public Works Director,
prior to Final Map Approval, the owner (applicant) may be
required to enter into an agreement with the City waiving the
rights of the owner, and any successive owners, to protest the
formation of and /or annexation into an assessment district for
the purposes of undergrounding utility lines serving the
properties. The owner (applicant) agrees to such waiver.
Section 1. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
File No. DR -96 -043, V -96 -016 SD -96 -009; 14596 Big Basin Way
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. 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 Commis-
sion, State of California, this 13th day of November, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Murakami, Pierce
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, P an •t) Commission
t
I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: al AGENDA IT
MEETING DATE: March 4, 1998 CITY MANAGER: r'
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
PREPARED BY: James Walgr ommunity Development Manager
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Annexation; Osinski, 19544 Glen Una Dr.
Recommended Motion
Deny the request and direct the applicants' to submit an application for annexation to the City of
Saratoga.
Report
Background: The City has received a Waiver of Annexation request from Waldemar and
Krystyna Osinski for their Glen Una Dr. parcel of land. The request before the City Council is
required by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission in order to allow the
Osinskis' to process their residential redevelopment plans through the County. LAFCO is the
County agency with authority over annexation procedures. The City of Saratoga's agreement with
LAFCO allows the City first -right to annex land that is both contiguous to Saratoga and within the
City's Urban Service Area.
The annexation request is for a single 1.18 acre developed lot. The property is contiguous to
Saratoga's boundary and is located within the City's Urban Service Area. Urban Service Areas are
a short range designation that indicate where a City anticipates to expand its boundaries and
provide services within a 5 -year timeframe. The City's broader Sphere of Influence is a much
longer range designation that indicates the area beyond a City's boundaries that it has interest in but
may not want to extend its boundaries or provide services to.
The property has been prezoned Hillside Residential by City ordinance. If the property is annexed
it will automatically be zoned HR and subject to the development regulations of the HR zoning
district.
Policy Issues: The City Council's policy in the past has been to annex County land when possible
in order to exert greater control over the future of these parcels. The primary
objective of this policy has been to protect the environmental and aesthetic quality of the
surrounding hillsides. Discretion is used on parcels of land that may be geologically problematic to
build on, and/or inordinately expensive to service, particularly when they are isolated lots that are
not visible from Valley floor views. For example, the City Council recently denied a request to
annex two parcels of land off Quickert Rd. and Belnap Rd. for these very reasons. The Council
also noted that the City was operating on a leaner budget with reduced staffing levels and that it
was necessary to become more selective in annexation decisions. Another factor considered was
�l I
Request for Waiver of Annexation
Page Two
that the County had adopted a hillside development plan last year that incorporated development
guidelines and review procedures very similar to Saratoga's. The document and new discretionary
review requirements will hopefully result in improved and more compatible County hillside
development.
Physical Setting: The 1.18 acre of land is currently developed with an 1,800 sq. ft. two -story
residence and a 200 sq. ft. garage. The owners would like to remove the existing buildings and
construct a new 4,200 sq. ft. residence on the site. The maximum allowable building size permitted
under Saratoga's ordinance for a parcel of this size would be approximately 5,000 sq. ft., including
the garage.
The existing buildings are at a lower elevation than Glen Una Dr. and cannot be seen from the road.
The new structure would be built even lower on the site and would only be visible from the
adjacent home to the south, also within the County none of the homes in this area are visible from
general off -site views. As the attached location map shows, the parcel is contiguous to Saratoga on
two sides and is located close to Hwy. 9 (Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd.).
The City's Groundmovement Potential Map indicates that the geologic stability of the area is
relatively good. Public utilities and emergency services are available to the site.
Public Notice
No public notice or hearing is required for this request.
Fiscal Impacts
Incremental increases in property tax revenues to the City if the property is annexed, and possible
minor increases in some City services costs.
Follow -up Actions
A Resolution reflecting the City Council's determination will be prepared for adoption at the next
available meeting. The applicants could then file concurrent applications for Annexation and
Design Review.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion
The property will not be required to annex to the City and the applicants will develop the site under
the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County.
Attachments:
1. Applicants' letter requesting Waiver of Annexation
2. Location map
3. Parcel map
Waldemar Osinski I'
19544 Glen Una
Los Gatos, Ca 95030. DEC 1997
December 2, 1997 PLANNING DEPT.
Re: Request for non annexation to City of Saratoga
APN 510 -49 -013 (county of Santa Clara)
City of Saratoga
Planning Dept.
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing this letter requesting not to be annexed into the City of Saratoga at this
time. The reasons for this request are the following:
We very much enjoy the rural atmosphere in our neighborhood with no sidewalks and
would prefer not to be added. Our property is situated well below Glen Una, has lots of
mature trees, and is thus very secluded and quite invisible from the street. The new home
we are proposing to build in place of the current small older home would be surrounded
by trees and would not be visible from the street. We have employed' a very capable
architect, Tom Sloan, who will create a very functional and attractive design which will
lend itself well to the natural surroundings and slope of the land. You may be familiar
with Mr. Sloan's excellent work. He has designed homes in the City of Saratoga and is
thus familiar with your guidelines.
The county planning office has a fairly quick approval process. We are currently in the
design phase. As we are concerned with the time it may take for approval, thus delaying
construction, we would most appreciate you grant our request. If in the future the city of
Saratoga would like to annex our property, our home will be designed in such a way that
it will already conform to your guidelines.
Please be so kind as to respond to our request as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Waldemar and Krystyna Osinski
■Y't
Ofc-/
\:*°,•-•..-N..„...:-.,,,,, I\
I f I i I 1.4•
I
1
4 -1-
1''''' 41 I
E..2 s, t
1
xi
i 1
i
i L •-•-l i ___....1._.--- A
2
e i
ISS .r.
Li
.1.• 1 i I 1 0100
1
1 —6' ,.4
,..._10... _,..,..12,„
1 i•-•-•••.— i•-• i
1.--- 1 1 1....1.--
1 ;0
a 0 -0,•—•-------- 2
03
20
I R .z No 0
'7 4 0 1
0
0 2
.4,
1 11 8...........L...... I
F---..... 4444* 9t,
1----
I 1 3
A
4°
0
I j I
1
4 0
ig lettz
OA!?
-4
N\ v•V N u
4' 1
;k
6 7 crommINN4 11141111‘;
,ii 1
_Z.__
k„/•;< N is„ \t,----'- 1.-----.. LN 'N-....
V
I
cr I I 0. 1:11:11:..
1
rm
I
FRUITY/4LE
I
it, .c
I I ---.J. t
'1■
...4. i
‘,...st,,,,
I
r 0 N...,
,,,t.,
0 r i 1 k
t
1
6/7
7
r--1- f 1 N 7 il...1,isit
I—. 1 f i
i i
i
..•e. ..,:r 7- r--1
1 A
1
i i
„i i ..1 ''''Il 7
r :r
X .0 t ...a f
7,_... N ..V.7...„-■•
k
,i.-•
P...
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. q"I 5 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 4, 1998 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager's Office I I
SUBJECT: Resolutions Implementing Reorganization Plan
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to adopt the Resolution Implementing a Reorganization Plan and Authorizing Permanent
Positions in City service.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution amending the City's Classification Plan.
Report Summary:
Pursuant to Council's direction provided at the February 10 Adjourned Meeting, staff has drafted
the attached Resolutions for Council's approval to implement the proposed Reorganization Plan.
The Resolutions are listed in the order in which they should be adopted and are briefly summarized
as follows:
1. Resolution Implementing a Reorganization Plan and Authorizing Permanent Positions in
City service for FY 97 -98 This Resolution authorizes the City departments and positions to
be added and eliminated by the Reorganization Plan (Sections I Ill). Section IV confirms the
appointment of Mr. Walgren as Community Development Director, a recommendation which I
take great pleasure in making given James' years of exemplary service to the City. Section V
delegates certain authority to the City Manager to effectuate the Reorganization, and readopts
procedures enacted last year during the initial reorganization efforts. Lastly, Section VI
specifies that the operative date for the Resolution will be when the City Council approves
salary ranges for new and reclassified positions through an amended MOU with SEA and LOU
with SMO.
2. Resolution amending the City's Classification Plan This Resolution amends the City's
Employment Classification Plan to establish the positions of Administrative Services Director,
Community Development Director, Finance Director, Public Works Director, Public Works
Superintendent, and Human Resource Analyst. In addition, the Resolution abolishes the
positions of Administrative Services Director, Community Environment Director, Community
Development Manager, Public Works Services Manager, Public Services Assistant, Senior
Engineering Technician, and Street Maintenance Specialist.
Fiscal Impact:
Overall, the proposed Reorganization Plan should result in a net savings of $14,740 in wages from
what is programmed in the adopted FY 98 -99 Budget.
i
li
Follow Up Actions:
Layoff notices will be distributed to affected employees, and negotiations over wages for new and
reclassified positions will commence with the two employee bargaining units.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Resolutions will not be adopted and implementation of the Reorganization Plan will be
delayed.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions (2).
I
I
w 1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Q.4116" �o AGENDA ITEM C 3
MEETING DATE: march 4, 1998 CITY MANAGER: 10 1 ,1
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Letter from Hakone Foundation concerning revisions to Visitor Fees
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to approve the fee revisions as proposed.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a letter dated February 12 from the Hakone Foundation proposing revisions to the fee
structure for visitor use of the gardens to go into effect on March 16. The Management
Operations Agreement between the City and the Foundation requires the Foundation to submit
proposed fee changes to the City for approval. As the reasoning for and impact of the proposed
fees appear to be well documented in the letter, it is recommended that the Council approve the
proposed fee changes as submitted.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None for the City. Impacts for the Foundation are described in the letter.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND 'PUBLIC CONTACT:
Prior to implementation of the new fees, the Foundation plans to change signage in the Gardens
and on their brochures which are distributed to the public.
I'I
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Some or all of the proposed fee changes would not be approved.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
The Foundation will be informed of Council's approval of the proposed fee changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter from Hakone Foundation dated February 12.
I
Hakone Foundation
Trustees
Daryl Becker
President
Helen A. Metcalf
Ralph M. Metcalf
Vice Presidents
Cathy Foscato
Secretary
Syd Dunton February 12, 1998
Treasurer
Margaret-Angelopoulis City Council
Marjory Bunyard City of Saratoga
Jack L. Christensen
Joseph Clevenger, M.D. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Ronald Duffin Saratoga, CA 95070
Kay Duffy
Ian Geddes Attention: City Council
Nancy Lesser
Art Okuno
Concerning Hakone Foundation Change to Visitor Fee Structure:
Bruce Parkinson
Dan Pulcrano The Hakone Foundation Board of Trustees has approved the following changes in our current
Elaine Salter
Jacqueline Brentano Stine visitor parking/admission fees. The Board has also approved fee changes for facility rental
John Tauchi fees for 1999. We plan to begin the new parking fees on Monday, March 16, 1998 after
Lynn Wallace appropriate signage and changes to the brochure are in place.
Currently
Cheryl Lawrence
Office Manager Free parking every Tuesday. Parking includes admission to the Gardens.
Barbara Moore
Asst. Manager New Fee Structure
Free parking will be retained on the first Tuesday of each month. Parking fees will be
Honorary Board collected on all other Tuesdays.
William E. Glennon Impact to Visitors
Floyd Kvamme Minimal impact is expected. Our staff reports that most visitors are surprised to find that
Donald B. Miller Tuesdays are free days.
Norman Mineta
Morihito Nagai
Yoshihiro Uchida Currently
Henry Yamate The parking fee (includes admission to Gardens) on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Kiyoshi Yasui Friday is 3.00 per car. The parking fee on Saturday and Sunday is $5.00 per car.
New Fee Structure
Equalize parking /admission fees to $5.00 per car on all days (except for the first free Tuesday
Aiko Tauchi of each month).
Chanoyu Consultant
Shizue Tomlinson Impact to Visitors
Japan Liaison
We do not anticipate any issue. Visitors will be encouraged to become members of the
Hakone Foundation for $25, allowing them free parking during the year of membership, as
well as receiving other membership benefits.
Post Office Box 2324, Saratoga, California 95070 -0324 408/741 -4994
Currently
A $10 parking pass is available for purchase. The pass allows the visitor to park free for 12 months.
New Fee Structure
Hakone Foundation will not issue parking passes. Visitors will be encouraged to become Hakone Foundation members. The
$25.00 per year membership entitles the member to free parking, a 10% discount on gift shop items and facility rentals and
participation at Hakone Foundation membership events.
Impact to Visitors
We hope relationship e to acheive a better relationshi with our visitors through participation in our membership program rather than through a
parking pass. Note: In addition to the above changes, price increases will be effective for rentals beginning January 1, 1999. Deposits for rental
of facilities for 1999 will begin on March 1, 1998. The total cost for the rental of all facilities (Garden, Madrone Mound, Lower
House, Cultural Exchange Center) is currently $1665. The total cost for the rental of all facilities in 1999 will be $1980.
Impact to Visitors
An increase in price has been suggested to people wishing to book for 1999. Without exception, they are willing to book for 1999
and consider the rental of the facilities at Hakone Gardens as fairly priced. We are fully booked for all Saturdays from April
through October of 1998 and feel that a modest increase in price for 1999 will not deter rentals.
Sincerely,
Cheryl liawrence
Office Manager
Hakone Gardens
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Qn
BBBCIITIVB SUMMARY NO.
2 411 l AGENDA ITEM 8( L
MEETING DATE: March 4, 1998 CITY MGR. I 14
I i
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Measure G Special Election for June 1998 Primary Election
Ballot
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
Council should consider the following alternative actions:
(1) If the Council wishes simply to proceed with the election:
a) Move to adopt the resolution calling a special election;
b) Move to direct the City Attorney to prepare impartial
analysis of the ballot measure;
c) Take no action to prohibit rebuttals; and
d) Move to direct staff to inform the applicant that Council
does not intend to write a ballot argument.
(2) If the Council wishes to proceed with the election and modify
the Measure G Implementation process:
a) Take actions listed in (1);
b) Reconsider the policy resolution implementing Measure G
and direct staff accordingly.
(3) If the Council wishes to reconsider the Measure G
implementation process before taking any further action:
a) Take no action on the resolution calling a special
election;
b) Reconsider the policy resolution implementing Measure G
and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Staff has received a request to schedule an election under the
provisions of Measure G in connection with property on Quito Road
owned by Barry Swenson Builder. Community Development staff has
determined that the project is subject to Measure G, and the
applicant therefore has exercised his option to request an election
prior to submitting the project for development review as allowed
by the Measure G Implementation Policy adopted by the Council (see
attached resolution). He has also submitted a check for $9,000 to
cover the estimated cost of the election.
The measure is classified as a "City Measure" under the Elections
Code. Elections Code Section 9280 allows the City Council to
direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City
Attorney to write an impartial analysis of the measure not
i
r
exceeding 500 words. The analysis would be useful to the voters;
staff recommends that it be prepared.
Elections Code 9282 provides for principal arguments not exceeding
300 words and allows the City Council to file an argument for or
against a City measure. Staff recommends that the Council give the
applicant or another party the opportunity to write the argument
in favor of the measure. If so, staff recommends that the Council
announce its intentions not to write the argument and direct staff
to relay that information to the applicant. The principal
arguments will be due on March 9 at 5:00 p.m. and the rebuttals (if
permitted- -see below) on March 19 at 5:00 p.m.
Elections Code 9285 authorizes the Council to permit rebuttal
arguments to be filed. Staff recommends that the Council do so.
If the Council agrees, no action is required; rebuttals will be
allowed because they have been allowed in recent elections.
However, if the Council does not want to allow rebuttals, it must
move to prohibit them on the same day on which the special election
is called.
Elections Code 9287 provides for the City Clerk to select the
arguments to be printed, if more than one is submitted, according
to an established priority.
NOTE: At its adjourned meeting of February 24, members of the City
Council expressed some concerns over the policy resolution
implementing Measure G. If the City Council wishes to review this
resolution, it should consider recommended actions (2) or (3).
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If actual costs of the election (including staff time) are greater
than $9,000, the applicant will be billed for the difference; if
less, he will be refunded the difference.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
If the resolution calling the election is not adopted and received
by the Registrar by March 6, the special election could not take
place in June.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Forward resolution to County Registrar of Voters by March 6.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution calling Election.
2. Resolution 96 -28 (Measure G Implementation Policy).
3. Staff Report dated May 7.
4. Measure G (full text).
5. Correspondence concerning Proposed Election. s'
ATTACHMENT 1
1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ORDERING AND CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA ON JUNE 2, 1998; REQUESTING THE
SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS; SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES
FOR THE ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, as follows:
1. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, a special election
shall be and is hereby ordered to be held in the City of
Saratoga on June 2, 1998, at which election there shall be
submitted to the qualified electors of the City the following
measure.
City of Saratoga
Measure Do the qualified electors of the City of YES
Saratoga approve the following?
NO
Shall the General Plan of the City of Saratoga be amended
by allowing an approximately 2.6 acre parcel of land
located at 13686 Quito Road to be redesignated from
General Plan land use designation "Residential Medium
Density Single Family (M- 10/4.35 dwelling units per
acre)" to land use designation "Community Facilities-
Quasi- Public Facilities."
2. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the City
Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of
Santa Clara County to make available the services
of the Registrar of Voters for the purpose of
performing the usual services necessary in the
conduct of the special election, including the
provision of election supplies and voter's
pamphlets.
3. The special election shall be held and conducted,
election officers appointed, voting precincts
designated, ballots printed, polls opened at 7:00
a.m. and closed at 8:00 p.m., ballots counted and
returned, returns canvassed, and all other
proceedings in connection with the election shall
be regulated and done by the Registrar of Voters of
the County of Santa Clara in accordance with the
provisions of law regulating such elections.
4. Principal arguments on the measure shall be
submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on March
9; rebuttal arguments, if authorized by the City
II
Il i
Council, shall be submitted to the City Clerk by
5:00 p.m. on March 19.
5. The City Clerk be and hereby is authorized and
directed to publish a notice of the special
municipal election in the manner specified in the
Elections Code Section 12111.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held
on the 4th day of March, 1998, by the following vote:
Y Y g
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
„zyor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Ii
I1
II
If
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -28
RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ESTABLISHING POLICIES DETERMINING AND PROCESSING PROJECTS
REQUIRING A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(MEASURE G IMPLEMENTATION)
WHEREAS, on March 26, 1996, the voters approved a measure (Measure
G) to change the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
to require that certain amendments to said Land Use Element may
only be made by a vote of the people, and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the City Council did certify the
results of the March 26, 1996, election and adopted a resolution
incorporating the Measure G amendments into the Land Use Element,
and
WHEREAS, as a result of the adoption of said resolution the
amendments to the Land Use Element became effective on May 3, 1996,
and
WHEREAS, in order to establish policies to effectively implement
the change to the Land Use Element, the City Council did at a
regular adjourned meeting held on May 7, 1996, and at a regular
meeting held May 15, 1996, consider various proposals and
recommendations for the implementation of Measure G, and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations. the City Council
did on May 15, 1996, by a series of votes adopt policies relating
to the implementation of Measure G.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga, as follows:
1. Staff is to use a two part test to determine if a project is
subject to Measure G. The first part of the test is to determine
if the proposed project property is currently located in one of the
General Plan Land Use Designations contained in that portion of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan covered by Measure G. If the
property is located in one of the affected General Plan Land Use
Designations. then the staff will apply the second part of the test
to determine if the project proposes to 1) change a General Plan
Land Use Designation so that it would be subject to Measure G or,
2) increase specified densities or intensities which exceed the
limits set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan or, 3)
in the case of the Outdoor Recreation General Plan Land Use
Designation, involves no recreation facilities, or involves no
h structures which are necessary to support the parks, or involves no
structures of particular historic value. If the project proposes
I I
I
I
to either 1) change a General Plan Land Use Designation of the
property so that it would be subject to Measure G, or 2) increases
development density or intensity limits, except in the Outdoor j.
Recreation General Plan Land Use Designation, Measure G would
apply. If the project is in the Outdoor Recreation General Plan
Land Use Designation and proposes to create facilities which are
not recreational in nature, or which do not support the purposes of
the park, and involves no structures of particular historic value 1
then the project would be subject to Measure G. I.
2. If the staff determines a project is subject to Measure G it is
to prepare a report to the applicant, at the applicant's cost,
outlining the submittals required to complete applications for
project review, the applicant's right to have a project considered
or to have a General Plan amendment placed before the voters for
consideration, the costs for such requests, and the effect approval
of the amendment would have on future development of the property.
3. Applications for development which are determined to be subject
to the election requirements of the General Plan, as set forth in
Measure G shall, at the option of the applicant, either proceed to
election without further review, become subject to review by the
Planning Commission and City Council under current procedures, or
be withdrawn.
4. Administrative determinations as to a project's status under
Measure G may be appealed as currently set forth in Article 15 -90
of the Municipal Code.
5. The timing of elections required by Measure G shall be
determined by and the cost of the election paid for by the project
applicant, such costs to be determined fined b Y the Finance Director and
include all actual direct costs of the election and such indirect,
general and overhead costs as may be determined appropriate by the
Director of Finance in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.
I
6. The provisions of Measure G allowing the City Council, under
limited circumstances, to approve a redesignation of Measure G
protected land use designations, (e.g., by exception) are to be
considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an
amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition
requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception
shall be submitted by separate application.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of
June, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers auxger, Moran a'ld Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Tucker and Mayor Jacobs
Ale
ayor
ATTEST:
6.)-1 Deputy City C 7 k
F: \memo \measureg.res
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AG]
MEETING DATE: May 7, 1996 CITY MGR. Akie-44erAL-,
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager
SUBJECT: Measure G Implementation
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Accept the staff report.
2. Move to adopt a policy that applications for development which
are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the
General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall proceed directly to
an election without further review unless withdrawn at the request
of the applicant.
3. Move to confirm that administrative determinations as to a
project's status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set
forth in Article 15 -90 of the Municipal Code.
4. Move to adopt a policy that the timing of elections requested
under Measure G be determined by and paid for by the project
applicant, such costs to be determined by the Finance Director and
include all actual direct costs of the election and such indirect,
general and overhead costs as may be determined appropriate by the
Finance Director in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
5. Move to adopt a policy that exceptions to Measure G are to be
considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an
amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition
requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception
shall be submitted by separate application.
Report Summary:
The report states that a simple test can determine whether a
project is subject to the Measure G standard, thus requiring an
election. The staff would initially conduct this test with its
determination subject to appeal under Title 15 -90 of the Code.
Applications which are determined to be subject to Measure G should
not be processed until the voters have approved an am endment to the
General Plan. Decisions related to the timing of elections for
projects subject to Measure G should be made by the applicant so
the applicant can present what the applicant feels is the best
presentation to the voters. The applicant should pay for the cost
of any election. Exceptions for housing element compliance and
regulatory taking should only be considered by the City Council if
the voters have rejected a proposal. A separate application for
exception consideration should be required.
Fiscal Impacts: me provided full cost re. 'ery is approved by
the City Council. The cost of an election can vary from about
$4,000 to more than $60,000 depending on the election date chosen.
Advertisina, Noticing and Public Contact: This subject was
discussed extensively at the Town Hall meeting on April 20th.
SONIC has been sent a copy of the staff report and a notice of this
meeting. Agenda for the meeting posted according to the law.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff will
have no guidance in the administration of projects under Measure G
and will have to handle applications as it deems appropriate.
Follow Up Actions: The fee resolution will need to be amended to
reflect charging for the cost of elections and the cost for filing
a request for exception. Community Development Department staff
will need to be briefed on the decisions made by the City Council.
Attachments: Memorandum dated May 7, 1996
I I
11
1
II
f
I I
I I
I� f
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 7, 1996
TO: City Council
/V10
FROM: Harry Peacock, City Manager
SUBJECT: Measure G Implementation
Recommended Actions:
1. Accept the staff report.
2. Move to adopt a policy that applications for development which
are determined to be subject to the election requirements of the
General Plan, as set forth in Measure G, shall proceed directly.. to
an election without further review unless withdrawn at the request
of the applicant.
3. Move to confirm that administrative determinations as to a
project's status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set
forth in Article 15 -90 of the Municipal Code.
4. Move to adopt a policy that the timing of elections required by
Measure G be determined by and paid for by the project applicant,
such costs to be determined by the Finance Director and include all
actual direct costs of the election and such indirect, general and
overhead costs as may be determined appropriate by the Director of
Finance in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
5. Move to adopt a policy that exceptions to Measure G are to be
considered only subsequent to the voters failing to approve an
amendment to the General Plan which would remove the condition
requiring an application for exception. Requests for exception
shall be submitted by separate application.
Background:
On March 26, 1996, the voters of Saratoga passed Measure G, an
initiative measure, which requires that certain changes to the land
use element of the general plan may be made only by the voters. On
April 20, 1996, a Town Hall meeting was held at which the
implementation of Measure G was discussed by the staff, the City
Council, and the public. At that meeting the City Manager outlined
1
l� i
Measure G Implementation
Page 2
for those present the processes which he, the Community Development
Director and the City Attorney concluded are appropriate for
implementing Measure G. On April 23, 1996, the City Council acted
to certify the results of the election and to enact a resolution
placing the language of Measure G into the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. As a result Measure G became effective on May 3,
1996.
Discussion:
Determining Application of the Measure G Standard
In administering Measure G the first step is to determine whether
or not an application is subject to the Measure G requirement. A
two part test applies.
Only certain General Plan land use categories are subject to
Measure G.
These are:
1. Outdoor Recreation
2. Hillside Conservation Single Family
3. Very Low Density Single Family
4. Low Density Single Family
5. Medium Density Single Family and Its Associated
Subcategories of M -10, M -12.5, and M -15
6. Multi- family
7. P -D (Planned Development) Residential
The first part of the test is whether the property involved is
located in one of these General Plan land use designations, if it
Ili is then it is subject to the Measure G requirement.
Measure G says only the voters may amend the Land Use Element of
General Plan to increase specified densities or intensities for the
designated land uses, or to change the land use designation from a
lower to a higher designation in terms of density or intensity,
except for the Outdoor Recreation land use designation. The
specific densities are:
1. Hillside Conservation Single Family -no more than 0.5
dwelling units. net. acre.
2. Very Low Density Single Family -no more than 1.09 dwelling
units per net acre.
3. Low Density Single Family -no more than 2.18 dwelling units
per net acre.
4. Medium Density Single Family
M -10 -no more than 4.35 dwelling units per net acre.
M- 12.5 -no more than 3.48 dwelling units per net acre.
M -15 -no more than 2.90 dwelling units per net acre.
II
Measure G Implementation
Page 3
5. Multi- family -no more than 14.5 dwelling units per net acre.
6. P -D (Planned Development) Residential -no more than 4.35 to
12.45 dwelling units per net acre.
An exception is made for "granny flats" which, under our zoning
ordinance, applies to some, but not all properties, depending on
their size.
The specific intensities are:
1. Hillside Conservation Single Family- Maximum intensity of
buildings and impervious surface coverage 15,000 square
feet or 25% of site area, whichever is less.
2. Very Low Density Single Family Maximum intensity of
buildings and impervious surface coverage: 35% of site
area.
3. Low Density Single Family- Maximum intensity of buildings
and impervious surface coverage: 45% of site area.
4. Medium Density Single Family and Its Associated
Subcategories- Maximum intensity of buildings and
impervious surface coverage is: 50 -60% of site area.
5. Multi family- Maximum intensity of building coverage: 40% of
site area.
6. P -D (Planned Development) Residential Maximum intensity of
building coverage: 25 -35% of site area.
(Note that in the last two land use designation categories the
intensity standard changes from impervious surface coverage to
building coverage).
The second part of the test is whether the project would result in
an increase in density or intensity of General Plan land use (e.g.,
density of dwelling units per acre or placement of impervious
surfaces or buildings beyond the coverage limits set forth in the
various General Plan land use categories) if it does then it is
subject to the Measure G requirement.
For property under the Outdoor Recreation designation, the test to
apply is whether the development being proposed, 1) changes the
land use designation or 2) is consistent with the standard set
forth in the Open Space Element. This standard is recited on page
4 of Measure G:
"This subcategory consists of City or County parks or lands
designated for those uses. Only recreational facilities (i.e.
playground equipment, recreational courts, etc,), structures
necessary to support the parks or structures of particular
historic value are permitted in these areas. These sites are
considered to be of particular value for recreational
purposes. Some parks preserve significant vegetation features
such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo County Park."
I Ills;
Measure G Implementation
Page 4
If it is consistent with the standard, the project is not subject
to Measure G.
l i
Administration of Measure G Standard
Processing Applications for Projects
I
Upon receipt of an application the staff will determine whether the
project is subject to the Measure G standard. If it is not then
the application would proceed through the process.
Staff currently reviews all applications for consistency with the
Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. If the application is
inconsistent then it is not processed until it is consistent. This
requires either a change in the plans or the securing of a change
to the Zoning Ordinance and /or General Plan, or securing a variance
or a conditional use permit.
Under Measure G, variances or conditional use permits (which would
have the effect of allowing a different standard to apply as
relates to either use, density or intensity, i.e., coverage) would
no longer be available. The sole remedy would be to change the
General Plan through the election process.
Very few applications will be subject to the Measure G standard.
Currently no special notice is given that an application meets all
Code and General Plan requirements, this would not change.
We have considered the issue of how things are done now when
someone is requesting a change to the General Plan versus how
things would be done in the future. Currently, it is typical that
someone seeking a change to the General Plan will also file
associated applications related to the project. The reason, the
applicant expects the City will grant a General Plan amendment if
it likes the project. However, the City can not compel an
applicant to apply for anything more than a General Plan Amendment.
Applications now travel together. This would no longer occur under
Measure G unless the basic Measure G question was delayed in terms
of ballot placement until the entire application process was
completed. If done any other way it is possible that applications
could be in mid- process,-when an election is held -.on the basic
question of changing the land use designation.
What Measure G says is that density and intensity standards, "shall
not be amended to increase such densities or intensities unless
such amendment is approved by a vote of the people." (emphasis
added). Measure G goes on to state that land, "may be designated
I
Measure G Implementation
Page 5
to a more intensive residential land use by the City Council
pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City Council makes
each of the following findings:" (emphasis added), and then
discusses findings relating to housing element compliance and
unconstitutional taking of property. Measure G recognizes that it
no longer makes a difference (in terms of Planning Commission and
City Council decision making) whether a project is approved or
denied. Neither body can approve a General Plan change which would
affect the status of a Measure G impacted property, that can only
be done by another initiative or by the project being placed before
the electorate by the City Council.
Staff recommends no public hearings be conducted on a project until
the issue of Measure G applicability is determined. Review would
consist of a determination as to applicability only. Should the
staff determine an application is subject to the Measure G
standard, the applicant would be notified and given an opportunity
to appeal the staff determination to the Planning Commission. The
administrative appeal process is set forth in Article 15 -90 of the
Code. Should the Planning Commission determine the application is
subject to Measure G the applicant can either, 1) appeal to the
Council, 2) request an election or 3) withdraw the application.
Should a question arise at the Planning Commission public hearing
as to the determination by staff that a project is not subject to
Measure G, the Commission would listen to the reasoning of the
staff and the reasoning of the person making the claim. Should the
Commission determine that the application is subject to Measure G,
then the applicant may either 1) appeal to the Council, 2) request
I
an election or 3) withdraw the application.
What happens to the application once a decision has been made that
the Measure G standard applies? The City Council should determine
whether to continue to have the application processed (at the
discretion of the applicant) or whether to suspend proceedings on
the application until the matter has been settled by the voters.
If the process was allowed to continue any decision made on the
merits of the project would have no effect on whether a project
goes to the ballot. If proceedings are suspended and the voters
approve the change in the land use element the proceedings would
continue, if they do not the project must be withdrawn. If the
proceedings continue during the time scheduled for the election it
is possible that the election could take place before the
proceedings have concluded either in favor or in opposition to the
project, as has been noted above.
It would appear that there is no advantage to either the applicant
or the City to have project review continue pending an election.
Indeed, the applicant might be disadvantaged by having his or her
application prejudged by the City before the voters have had their
say.
i I
j I
I
Measure G Implementation
Page 6
Placing a Project on the Ballot
Placing a project on the ballot is a decision which is made by the
City Council. Options available are to either, 1) determine when
a project is to go on the ballot or 2) determine to let the
applicant pick when the project is to go on the ballot. In both
cases it is recommended that the applicant pay the full cost of
placing the project before the voters).
As noted at the Town Hall meeting, the City is limited in the J number of times it can amend its general plan to four times a year.
This is a factor to consider when deciding whether to give the
applicant the choice to choose when a project would go on the
ballot. Allowing the applicant to choose could delay other general
plan changes being considered by the City which have no
relationship to the Land Use Element or Measure G. However, as
pointed out at the Town Hall meeting, it is possible to group
general plan amendments so as to avoid this. problem.
In weighing which option to recommend to the City Council, it is my
view that the likelihood of this problem occurring is extremely
rare. Therefore, it would be better for the applicant to be free
to chose his or her election date, as best suits the applicant's
II purposes, including the consideration of cost.
Should the City Council determine it wishes reserve the decision
for itself it has the following options:
1) determine that the measure must wait until the next general
City election. These occur only in November of even
numbered years.
2) determine that the measure can proceed as a special
election. This could mean that the election is either a
stand alone election or one which can be combined with
another election being held which covers all voters in
Saratoga. This is similar to the way Measure G was
placed on the ballot.
Remember, the applicant can always attempt to get the measure
placed on the ballot through the initiative process, bypassing the
application process and the determination process entirely. In
this case the City would bear the cost of the should the
City Council decide not to enact the ordinance as presented by the
petitioners, but rather require the matter to be determined by the
voters.
Dealing with Exceptions
The final issue to consider is the question of when to deal with
the housing element or regulatory taking exceptions. As stated in
Measure G Implementation
Page 7
Measure G, the City Council can make exceptions if it makes certain
findings regarding either the need to fulfill the objectives of the
housing element, should the City have an approved one, or to
prevent a regulatory taking of the property. In my view this
decision needs to be made by the Council if, and only if, the
voters reject the proposed change to the land use designation,
density or intensity. If the voters approve the change then the
decisions and findings do not have to be made because the outcome
of the election have cured the condition. Should the voters fail
to approve the proposed change to the General Plan, the applicant
could then, and only then, apply for an exception, as provided in
Measure G.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A simple test can determine whether a project is subject to the
Measure G standard, thus requiring an election. Staff would
initially conduct this test with its determination subject to
appeal under Title 15 -90 of the Municipal Code. Applications which
are determined to be subject to Measure G should not be processed
until the voters have approved an amendment to the General Plan.
Decisions related to the timing of elections for projects subject
to Measure G should be made by the applicant so the applicant can
present what the applicant feels is the best presentation to the
voters. The applicant should pay for the cost of any election,
including staff, indirect, administrative and overhead costs as
determined by the Finance Director in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. Exceptions for housing element
compliance and regulatory taking should only be considered by the
city Council if the voters have rejected a proposal. A separate
ii application for seeking an exception should be required.
I
I
1
r
r ATTACHMENT 4
TO THE HONORABLE CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the City of Saratoga, hereby propose an
ordinance to amend the City of Saratoga General Plan. We petition you to submit the same to the
City Council of the City of Saratoga for its adoption without change, or for rejection and
submission of the same to the voters of the City of Saratoga at a special election. In the event
that the initiative petition is not signed by the number of voters requ iredby Elections Code
section 9214 and the City Council of the City of Saratoga does not adopt the ordinance without
change, we petition you to submit the ordinance to amend the City of Saratoga General Plan to
the voters of the City of Saratoga at the pact regular municipal election.
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY GENERAL PLAN REQUIRING VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN
ORDER TO INTENSIFY EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR ALL LANDS
DESIGNATED "RESIDENTIAL OR "OUTDOOR RECREATION"
The people of the City of Saratoga do hereby ordain as follows:
Simon 1. Purpose and Find_ings
A. The protection of the character of existing low density residential neighborhoods
and outdoor recreational open space areas in the City of Saratoga is of critical importance to
Saratoga residents. The City was founded as a semi -rural residential community and most
residents moved here because of this distinctive feature. Saratoga remains unique among South
Bay communities because of its coumtiy atmosphere and open space•areas, its majestic trees, an
unusually low crime rate, and quiet neighborhoods free of or only minimally affected by retail,
commercial and office development.
Page I of 10
I
B. In recent years, however, the very attributes that make Saratoga so desirable have
become threatened. The City Council is under strong and unceasing pressure from developers to
convert residential and open space lands to retail commercial or high density residential
I I developments. Proposals for more intensive development in residential neighborhoods are now
regularly before the City; almost certainly some of these will be granted.
C. The opening of the Route 85 freeway through Saratoga -nay also dramatically
increase development pressure in Saratoga. Newly opened freeway corridors typically undergo an
intensification of commercial, industrial and high density residential development.
D. The unique character and quality of life of City residents depend on the protection
of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods and recreational open space areas. This initiative, if
approved by the voters, will provide this assurance by giving greater stability to the City's General
Plan, specifying that general plan provisions essential to the protection of the residential and
recreational open space areas in the City can be amended or repealed only by the voters of the
City of Saratoga. In particular, the initiative requires, with certain exceptions, a vote of the
people to permit: (1) the redesignation of residential lands to commercial, industrial or other land
use designations, (2) an increase of densities or intensities of residential land use, or (3) the
redesignation of recreational open space lands to other land use designations. This initiative does
not affect the City's existing regulations that authorize the creation of second dwelling units. Nor
does the initiative interfere with the City's obligation under state law to revise the Housing
Element of the General Plan every five years.
E. The Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan, adopted May 4, 1983
as amended through August 7, 1995 (hereinafter, "City's Land Use Element sets forth policies
that protect the character of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods, including the following:
Page 2 010
i
"LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a corm unity of single-
family detached residences.
LU.8.1 Existing non developed sites zoned single family detached residential
should remain so designated."
This initiative serves to further the purpose underlying the foregoing policies.
F. The City's Land Use Element establishes development standards for residential
land use in six subcategories (using the term "DU" to refer to dwelling units), as follows:
"A. Hillside Conservation Single Family Maximum density of .5 DU/net acre
or 1.55 people/ acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface
coverage: 15,000 square feet or 25% of site area, whichever is less.
B. 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
C. 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.
D. Medium Density Single Family
1. M-10 maximum density of 4.35 DU/net acre or 13.5 people/acre.
2. M-12,5 maximum density of 3.48 DU/net acre or 10.8
people/acre.
3. M-15 maximum urm density of 2.90 DU /net acre or 9.0 people/acre.
In all cases above, the maximum intensity of building and impervious surface
coverage is: 50%- 60% of site area
E. Multi family Maximum density of 14.5 DU/net acre or 27-45 people/acre.
Maximum intensity of building coverage: 40% of site area.
F. P -D (Planned Development) Residential 4.35 to 12.45 DU/net acre or
13.5 to 38.6 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage: 25%
35% of site area. All projects proposed on sites with this designation shall
require use permit approval as provide for in Article 16 of the zoning
ordinance.
Page 3 at 10
I
It should be noted that any won of the number of people per acre is ant
meant to act as a limit to fatm'ly size or maximum number of people that would be
permitted to live on a site. The population densities given are meant only to act as
a.guide to the average number of people Rely to occupy a given area."
G. The Open Space Element of the Saratoga General Plan declares that the City
should, where possible, improve the existing inventory of local public park and recreation
facilities. In the face of increasing development pressures within the City, it is essential that the
City, at a minimum, affirm its intention to maintain its existing recreational open space resources.
The City's Open Space Element sets forth policies that call for the protection of Saratoga's
outdoor recreation open space lands, including the following
Preserve, through a variety of methods, as much as possible of the open space areas
described in the Open Space Element for visual greenbelts, conservation and management
of environmental resources, public health and safety protection and for recreational use."
Further, the City's Land Use Element establishes development standards for the outdoor
l i
recreation open space subcategory of open space lands as follows:
"Outdoor recreation This subcategory consists of City or County parks or lands
designated for those uses. Only recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment,
recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of
particular historic value are permitted in these areas. These sites are considered to be of
particular value for recreational purposes. Some parks preserve significant vegetation
features such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo County Park"
This initiative serves to further the purpose underlying the foregoing policies.
H. The purpose of this initiative is to ensure that residential lands are not
unnecessarily converted to higher density residential, commercial or industrial land use
designations and to protect the City's existing recreational open space resources. Accordingly,
the initiative ensures that until December 31, 2025, the foregoing provisions of the City's Land
Use Element governing building densities and intensities on residential lands may not be changed
Pare 4 of 10
i
II
I I
except by vote of the people to increase the maximum densities and intensities stated. In addition,
the initiative provides that any lands designated as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very
Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family,"
"Multi Family," "P -D (Planned Development)," or "Outdoor Recreation" by the City's General
Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 will remain so designated until December
31, 2025 unless the land is redesignated by the City Council pursuant to_the procedures set forth
in this initiative or redesignated to another land use category by vote of the people.
Section2.
i t
A. This Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan adopted in 1983 as
amended through August 7,1995 specifying maximum densities and i ntensities of uses permitted
in the City's residential subcategories, which provisions are set forth in their entirety in Snding F
of Section 1 of the initiative. In addition, the initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until
December 31, 2025, the "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single
Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi- Family," and "P-
D (Planned Development)" designations ofthe City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments
thereto through August 7, 1995. Further, the following text is added as the last paragraph of the
I
"Residential" section of the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element adopted in 1983 as
amended through August 7, 1995, at page 3-2:
"Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Residential' Lands.
1. Until December 31,.2025, the foregoing provisions governing maximum
building density and intensity for lands designated "Hillside Conservation
Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single
Page S et 10
Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi- Family," and "P -D
(Planned Development)" shall not be amended to increase such densities or
intensities unless such amendment is approved by vote of the people.
2. All lands designated "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low
Density Single Family," 'Low Density Single Family," Medium Density
Single Family," Multi- Family," or "P -D (Planned Development)" by the
City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7,
1995 shall remain so designated until December 31, 2025, unless said land
is redesignated to another general plan land use category by vote of the
people, or redesignated by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set
forth in subsections 3 and 4 below.
3. Except as provided in subsection 4 below, land designated by the City of
Saratoga General Plan as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Vary
Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium
Density Single Family," "Multi- Family," or "P -D (Planned Development)"
may be redesignated to a more intensive residential land use by the City
Council pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City Council makes
each of the following findings:
a The proposed redesignation is essential for the Housing Element to
be in substantial compliance with state law, and no other feasible
redesignation cmcluding, -but not limited to, redesignation of lands
designated for non residential uses) or measures other than the
proposed redesignation are available to achieve such compliance
that would involve less intensive use of the land to be redesignated;
and
Page 6OW
ii
b. The Housing Element of the City's General Plan is in substantial
compliance with state law, and the state
Department of Housing
and Community Development has found such compliance.
4. Land designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Hillside
Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low
Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single.Family," "Multi-Family,"
or
"P -D (Planned Development)" may be redesignated to another land use
I
category by the City Council if each of the following conditions are
satisfied:
a. The City Council makes a fording that the application of subsection
2 of this policy on "Limitations on General Plan Amendments
Relating to 'Resident i' Lands" would constitute an
unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property; and
b. In permitting redesignation, the City Council allows additional land
uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said
unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property, and protects to
the maximum extent possible the character of immediately
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
B. This Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the
"Outdoor Recreation" ons of the City of rtY f Saratoga General
Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995. Further, the following text is added as
paragraph G of the "Open Space" section of the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element
Page 7 410
i
f
i I
adopted in 1983 as amended through August 7, 1995, at page 3-4:
"Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Outdoor Recreation'
Lands.
1. All lands designated "Outdoor Recreation" by the City of Saratoga Genera'
Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 shall remain so
designated until December 31, 2025, unless said land is redesignated to
another general plan land use category by vote of the people, or
the Council to the
redesignated by City pursuant procedures set forth in
subsections 2 and 3 below.
2. Except as provided in subsection 3 below, land designated "Outdoor
Recreation" by the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto
through August 7, 1995 may be redesignated to residential land use by the
City Council pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City makes each of
the following findings:
a. The proposed amendment is essential for the Housing Element to
be in substantial compliance with State law, and no other feasible
designation (including, but not limited to, redesignation of lands
designated for non residential uses) or measures other than the
I
proposed redesignation are available to achieve such compliance
that would involve a less intensive land use of the land to be
redesignated; and
b. The Housing Element of the-City's General Plan is in substantial
compliance with state law, and the state Department of Housing
and Community Development has found such substantial
compliance.
Page 8of10
I
3. Land designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Outdoor
Recreation" may be redesignated to another land use category by the City
Council if each of the following conditions are satisfied:
a. The City Council makes a finding that the application of subsection
1 of this policy on "Limitations on General Plan Amendments
Relating to 'Outdoor Recreation' Lands" would constitute an
unconstitutional taking of the landowne?s.property; and
b. In permitting redesignation, the City Council allows additional land
uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said
unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property, and protects to
the maximum extent possible the character of the immediately
surrounding residential neighborhoods."
So:tit:m.3- Implementation..
A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of Section 2 of the
initiative are inserted into the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan as an
amendment them except that if the four amendments of the mandatory elements of the general
plan permitted by state law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in 1996 prior to
the effective date of this initiative, this general plan amendment shall be the first amendment
inserted in the City's General Plan on January 1,1997. At such time as this general plan
amendment is inserted in the City General Plan, any provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance, as
reflected in the ordinance itself or the City of Saratoga Zoning Map, inconsistent with that
amendment shall not be enforced to the extent of the inconsistency.
B. The provisions of this initiative and the terms it adds to the City's General Plan
shall supersede any conflicting provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that may be
enacted by the City Council between the date this initiative is filed with the City and the effective
Page
date of the initiative. Upon the effective date of the initiative, all general plan amendments,
rezonings, specific plans, tentative or final subdivision maps, conditional use permits, building
permits and other ministerial and discretionary entitlements for use not yet approved or issued
shall be approved or issued only if consistent with the policies and provisions of this initiative.
I
Section 4_ Exemptions for Certain Projects_
This initiative shall not apply to any development project which has obtained as of the
effective date of the initiative a vested right pursuant to state law.
Section 5. Severability.
If any portion of this initiative is declared invalid by a court, the remaining portions are to
be considered valid.
Section 6 Amendment or Repeat
This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Saratoga at a
City election.
8 Z. ay 95 3 2.479r
_9r.,,adriferzat
I 35. kOS %C4 9 i 4 r l, /eP./1 Amezeurt
C..MILYrwe A 'FRvtoo
Saratoga, CIS 9s0?o /41iio Shadow ales WQy A4 549 LA-E
E.7a it Sha.w saraiDea, Cff 950 0 so7a
Page io of 10
ATTACHMENT 5
i' 0 4 SA
,4 CO
D
o 0
C
1105® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan Bogosian
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
February 13, 1998 Jim Shaw
r Donald L. Wolfe
Jean -Paul d'Elia
Barry Swenson Builder
701 North First St.
San Jose CA 95112
Dear Mr. d'Elia:
Thank you for your letter dated February 10 concerning a Measure
G election.
We will be able to place this measure on the ballot of June 2,
1998, if we receive payment for the election by February 20.
My estimate of the charges is $9,000.00. Please submit to me a
check in this amount made out "City of Saratoga" by February 20.
We are unable to determine the exact costs of the election until
we receive the bill from the Registrar. That will probably be in
late June or early July. If the actual cost is more, we will bill 1
you for the difference. If less, we will issue you a refund.
There are no other specific requirements, but we may need to
discuss the exact wording of the measure with you at a later time.
For your information, the question that will be on the ballot is
whether the General Plan will be amended to allow for consideration
of this project. If the voters approve the General Plan amendment,
the project will still have to proceed through the normal review
process. There is no guarantee that the project will be approved.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
cc: City Manager
City Attorney j
11
Printed on recycled paper
I
f
o A Y S E S O BUILDER
February 10, 1998
L... `'1 rni
Betsy Cory
City Clerk
City of Saratoga t` i 9 8
13777 Fruitdale Ave. CITY MAIL'.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: June Vote Measure G
Dear Betsy:
This letter is in response to a letter from James Walgren dated February 6, 1998, stating
that Barry Swenson Builders proposed senior assisted living project located at 13686
Quito Road is subject to Measure G.
At this time we would like to formally submit to you our request to be placed on the June
2, 1998 ballot. In addition to our request to be placed on the June ballot, we would like to
obtain the following items, so we may proceed with this process:
A schedule of fees
An agenda of submittal requirements
Any other such necessary items
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please fell free to
call me at any time. My direct phone number is (408) 938 6303.
Sincerely,
Je. Elia
S, nson Builder
cc: Chris Mahoney
0 4 sAR I
#0111111S4
I r
onew O S A D A O A
e nog® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan Bogosian
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
February 6, 1998 Jinn Shaw l
Donald L Wolfe
Jean -Paul d'Elia
BARRY SWENSON BUILDERS
710 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Re: Measure G Determination
Dear Mr. d'Elia:
This is in response to your letter dated January 7, 1998 regarding the applicability, and requirements of,
Measure G to a proposed assisted senior living project located at 13686 Quito Road, at the southeast
intersection of Quito Rd. and Highway 85.
Based on the information and project description contained in your attached letter, it is my determination that
the proposal would be subject to the provisions of Measure G. My decision is based on the following:
The proposal for 80 to 120 senior residential dwelling units on this 2.6 acre parcel is a substantial
increase in intensity and density of development from the maximum permitted density of 11 dwelling units
per the existing M -10 (Residential- Medium Density/4.35 dwelling units per acre) General Plan land use
designation.
The residential units constitute independent dwellings and would therefore be considered a multiple
family residential development.
Though Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance permits senior housing /multiple family developments in single-
family zoning districts, through the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, g
Y 9 9 9 9 the General Plan designation for
the property would need to be changed from Residential- Medium Density to Quasi Public Facility to allow
this density.
Measure asu e G was adopted specifically to address potential increases in land use density and General Plan
designation amendments to accommodate such density increases.
Per Resolution No. 96-28 adopted by the Saratoga City Council on June 5, 1996, administrative
determinations as to a project's status under Measure G may be appealed as currently set forth in Article 15-
3 90 of the Municipal Code. You also have the option to either proceed to election without further review or to
be subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council under current procedures. Please be
advised that you must submit a request in writing to the City Clerk of either an election or processing of the
application first.
Printed on recycled paper
Measure GDeteirninabon
Page Two
I I
Your letter also describes a potential three -story structure, which you note may have to be modified based on
Saratoga's zoning regulations. A two-story structure of 26 ft. in height is the maximum permitted in Saratoga's
residential zoning districts. The height restriction may be modified through the Conditional Use Permit
process, but the story restriction may not.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (408) 868
1232. You should contact Betsy Cory at (408) 868 -1269 regarding election submittal requirements 9 req ments and costs.
Sincerely,
Oil 5YfA/
mes Walgren, AICP
Community Development Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
Larry Perlin, City Manager
Michael Riback, City Attorney
Betsy Cory, Deputy City Clerk
enc.
II
1
j
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
n
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '111 AGENDA I'T'EM ?.0
p.Ll
MEETING DATE: March 4, 1998 CITY MANAGER 04
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Agreement for Professional Services: Interim Finance Director
Recommended Motion(s):
Approve the proposed agreement (attached) with Oliver L. Wright, CPA, to serve as Interim Finance
Director.
Report Summary:
As the City moves into the second phase of its reorganization, and pending the completion of the
recruitment and selection process for a permanent Finance Director, it is necessary to retain the
services of an interim Finance Director to provide close oversight of the Finance Department's
operations. Staff is requesting City Council's approval of an agreement with Oliver Wright, CPA, in
order to secure these interim services.
Background:
Over the past few weeks, the City Manager and Interim Assistant City Manager jointly interviewed
candidates who might offer the expertise to assist the City by providing these key interim financial
oversight services. While each candidate presented fine credentials, either the organizational fit was
less than ideal or the contractual rate was higher than the City preferred to pay. On Tuesday, February
24, 1998, an interview was conducted with Oliver Wright, who struck both interviewers as a very well-
qualified professional who would satisfy the needs of the organization at this point in time.
Discussion:
As reflected in Oliver Wright's resume (attached), his professional experience is interestingly varied
with solid grounding in fiscal and information system arenas. He currently works for the West Valley
Sanitation District on a part time basis, so his availability to the City of Saratoga is immediate. Mr.
Wright is prepared to work for the City three to four days a week, which dovetails nicely with the part
time accountant's services currently provided by the City's auditor, Maze Associates. Mr. Wright's
hourly rate is proposed to be $65 per hour. He does not plan to apply for the position on a permanent,
full time basis.
1
ai I li
Fiscal Impacts:
If Mr. Wright is retained through the end of June 1998 (which would allow some time for transition
work with the permanent Director), his fees should not exceed $35,000.
Follow Up Action(s):
Execute the agreement with Oliver L. Wright, CPA.
1
Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motion(s):
The Finance Department would lack day to day guidance and therefore operate under less than optimal
conditions. In addition, the backlog of year -end and daily technical work would become more difficult
to tackle, and finally, he quality of preparation for upcoming budget and annual audit processes would
Y q tY P P p g g p
be diminished.
Attachment(s):
Proposed Agreement Between City of Saratoga and Oliver L. Wright, CPA
Resume for Oliver L. Wright, CPA
li-
2