The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-17-1986 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. f 18 MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Additional Improvements to Congress Springs Park Parking Lot 7D Recommended Motion: Authorize landscaping, irrigation, security lighting and temporary fencing improvements at a cost not to exceed $25,000. Direct that an appropriate budget adjustment resolution be prepared for approval on January 7, 1987. Report Summary: Discusses security and noise concerns of neighbors who abut new parking lot. Reviews potential improvements which can be made to mitigate these concerns and provides cost estimates for providing lighting, landscaping, fencing and driveway relocation. Discusses potential effectiveness and benefits of these improvements. Suggests a proposed course of action which would cost an estimated $25,000 to implement. Fiscal Impacts: Would require a $25,000 budget adjustment to come from the unappropriated balance of the Park Development Fund, leaving a projected balance of approximately $149,000. Attachments: 1. City Manager's Report 2. City Engineer's Report Motion and Vote: Fencing and barrier approved; $10,000 appropriated now; it returned to Parks Recreation Commission. Budget resolution to be prepared for 1/7. girT ©2 1' oC� REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/12/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/17/86 SUBJECT: Additional Improvements to Congress Springs Park Parking Lot RECOMMENDATION: Approve landscaping and irrigation, security lighting and temporary fencing along the southern boundary of the Congress Springs Park parking lot at a cost not to exceed $25,000. Direct the City Manager to prepare the necessary budget adjustment resolution for approval at the Council's January 7, 1987, meeting. BACKGROUND Last month four residents whose property backs up to the PG &E right -of -way where the extra parking lot for Congress Springs Park has been located met with me and the City Engineer to express their concerns over the security and noise problems they believed they would experience because of the parking lot being located fifteen feet from their back fences. Because of space limitations, it was not possible to construct the parking lot any further away from the property line without reducing the number of spaces from 120 to 60. If that had been done, the distance would have moved from fifteen feet to thirty -three feet, certainly not enough to reduce or significantly affect the concerns of the residents, in my view. The focus of our discussions, as previously reported to you, was to increase security to the adjoining neighbors. Items discussed were: 1) buffering landscaping, 2) fencing between the lot and the rear yards of the houses, and 3) security lighting. In addition, the neighbor whose side yard abuts the PG &E right -of -way at Glen Brae asked that the driveway to the parking lot be relocated to the north. At the conclusion of the meeting, I indicated staff would develop plans and costs for making these improvements to the parking lot and present our findings to the City Council for a decision on what additional improvements the Council would be willing to fund. ANALYSIS The plans and cost estimates submitted by the City Engineer are attached. The four improvements can be broken down from a cost standpoint as follows: Landscaping irrigation $11,100 Fencing 9,240 Lighting 13,450 Driveway Relocation 9,220 Total Cost $43,010 These costs do include a 10% contingency. If Council has visited the site, you are aware that various fencing already exists along the rear and side property lines of the properties. If added fencing is installed, it would be a six -foot chain link fence set back either five or ten feet from the existing fence line. Two landscaping schemes are suggested: one shows planting on both sides of the fence, the other only between the parking lot and the fence. In either case the cost is the same. Three electroliers are proposed: one near Glen Brae, one about mid -way down the lot, and one at the end of the lot near the turnaround. The neighbors indicated the lights from the PG &E sub station across the street probably make the electrolier nearest Glen Brae unnecessary. Elimination of this electrolier would reduce the lighting cost by about $2,200. Moving the driveway not only would cost abut $9,220 but would also require an agreement on leasing right of way from SPRR. At this point in time we have no idea what that would cost nor whether SPRR would be disposed to lease part of its right -of -way to the City. In any event, moving the driveway is of potential benefit to only one property owner, not all of the owners along the fence line. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The key issue seems to be to what extent the presence of the new parking lot diminishes security and increases noise problems to neighboring properties. Clearly the neighbors feel that they have been adversely impacted to a large extent. Since one fence already exists, a judgment needs to be made as to how much extra security the second fence would provide. There is no question that the current landscaping outside the neighbors' fences is not continuous and dense enough to act as a security screen and noise buffer. In my view this is not a reponsibility which should be borne by the impacted property owner, but rather the property owner who creates the impact in this case the City). I do share the concern about lack of security lighting. I think it makes the lot an attractive place for late night activity which could become a problem for these particular neighbors. As for relocating the driveway, I see little benefit and much cost. Indeed, I am concerned about moving the driveway so close to the railroad crossing from a safety standpoint. It is my conclusion that some security lighting and landscaping and irrigation of the fifteen -foot strip between the parking lot and the residental property is appropriate. Whether another fence is needed in addition to the landscaping is questionable, especially when the fence would eventually be completely covered by the landscaping. Temporary fencing using the type of fencing proposed for security at Hakone Gardens would be far less expensive to purchase and install. The reduction in security to me would be minimal. I conclude that relocating the driveway would not be appropriate. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ©2 0 °'V 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM City Manger P City Engineer Congress Springs Park Parking Lot Modifications RSS /df Attachments: Engineering Estimate Maintenance Estimate DATE: December 10, 1986 Per your request we have prepared an estimate of the cost to provide 1) a relocation of the entrance to north of the PG &E transmission tower, 2) chan link fence between parking lot and residences, and 3) safety lighting. This estimate is $32,000. The Maintenance Department has provided an estimate for 1) plant material and 2) irrigation system. This estimate is $10,100. Total for this work is $42,100, of which $9,200 can be eliminated by not relocating the driveway. An additional $2,000 could be eliminated if only tt4o electroliers are necessary. The estimate could then be $31,100. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Remove e ,ris /r�, 5" .4 C. l2rielia y 3,000 5,F. 0.25 750.00 2. Remorse ,Onw is r Deflre5Sfov'` Re ce Cu b 36 L 25.00 900,00 3. Remove 6.:fr.6 i Coss /red Ilvsveway DP 7I 9 40 1.: 25.00 1,000.00 4. 6ca.d a'/g and ‘.5 64 ,d,79. 3,000 s. 0.50 1 5V0. 00 50 5 A plza aOlcre 94 roil 45.00 4 230.00 6. 6 a l/i94 C''i.'/ Zt r�e'�C.. C_ O LO r� /2.00 a 4 0 0.00 6 v I /00 k W. P S I/ t/e h o/ e/ ,4% Ce .3 Ea. ?a/o c 6:, o oo Val.! 8. S /eciitic (4)/w ;re 750 L.i 7.50 36 25.00 90 /ec./rica/ Pal/ Boxes 4 Ea. /50.Qj 6 CITY OF SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ENG /NEER'5 EST /MATE Comeaess 5oni,vc s P4R1-R9R/t /MM Zo r HoO /f /CM770A/5 n� Name of Project Dote: A m e a r 18 1 986 By: 1. Dorsey REMARKS Za.na&ceap 9, 1/7c %s� o er 33r1//c grf ,ao6a iy add 4/6 Dc o SUB TOTAL= TOTAL= Sheet of 29 2 900.50 I L/SE: se 3ZOCX., °a 11 11, 1 11 S.P. VgA4 1 -41 ill Remove) II 110 1.1 10 r ,p 0 I li 1 •-‘,.....4 Water ll 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C ill i QN Pi II 144 i) Ili 1 I i Pa ./einet+t i _c•. I 1 ill r I'Lp r 1 CIZ IP i Z....oz.! i 1 7 :senor, ii i To Rif.w.o■w 11 II t4..I 711iil' I l 8 r e aklirre ki '-irl 1, •••..4 III 3 oil ‘0% 11 11 II 1 II; -.7 DRIVEWAY DETAIL VIA REAL DR 5 Asphalt Cona I Cope Se/t■rocie Conereee res./of 040,111NPOlool :s0 r 1 tc //V A r) k/ tc. arq and COMPOCe Native as Necessary Edge of Asphalt Cont. TYPICAL SeC TION COPIPAC S"Asphod tone. z.% 7-Yeg• AVOCOci in lifis :7/41 Conc 15a- PARK/rVa STALL LAYOUT 0. Nor ro scAL 0 0 Led CONSRESS SPRINGS PARX PARKING LOT 0 Tfrt LOCATION MAP lea c.•4. /VOT ro $C4 L E ki 0 OgUW cD2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 CECGIVE (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM Plant Material 77 Hakea Suaveolens 26 Tristania Laurina 93 Crevillea Nollei 64 Cistus Purpureaus 39 Arctostophylus densiflora Material cost Labor for planting Irrigation System 800' 3/4 tubing 1000' 1/4 tubing 300 emitters Misc. material Back flow preventor Material cost Labor for installation TO: City Engineer DATE: November 25, 1986 FROM: Director of Maintenance SUBJECT: Congress Springs Parking Lot Landscaping I am transmitting 2 rough sketches of the proposed landscaping of the parking lot at Congress Springs Park adjacent to private property. The sketches are differentiated by the placement of the 6' chain link fence. Planting and irrigation costs remain the same. 20% cost for overhead and profit Estimated cost 5 gal. 8.00 ea. 15 gal. multi -trunk 50. 5 gal. 8.00 ea. 5 gal. 8.00 ea. 5 gal. 8.00 ea. 10.08 per 100 4.00 per 100 .30 ea. Tax Tax lEC 8 1986 616.00 1,300.00 744.00 512.00 312.00 3,484.00 244.00 3,728.00 4,000.00 7,728.00 81.00 40.00 90.00 50.00 20.00 281.00 20.00 301.00 400.00 701.00 1,672.00 10,101.00 r SLY r -'I S4 t1l �3L�Ny'�d G�1C1� ,s �d- t wfP+V.'yva/ a21 v1(074 15Nal i '.1 C o. iy 3 H'I J E A eoNTINVYi l,) /MOLT -TRUNK TRI5 rAN /avl4 /VA EMirrt System J Co** vyi«75 eF3, A'Itt rosTA'PNyLU$ D N5)FLOR tN.w. ^d /S:lcM. wn) G►7u�p� M�i of A. G[sTus PcrRP(ilZrv,S, O N c oNreR All Pia •ts EA NOELM jAltt` SUAvAZ: L. W. 7b 12-17-W- u: l ee v6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 I MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 5y AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: AZO -86 -004, miscellaneous amendments to the zoning ordinance Recommended Motion: Approve the Negative Declaration and introduce the attached ordinance. Report summary: The referenced ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on November:_12, 1986 and is described in the memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 16, 1986. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Negative Declaration 2. Ordinance amending Chapter 15 3. Memo to Planning Commission dated October 16,1986 Motion and Vote: CZ� 0 EIA -4 Saratoga REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environmeni within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City Code pertaining to storage of personal property on residential sites, monument signs on commercial sites, definition of street trees, appeals of tree regulations, property inspections on applications for second unit use permits, certificates of occupany, exceptions to height limitations and recreational courts. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In the main, the proposed amendments are more restrictive or duplicate existing regulations. No adverse effect on the environment will occur as a result of the changes. Executed at Saratoga, California this 27th day of Yucb,pek Asia Planning Director File No: AZO 86 -004 October DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 19 86 C 06 ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING OR REPEALING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, SIGNS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, TREES, SECOND UNITS, TEMPORARY USES, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, FIRE ESCAPES, FENCE HEIGHT AND RECREATIONAL COURTS ULY1 cI e r kv1 A 114 d i Ca +e. �e v i'sec r add riff (am e A iv+ elf eieickinvt) The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION I: Section 15- 12.160 in Article 15 -12, pertaining to storage of personal property, is amended to read as follows: "S15-12.160 Storage of personal property and materials (a) No portion of any site on which no dwelling exists, or on which a fully constructed dwelling exists but is not occupied and used for human habitation, shall be used for the unenclosed storage of any personal property. AO_ With respect to anv site on which a dwelling exists which is occupied and used for human habitation. no portion of any required front yard, and no portion of any required exterior side or rear yard of corner lots, and rear yards of double frontage lots, except as hereinafter provided, shall for any period of time in excess of five consecutive days be used for the unenclosed storage of any of the following: (1) Motor vehicles, except automobiles in fully operational condition and currently registered and licensed for operation on public highways and in normal daily use by the occupants of the site. (2) Trailers of any kind or make. Camper units detached from the truck or other motor vehicle for which they are designed or customarily used shall be considered trailers for the purpose of this Section. (3) Boats. (4) Parts of any of the items of property described in Subparagraphs (1), (2) or (3) above. (5) Building or construction materials, except those materials reasonably required for work under construction on the premises pursuant to a valid and effective building permit issued in accord with Chapter 16 of this Code. (6) Trash, garbage or refuse, except as provided by Article 7 -05 in Chapter 7 of this Code. -1- Any of the foregoing items of property which have been stored on a site or yard described herein for less than five consecutive days and then removed, shall not again be stored on such site or yard unless in compliance with Paragraph jof this Section or pursuant to a temporary use permit issued pursuant to Paragraph (d) of this Section. The items of property described in Paragraph 1121 of this Section may be stored in exterior side and rear yards of corner lots and rear yards of double frontage lots for periods in excess of five consecutive days where a fence has been legally constructed of sufficient height and of a type which screens the stored property from public view and reasonably prevents such property from becoming an attractive nuisance. The Planning Director shall have power, in cases of practical difficulty or hardship, to grant temporary use permits for storage of the items of property described in Paragraph (b) of this Section in front, side or rear yards of sites for limited periods of time in excess of five consecutive days. Application for such storage permits shall be in writing, on forms furnished by the City, and any permit issued pursuant thereto shall be in writing, shall describe the personal property to be stored, and the location and time limit of the storage. The Planning Director may impose reasonable conditions in any such storage permit, which shall be agreed to in writing on the face of the permit by the applicant prior to the permit being issued.! SECTION 2: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 30.100, pertaining to signs in commercial districts, is amended to read as follows: "(c) A free .standing identification sign for a site containing five or more separate uses. not exceeding forty square feet in area. Such sign may be in addition to all other signs permitted under this Section." SECTION 3: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 50.020 in Article 15 -50, pertaining to the definition of street trees, is amended to read as follows: "(c) Street tree means any tree within the public street or right of way." SECTION 4: Section 15- 50.090 in Article 15 -50, .pertaining to appeals from administrative determinations under the tree regulations, is amended to read as follows: "S15- 50.090 Appeals Any person objecting to a decision by the Planning Director made pursuant to any of the provisions of this Article, may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 of this Chapter. Notwithstandin7 the provisions of Section 15- 90.020. the decision of the PlanninE Commission shall be final and no further appeal may be taken to the City Council." SECTION 5: Section 15-56.050 in Article 15 -56, pertaining to inspections on applications for second unit use permits, is amended to read as follows: "S15- 56.050 Inspections (a) Where the application is for legalization of an existing- second unit or approval of a proposed second unit to be attached to a main dwelling, prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any construction or alteration work is completed. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the applicant. (b) Each existinz second unit and a main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liability with respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the issuance of a second unit use permit constitute a representation or warranty by the City to the owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes." SECTION 6: Section 16- 60.010 in Article 16 -60, pertaining to temporary uses, is amended to read as follows: "S15- 60.010 Temporary uses allowed by permit (a) For the purposes of this Article, the term "temporary use" means anA activity /described in Paragraph (b) of this Section, whether profit or non profit, conducted on public or private property for a limited period of time. If such time does not exceed ten consecutive days or a total of ten days within a thirty day _period, the application may be acted upon and a temporary use permit issued by the Planning Director; otherwise, the application shall be acted upon by the Planning Commission. (b) The following described temporary uses may be permitted in any zoning district in the City upon the prior obtaining of a temporary use permit pursuant to this Article: (1) Art shows. (2) Craft shows. (3) Antique shows. -3- (4) Outdoor sales on ublic or private property. (5) Tours of heritage resources, as designated pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (6) Home tours. (7) Fundraisinc activities conducted on a residential site for artistic. cultural. educational or political purposes. (8) Additional temporary uses added by the Planning Commission in accord with Section 15- 60.050. (9) Temporary on -site and off -site signs in conjunction with the above uses." SECTION 7: Article 15 -75, entitled "Certificates of Occupancy," consisting of Sections 15- 75.010 through 15- 75.040 inclusive, is hereby repealed. SECTION 8: Section 15- 80.010 in Article 15 -80, pertaining to exceptions to yard requirements, is amended to read as follows: "S15- 80_010 Exceptions to yard requirements (a) Architectural features, including sills, chimneys, weather vanes, cornices and eaves may extend into a required side yard not more khan three feet or into a space between structures on the same site not more than eighteen inches, and may extend into a required front or rear yard not more than four feet. (b) Open, unenclosed, uncovered balconies, porches, decks. platforms, stairways and landing places, no part of which is more than four feet above the surface of the g round, may extend into a required yard or space between buildings not more than four feet. A (c) Fences, walls, hedges, walks, driveways and retaining walls may occupy any required yard, subject to the limitations prescribed in the district regulations. (d) Bay windows, having no foundation or other connection to the surface of •the ground directly below, may overhang and extend into any required yard for a distance not exceeding two feet." SECTION 9: Section 15- 80.020 in Article 15 -80, pertaining to exceptions to height limitations, is amended to read as follows: "S15- 80.920 Exceptions to height limitations (a) Chimneys, flagpoles, radio and television aerials (except satellite dish antennas regulated under Section 15- 80.080 of this Article), spires, and similar appurtenances may be erected to a height not more than fifteen feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is -4 0068 located. Utility poles shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in the district regulations. (b) Pilasters constituting a part of a fence. in reasonable numbers and scale in relationship to the nature and style of the fence. may extend to a height of not more than two feet above the height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters. (c) The height of a fence shall not include light fixtures mounted thereon at the entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such light fixtures shall be installed at each driveway and sidewalk entrance." SECTION 10: Subparagraph (c)(6) of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80, pertaining to recreational courts, is amended to read as follows: "(6) The natural grade of the area to be covered by the recreational court shall not exceed an average slope of ten percent, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter." SECTION 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 12: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: 'AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -5- MAYOR E .6 FAUL B SMITH cERIC L FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD NDA ITEM e proposed ordinance covers a v, erietY‘;- Of unrelated ::miScellaneOtis a, r fmatters, ',most of which are on.,•; une 13, 1986.':Ihave made some handwritten notations on the ordinance to indicate',', additions or deletions to the language that now appears lrithe City Code he nature and purpose ofeack J4 441040*,":64 EC 'I; OINT1=S''T Oli.AdEOP,PERSONAL PROPERTY This amendment is intended to 'relarify:that :'..1a site or a "Si containing a completed„but'lUnoc Cupied:dwellingl used for the storage of any personal property restriction has been 'separately Stated as waragraph (a); WhiCh, previonSly'..waseombiried with paragraph b) as a single provision Under the existing ordinanOeV,An :tne' diiroperty. vacant sites was allowed as long as the'S:torage did not exceed five days C:r 1(4 _Permit was grantedanthorizing.Storagejor alongeryeriodof'tiine:'"; 044ive-01:: limitation and the storage permit proCeSSwOnld'nOW':aPprlirily",..i ii:::iISiti:: OilluiiiChOn': occupied dwelling exists. VAS ii7furtheicClai•ification,,the existing ordinance merel 4:LefersAci.!storage,'■ Wneraiii,the'SinienclienX:;riOw.ieferjoLitimerieloSed StOritie: t:.,,,rf.lf,,z*;tvritmtitffioov,x*:8-rA,,,a,j6,;stct.*7'o''":kOi: tRi ft -7 1 TilaTI(*ildNS I ,COMMERCIAL DIS cis This .:7'section'..: am ends :Priragraph(c);: :SeCtion0i1540 ytto Tallow 1 :a free s tandin g identification signfpr:anysit,*itfiiii:'a_FOininercialZonmg'diStricthaVing 4 hre: Ce.: 6 41 y signI2nlySin l :eaSeOf 'ipt::fo .cOrnplex '.:ThiS ,Varianeel'applicatiOri,iiceiitlYY the Nnmg zeommission to allow a:freeStrinding sign for m edical :OffloeSsilocated cornmereialzoning districtOlf-- beeniitilized„for,: With five or.:rnore\retail.useS the -property would iiiiVe fai ;,shopping center and no yarianae,wouldberequired.„4The proposed arnendMerit 'eliminate the reference tO:a..Oopt)ingcenter ;to iper,inita n a tu re o h 'sign for multiple usson a r egardless of the ria ute9 e ac h Aise..-,. M.' ATKINSON. (1E192-1982) (1915-1979/.6 SECTION 6 ','-'4 TEMPORARY USES This 'amendment would elirninateihei'efer or similar activity".in paragraph (a) of SeOtion`15-60 .010.7ThareaSon for .thii'ifeietiOri 48 that we :;,have isSued, t *hich ',Oan i tglY:.:,'be 4 :,t::characterized AS retail: (e.g.' outdoor :sales on privte:property)and „theraI4illel not r ..seem "to need to preserve the ref ereriOe7to artistic, aUltuial;'.S6ciallcpraimilar` activitieas.i';since YlAisea‘r- tiperrn 4: are 10`enu in erated in paragraph, (b) o f thi sedti On... t.The amendment 'WoUld.ltilSerniOdif y'Paratriipti':(b) byinCiiidingra refererice to outdoor sales on public property and 'also adding a neW t0`. ftin dr Eii ing 'or politicalliiirp r r .l. •^4, ;sEq TION 7.eCERTTEIC4TES OdCUPA146 ,,J-TheP.` lia.8 -artiele- 1 entitl 41dert if i c at ei'.,:of f 0 C eiwari cy;'1), prOVidinefor :4:ce s7 ,Y 4 „t, 1 Planning DireetoHoweverithe'188itanOe iii'' bre'ctiiiiiiiCPiiiv.eilifai great 'detail under the proVisiOna=6t building' d o de!Whicfi! h as8a8OPted :by the City. .f In 'actuality certificates We' isStiec b? the 'Cifisiiiiiiee'Pkil8fing' in his'. the building fOf fidial, faPParentlS7 .1..the• Planning Director Since .Articie'15:15' is unnecessary and doeilieieneartCtua practice followed by theiCitytti8 aMendtreny would rePeal'the'entiWartiOle .7 v ii. Az1 .1. 4 i ee N ik i .4X SECTION 8 EXCEPTIONS TO YARD REQUIREMENTS Paragraph (b) of this section has been amended to include a specific reference to decks. The amendment would also delete the existing paragraph (c) of this section which reads as follows: "Open, unenclosed, uncovered, metal fire escapes may be project into any required yard or space between buildings not more than three feet." The type of fire escape contemplated by this section is no longer allowed under the current Uniform Building Code to be installed on commercial structures. There certainly is no reason to retain the exception solely for residential structures which typically have alternative means of egress by way of stairways from balconies, as opposed to fire escapes. If the balconies must comply with setback requirements, there should be no reason to give a special exception in the case of fire escapes. SECTION 9 EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS This section has been amended by adding a new paragraph (b) relating to pilasters constituting a part of a fence, and paragraph (c) pertaining to light fixtures mounted upon a fence at the entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Both of these changes have been discussed and approved by the Planning Commission. SECTION 10 RECREATIONAL COURTS This amendment would restore to the Planning Commission the authority to grant a variance from the 1096 slope restriction on recreational courts. As noted in the legislative calendar, the reference to a variance was inadvertently omitted from the new City Code. In addition to the foregoing amendments, some of the other items listed on the legislative calendar are now being drafted in ordinance form and will be. presented to the Planning Commission at your next meetings. These .subjects include amendments to the fencing regulations, amendments to the tree regulations as contained in the Subdivision Ordinance, disallowance of carports for required covered parking for residential structures, and adoption of regulations pertaining to bed and breakfast establishments. The Commission will also be continuing its work on new design review regulations for single family resident structures and the Village Plan. Harol op Saratoga City Attorney COMMITTEE OF THE MOLE 6:45 p.m. Council Office, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue RBGUTAR MEETING 7:00 p.m. AGENDA SARAIOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, January 7, 1987 PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Interview with Planning Commission Applicant 1. ROLL CALL 2. CEREFUNIAL ITF16 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes 12/3, 12/17 B. Approval of Warrant List C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 3 9., 1986. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR (All items listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be by roll call.) A. heritage Commission Minutes, 12/10 Note and file. B. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donations to hakone Gardens (J. and R. Wade, R. and T. Gunter, M. A. Wolf, and M. Stanton, Donors) C. Report on Impact of Bottle Bill (AB 2020) an Local Zoning Recommended Action: Direct staff and Planning Commission to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as soon as regulation guidelines are received from the State. D. Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the R -1 zoning districts under certain conditions. (AZO 86- 001)(Saratoga Avenue Associates) (second reading and adoption) E. Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by amending Sec. 15- 12.160 pertaining to storage of personal property on residential sites, amending Sec. 15-30.100(c) to permit monument signs on commercial sites that have 5 or more uses; amending Sec. 15- 50.020(c) concerning the definition of street trees; amending Sec. 15- 50.090 concerning appeals from administrative decisions under tree regulations; amending Sec. 15- 56.050 concerning property inspections on applications for second unit use permits; amending Sec. 15- 060.010 concerning temporary uses; repealing Art. 15 -75 concerning certificates of occupancy; amending Sec. 15- 80.010 concerning exceptions to yard requirements; amending Sec. 15- 80.020 concerning exceptions to height limitations; amending Sec. 15- 80.030(c) concerning recreational courts (AZO 86-004) (second reading and adoption) F. Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by adding Sec. 15- 80.110 pertaining to convenants for certain easements and amending Sec. 14- 25.050 of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning easements and Sec. 14- 03.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning trees (AZO 86-005) (second reading and adoption) G. Renewal of Village Library Lease for One Year with No Changes in Terms or Conditions H. Authorization for City Manager to Attend Annual League of California Cities City Manager Department Meeting in Monterey, Feb. 18 -20, 1987, with reasonable and necessary expenses I. Final Map Approval for SDR 1623, Miljevich Dr., 1 lot (D. Coffey, Developer) J. Final Adjustments to Contract for Congress Springs Park Park Landscaping: Approval of extra work order to install underground electrical service ($789156); Approval of adjustments totaling $6,121.34; Approval of final payment to Cagwin and Dorward ($431.76); Acceptance of work and Approval of Notice of Completion for the project 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND 'DIE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two minutes. All statements requiring a response will be referred to staff for further action. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. B. Written Communications from the Public 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution Adjusting Budget for Additional Improvements to Congress Springs Park Approved 12/17/86 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution approving application for grant funds under Community Parklands Act of 1986 Recommended Action: Adopt resolution. B. Route 85 FEIS Section 4(f) Concurrence letter Recommended Motion: Authorize sending a Section 4(f) concurrence letter regarding the Route 85 FEIS. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (8:00 P.M. OR EARLIER) A. Ordinance amending Section 10 -05.030 of the City Code concerning obstructions to streets and sidewalks and amending Article 10 -20 concerning issuance of encroachment permits (first reading) B. Ordinance adding Sections 9- 15.055 and 9- 20.035 to the City Code relating to designation of no parking areas by the City Engineer (first reading) 9. CITY COUNCIL I14S A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers 10. CLOSED SESSION SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT AZO -86 -005, Amendment to the subdivision and zoning ordinance concerning covenants for easements and amendment to the sub- division ordinance regarding trees. Recommended Motion: Approve the Negative Declaration _and introduce the attached ordinance. Report Summary: The attached ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on November 12, 1986, and is more fully described in the memorandum to the Commission. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Negative Declaration 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. 'Memo .Yto Planning Commission Motion and Vote: /7: AGENDA ITEM: 44 CITY MGR. APPROVAL 0 EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,_and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no s effect (no substantial adverse impact) on theoenvironmen within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the City Code adding section 15- 08.110 pertaining to covenants for certain easements and amending section 14- 25.050 of the subdivision ordinace concerning easements and 14- 03.060 of the subdivision ordinance concerning trees. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca File No: AZO 86 -005 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Amendments to the code are administrative only. No adverse impact on the environment will result from the changes. Executed at Saratoga, California this 27th day of October DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 1986 1 1/(-1' Yuq -aek Ilsia Planning Director AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 14- 25.050 AND ADDING SECTION 15- 80.110 PERTAINING TO RECORDED COVENANTS FOR EASEMENTS AND AMENDING SECTION 14- 30.060 PERTAINING TO TREES The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 14- 25.050 in Article 14 -25 is amended to read as follows: "S14- 25.050 Easements ORDINANCE NO. 71. (a) Public service easements. Easements shall be of sufficient size and location to meet the requirements of public and private utilities and other services serving each proposed subdivision or building site. Insofar as practicable, all electrical and telephone public utility facilities shall be located in the public street rights -of -way. The sidelines of all easements shall be shown on the subdivision or parcel map by fine dotted lines. If any easements already of record cannot be definitely located, a statement of the nature thereof and its recorded reference must appear on the title sheet. Distances and bearings on the side lot lines of any lots which are cut by an easement must be arrowed or so shown that the map will indicate clearly the actual lengths of the lot lines. The widths of all easements and sufficient ties thereto shall be clearly labeled and identified, and if already of record, its recorded reference given. (b) Covenants for easements. In addition to any other method for the creation of an easement, easements for parking, ingress, egress, emergency access, light and air access, landscaping or open space purposes may be created by a written covenant for easement which complies with the requirements set forth in Section 15- 80.110 of the Zoning Ordinance." SECTION 2: Section 14- 30.060 in Article 14 -30 is amended to read as follows: "S14- 30.060 Trees The subdivider or owner shall plant trees on each lot or site and maintain them for a minimum of one year after planting. All such trees shall be of a number, variety and type as determined or approved by the advisory agency. which may delegate such authority in any particular instance to the Planning Director. Any such trees which may be planted in a street right -of -way shall constitute encroachments subject to removal in accordance with Article 10 -20 in Chapter 10 of this Code." SECTION 3: follows: Section 15- 80.110 is hereby added to Article 15 -80, to read as "S15- 80.110 Covenants for easements (a) Creation of easement by covenant. In addition to any other method for the creation of' an easement, an easement for parking, ingress, egress, emergency access, light and air access, landscaping or open space purposes may be created by a written covenant of easement granted to the City pursuant to this Section. (b) Contents of covenant. The covenant of easement shall contain the following: (1) The legal description of the real property to be burdened by the easement and the real property to be benefited thereby. (2) The legal description or a scale drawing of the easement, showing the location of the easement on the restricted property. (3) The purpose for which the easement is granted. (4) The terms, conditions or limitations, if any, imposed upon the use of the easement. (5) An identification of the approval, permit or designation granted by the City which relied upon or required the covenant. (6) A statement that the easement is being created pursuant to this Section. (c) Execution and recording. The covenant of easement shall be duly executed by the owner of the real property to be restricted by the easement and shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. (d) Effect of recording. The covenant of easement shall be effective when recorded and shall act as an easement pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 801) of Title 2, Part 2 Division 2 of the State Civil Code, except that it shall not merge into any other interest in the restricted property. From and after the time of its recordation, the covenant shall impart notice thereof to all persons to the extent afforded by the recording laws of the State. Section 1104 of the State Civil Code shall be applicable to a conveyance of the real property benefited by the easem ent. (e) Common ownership required. At the time of recording the covenant of easement, all of the real property benefited or burdened by the covenant shall be in common ownership. (f) Enforcement. A covenant of easement executed and recorded pursuant to this Section shall be enforceable by the City and the successors in interest to the real property benefited by the covenant and shall be binding upon the successors in interest to the real property burdened by the covenant. Nothing in this Section shall create in any person other than the City and the owner of the real property benefited or burdened by the covenant standing to enforce or to challenge the covenant or any amendment thereto or release therefrom. -2- HI 7, (g) Release of covenant. Upon the application of any person accompanied by a processing fee established by resolution of the City Council, or upon its own initiative, the Planning Commission may release an easement created pursuant to this Section if the Commission determines that such easement is no longer required to achieve the land use goals of the City. A public hearing shall be conducted on the proposed release and notice thereof shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant, the respective owners of the property benefited or burdened by the easement, and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the easement. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. If the easement is released, a release of the covenant shall be executed on behalf of the City and recorded in the office of the County Recorder. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter. (h) Authority for Section. This Section is adopted pursuant to and for implementation of Article 2.7 (commencing with Section 65870) of Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4 of the Government Code." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: -3- MAYOR C 7 9 Ll PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD 5. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD TO: FROM: RE: ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOIINTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM 13 J. M. ATKINSON. (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN. (1915- 1979)' Saratoga Planning Commission Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney Amendment to Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Concerning Covenants for Easements and Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Trees The State Subdivision Map Act contains a section authorizing the creation of easements by a separate written instrument, in lieu of creating such easement as a dedication shown on the Subdivision Map. However, there is no corresponding statutory authorization in the state planning law which controls zoning matters. Consequently, there has been some question as to the appropriate process for creating easements required as an exaction in connection with a zoning approval (e.g. the granting of a use permit, variance or design review), where the applicant is not being required to prepare and record a map on which the easement would be shown as a dedication. This problem has now been remedied by a new law which became effective this year, consisting of Government Code 65870 through 65875, a copy of which is attached hereto. The new law applies specifically to easements created for the purpose of parking, ingress, egress, emergency access, light and air access, landscaping or open space. The statute specifically requires implementation by local ordinance, including the establishment of a procedure for release of the easement following the conduct of a public hearing and the making of certain findings. The proposed amendments to the Saratoga City Code are intended to implement the new state law. Although the new law was primarily directed toward zoning matters, as an abundance of caution I have included an amendment to Article 14 -25 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance (relating to design requirements) to incorporate by reference the new section being added to our Zoning Ordinance. This amendment is set forth in Section 1 of the proposed ordinance. Thus, when we are dealing with a subdivision application, we have the alternative approaches of creating an easement by a dedication on the map, by a separate grant of easement as authorized by state law, or by a covenant for easement pursuant to the new Section 15- 80.110 being added to the Zoning Ordinance (Section 3 of the proposed ordinance). With respect to the new Section 15- 80.110 itself, it is basically a reflection of the new state law. The Planning Commission has been designated as the body having authority to release an easement and we have established a procedure for the conduct of a public hearing, with notice to be given to all persons owning property within 500 feet of the boundaries of the easement (as opposed to 500 feet from the property line of the site on which the easement may be located). Section 2 of the proposed ordinance relates to an entirely different subject matter. This amendment is intended to implement one of the items on the legislative calendar for repeal of the tree schedule as now contained in Section 14 30.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance, a copy of which is also attached hereto. Except for the first paragraph of this section, everything else has been repealed. To the best of my knowledge, the tree schedule has never been followed on recent subdivisions and we have instead required the subdivider to provide a landscape plan which is then approved by either the Planning Commission or the Planning Department. The tree schedule as set forth in our existing ordinance is somewhat arbitrary and may be inappropriate for certain subdivisions. The City Council, at its retreat, made the policy decision that the tree schedule ought to be repeale -2- .4110.. Harol pp 1 Saratoga City Attorney 11.1 •r 007.1 C ARTICLE 2.7. COVENANTS FOR EASEMENT [NEW] Section 65870. Adoption of ordinance.. 65871. Creation; purposes; effect; contents; enforcement. 65873. Recording; contents; effect. 65874. Release of covenant; procedure; hearing; fees. 65875. Standing to enforce or challenge. Article 2..7 was added by Stats.1985, c. 996, p. 65870. Adoption of ordinances Any city or county may adopt an ordinance for the imposition of covenants pursuant to this article. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 996, p. 1.) 65871. Creation; purposes; effect; contents; enforcement (a) In addition to any other method for the creation of •an easement, an easement may be created pursuant to an ordinance adopted. implementing this article, by a recorded covenant of easement made by an owner of real property to the city or county. An easement created pursuant to this article may be for parking, ingress, egress, emergency •access, light and air access, landscaping, or open -space purposes. (b) At the time of recording of the covenant of easement, all the real property benefited or burdened by the covenant shall be in common ownership. The•covenant shall be effective when recorded and shall act as an easement pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 801) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code, except that it shall not merge into any other interest in the real property. Section .1104 of the Civil Code shall be applicable to conveyance of the affected real property. (c) A covenant of easement recorded pursuant to this section shall describe the real property to be subject to the easement and the real property to be benefited thereby. The covenant of easement shall also identify the approval, permit., or designation granted which relied upon or required the covenant. (d) A covenant executed pursuant to this section shall be enforceable by the successors in interest to the real property benefited by the covenant. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 996, p. 1.) 65873. Recording; contents; effect The covenant of easement shall be recorded in the county where all or a portion of the restricted property is located and shall contain a legal description of the real property and be executed by the owner of the real property. From and after the time of its recordation, the covenant shall impart notice thereof to all persons to the extent afforded by the recording laws of this state. Upon recordation, the burdens of the covenant shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the covenant shall inure to, all successors in interest to the real property. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 996, p. 1.) 65874. Release of covenant; procedure; hearing; fees (a) The ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 65870 shall provide a procedure for the release of the covenant. The procedure shall require a public hearing by the agency designated by the ordinance for that purpose. The hearing shall be held at the request of any person. whether or not that person has title to the real property. (b) Upon a determination that the restriction of the property is no longer necessary to achieve the land use goals of the city or county, a release shall be recorded by the city or county in the county where the restricted property is located. (c) The ordinance may provide for the imposition of fees to recover the reasonable costs of _processing the release from those persons requesting the release pursuant to this section. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 996, p. 1) 65875. Standing to enforce or challenge Nothing in this article shall create in any person other than the city or county and the owner of the real property burdened or benefited by the covenant standing to enforce or to challenge the covenant or any amendment thereto or release therefrom. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 996, p. 1.) 06 7 Subdivisions 514- 30.040 sanitation engineer for the district having jurisdiction, and in accord with all laws and regulations of said district. Other than as might be permitted under Article 14- 35 of this Chapter, disposal of sanitary sewage may not be by septic tank methods, or any other method other than by connection to a sanitary sewer system. S14 30.040 Water (a) General requirements. The subdivider or owner shall construct a complete water system including mains, valves, fittings, blowoffs, fire hydrants and other appurtenances and structures adequate to provide water supply for domestic or commercial use and for fire protection in conformity with the standards established by the Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific. Water mains shall conform to the design criteria of the San Jose Water Company and the State Public Utilities Commission, and the grades, location and sizes shall be approved by the City Engineer. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be as determined by the fire chief of the district serving the area in which the subdivision or building site is located. (b) Reimbursement for City financed water facilities. Whenever the City has caused, or is causing, by virtue of contract with the San Jose Water Company or other water utility, the construction of domestic or commercial main water lines running into the service area of the lot, site or subdivision in question, and where the City has paid, by advance or otherwise, sums to the water utility to cover the cost of such construction in excess of such portion of said cost as will be refunded (in accord with such applicable main extension rules of the utility as are approved by the State Public Utilities Commission), then in lieu of constructing such water mains, the subdivider or owner may connect to such existing main or mains as will service the area in question, but shall be required to pay to the City a pro rata share of such excess in cost over amounts otherwise refundable to the City, as the frontage of the lot, site or subdivision which will use said water main or mains bears to the total existing or prospective frontage serviceable by said main or mains. (c) Water facilities for hazardous fire areas. In all hazardous fire areas, as designated by the City Council, fire hydrants shall be located so that no part of a residential structure shall be further than five hundred feet from at least one hydrant, and the fire protection system shall be so designed and charged with water so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the one thousand gallons per minute minimum shall be for a sustained period of two hours. S14 30.050 Street lights Street lights may be required at the discretion of the advisory agency. S14 30.060 Trees The subdivider or owner shall plant trees on each lot or site and maintain them for a minimum of one year after planting. All such trees shall be of the variety and type as determined or approved by the advisory agency, which may delegate such Page 14 -49 i 7 3 C authority in any particular instance to the Planning Director. Any such trees which may be planted in a street right -of -way shall constitute encroachments subject to removal in accordance with Article 10 -20 in Chapter 10 of this Code. The number of trees, planting methods and standards shall be as follows: (a) Number and type of trees. The minimum number and type of trees shall be as follows: DISTRICT Evergreen Deciduous Total Evergreen Deciduous Total R -1- 10,000 2 2 2 2 4 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R- 1- 20,000 R- 1- 40,000 R -M 1 1 1 Subdivisions 514- 30.060 INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT 1 2 2 3 5 1 2 2 3 5 3 3 3 6 1 2 2 2 4 The quantity of new plantings in the foregoing schedule shall be reduced by one for each existing tree, which, in the opinion of the advisory agency or the Planning Director serves the same purpose which would be served by a newly planted tree. (b) Location of trees. Trees shall be located in accordance with the following: (1) Interior lot. For the purpose of locating where the required quantity of trees shall be planted, an interior lot shall be considered to contain a front 35% by area and a rear 65% by area, the imaginary line between these two portions being approximately parallel to the front property line. The quantities of trees required under the schedule set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section shall be planted in the front 35% of the lot; provided, however, that not more than two trees shall be located in a straight line parallel to the street plan line. (2) Corner lot. For the purpose of locating where the required quantity of trees than be planted, a corner lot shall be considered to contain a front 35% by area and a rear 65% by area, the imaginary line between these two portions being approximately parallel to the front property line. Further, a corner lot shall be considered to contain a street -side 35% by area and an interior 65% by area, the imaginary line between these two portions being approximately parallel to the property line bordering the side Page 14 -50 r 007 Subdivisions S14- 30.070 S street. The quantities of trees required under the schedule set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section shall be planted in the front 35% and the streetside 35% of the lot; provided, however, that not more than two trees in the front 35% nor more than three trees in the street -side 35% shall be located in a straight line parallel to the street plan lines for the streets at the front and side of the lot. S14- 30.070 Fencing along major streets and watercourses Whenever the side or rear property line of any lot or site is adjacent to an arterial 'street, highway, freeway or expressway, as described in Subsection 14- 25.030(e), or borders a watercourse, the advisory agency may require the subdivider or owner to install decorative walls or fences separating the lot or site therefrom. The subdivider or owner shall be required to landscape the area between such wall or fence and any arterial street, highway, freeway or expressway, and shall cause the wall or fence design and landscaping plan to be prepared as part of the improvement plans, which design and plan shall be subject to the approval of the advisory agency. S14 30.080 Dead end street landscaping Where dead -end streets are approved, standard street barricades shall be constructed at the ends thereof. In addition, where in the opinion of the advisory agency said streets will not be extended within one year from estimated completion of improvements, the subdivider or owner maybe required to plant or landscape the two -foot strip granted the City in accord with Subsection 14- 25.030(c) as part of the street improvements. S14 30.090 Cash deposit in lieu of permanent improvement (a) Whenever the City Engineer determines that any street or frontage road, or any part thereof, bordering any part of a subdivision or building site, as set forth in Subsection 14 25.030(1), need not be improved to full City standards at the time the subdivider or owner constructs the other improvements, in lieu of installing said permanent improvements the subdivider or owner may be required to install temporary improvements and deposit with the City the cash difference between the estimated cost of the temporary improvements and the estimated cost of the permanent improvement, such cash deposit to be made prior to final acceptance of improvements. (b) Whenever all or any portion of the subdivision or site is adjacent to an existing street improved or to be improved by another developer subject to a reimbursement agreement as provided in Subsection 14- 25.030(i), the subdivider or owner shall be required to pay to the City to the account of the other developer actually improving said street, a pro rata share of the cost of such street in lieu of constructing the same. Such pro rata share shall in no event exceed one -half of the total cost of said adjacent street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. e7 MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal of Hazardous Weeds Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution ordering abatement. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the second step in the weed abatement process for this season. The County has sent the owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present objections at tonight's public hearing. Fiscal Impacts: None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion of fee charged. Attachments: Resolution. (List of parcels requiring weed abatement is available at City Clerk's office.) Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING Repoft Summary: Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /1 10 AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK PARKING LOT (Glenbrae Drive near Via Real) Recommended Motion: Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion on the above project. On November 5, 1986 the City entered into the contract for the Congress Springs Park Parking Lot, with Wattis Construction Company, Inc. for the contract amount of $59,193.38. The work started on November 13, 1986 and was completed on December 9, 1986.- Fiscal Impacts: Final contract amount: $55,928.38 funded by the Capital Improvement Budget (4510 -901). Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Progress Pay Estimate. SUBJECT: Report Summary: Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Memo 2. Resoltuion No. 36 -B Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. //q/ AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 12 -17 -86 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING FINAL ACCEPTANCE, SDR 1348 Steve Mc Vay Recommended Motion: Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject SDR 1348. The public improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. s ac 3 y MEMORAN DD UM 1. Developer: Steve Mc Vay 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3. Improvement Security: RSS /dsm Address: Type: Amount: Issuing Co: Address: UMW °Ass Oo O 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR 1348 Location: Camino Barco The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR 1348 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion 36B which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 960 Stone Hurst Way, Campbell, Ca. 95008 Surety Bond 10.000.00 Reaaipt, Bond or Zemckif6oliatmoNmx4 303054 4. Miles of Public Street: 5. Special Remarks: Amwest Surety Insurance Company 10960 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 DATE: 11 -21 -86 It appearing that on or about San. 11, 1979 the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviiion map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub- divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: SDR Map of No. 1348 recorded. in Book 434 of Maps, at Page 24 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on Jan 17, 1979 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de- clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain. Improvement Bond No. 303054 dated 2 -2 -1979 and issued by Amwest Surety Insurance Company The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of 19 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- Camino Barco MAYOR t -t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /f 9 2 MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 Report Summary: Fiscal Impacts: None to City. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 4A) frilyko Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 3. Municipal plan for services 4. General Plan excerpts relating to subject area 5. Preliminary Geologic Review 6. Assessor's Parcel Map Motion and Vote: AGENDA ITEM: 7 ORIGINATING DEPT. Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Annexation (Nelson) APN 366 -06 -026 2. The advantages of annexing to Saratoga include the possible improvement of fire protection and roads which benefits the safety and welfare of the community. Recommended Motion: Deny request for waiver of annexation rights for site located at 21350 Blue Hills Road. 1. Applicant wishes to construct an addition to his existing 1800 sq. ft. residence and must either obtain a waiver of annexation from the Council or annex to the City. 3. If the Council denies the waiver, applicant would have to annex prior to construction and develop under the codes of Saratoga. A P N ANNEXATION N_ 366 -06 -026 12/17/86 1Z.727 ©2 0 '0 0 o 0 5 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/10/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/17/86 SUBJECT: NELSON: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ANNEXATION OF 1.25 ACRES ON BLUE HILLS ROAD (APN 366- 06 -26) TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN 1800 SQ. FT. SINGLE EZ,IALL IDIELLIIIG_ DISCUSSION: Mr. Nelson applied to the County to construct an addition to his existing residence at 21350 Blue Hills Rd. The parcel is located in the County, is contiguous to the City and within the City's urban service area. County policies require that in order for a contiguous parcel located in an urban service area to be developed under county jurisdiction, the right to annexation must first be waived by the City. Staff is recommending that the Council deny the request for the following "reasons: 1. The City should control the timing of development to insure minimum services are available. The property is contiguous to the City and is without adequate water for fire protection. Development within the City would require the developers to install early warning fire alarm systems and provide water at 1,000 gpm for two hours to fight fires or delay development. In addition, Blue Hills Road is substandard (10 -12') and should be improved to a minimum of 18' to meet City standards. This could occur with new development. 2. The Council's decision will set a precedent for annexation in the Blue Hills Road area. Owners of the fifteen acre parcel also located on Blue Hills Road have expressed interest in developing the site (Regnart, APN 366 -06 -02 Assessor's map attached). The property is a visible hillside where development should be controlled thorugh the City's design review process. 3. Annexation is consistent with the General Plan in that residents of Saratoga will be assured of safe and orderly development and not be overburdened by public costs associated with the risks of unwise development (General Plan MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 p. 32). There will be no fiscal impact on the City since the cost of public improvements will be borne by the developers. 4. The safety and welfare of the City of Saratoga will benefit from controlling the quality of development of Blue Hills Road area. Preliminary geologic review has been done and the City has identified the public improvements necessary. When the property is annexed, the City can ensure these issues are properly addressed prior to approving the development. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request and direct applicant to apply for annexation to the City of Saratoga. DATE: 12/3/86 APN: 366 -06 -026 ACTION REQUESTED: Waiver of annexation, 21350 Blue Hills Rd APPLICANT: Jerome Nelson PROPERTY OWNER: Same ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC Residential Hillside Conservation EXISTING LAND USE: 1800 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES: North City limits and existing single family dwelling South County and existing single family dwelling West Fifteen acres, vacant East Five single family dwellings with access from Blue Hills Road. PARCEL SIZE: 1.25 acres NATURAL FEATURES 'VEGETATION: Mature landscaping surrounding the residence. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9 SITE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Property is located on Blue Hills Road approximately 800' west of Prospect Road in the City's Urban Service area. The five parcels between Prospect Road and the subject property are developed with single family residences. Subject property and the others taking access from Blue Hills Road are contiguous to the City limits at the north. The area is hillside topography rising from Prospect Road to the ridge some 500' to the west of subject property. The application for waiver of annexation is for APN 366 -06 -26 (Nelson) but staff has reason to expect development of APN 366 -06 -02 (Regnart) in the near future, which is fifteen acres of vacant hillside property. The major consideration to be addressed in the annexation of the property is public cost vs benefit of the Council's action. Staff seas no cost to the City in annexing and potentially great benefit to the public's safety and welfare with improved fire protection and street improvements. The developers' cost would depend upon the extent of the construction. Minor alterations are exempt from off site improvements and deferred improvement a ..,..t. are possible after improvements meet minimum standards. STREET IMPROVEMENTS TECHNICAL INFORMATION/STAFF ANALYSIS Ideally, all the properties along Blue Hills Rd would eventually annex. With development, the City would require improvements to Blue Hills Rd and Prospect with the cost shared by developers and those who benefit from the improvements. After annexation of the subject property, the applicant would have the option to improve Blue Hills Rd from its present 10-12' width to a minimum access standard of 18' or limit the size of his additon to less than 50% of the existing residence and be exempt from the improvement (Sec 14- 15.020C). When the fifteen acres to the west was developed, full road improvements would be required on Prospect (extend width to 26' and install curb and gutters from the present City limits southerly) and Blue Hills Road. FIRE PROTECTION The General Plan has identified the Blue Hills area as a fire hazard (Area Z, GP pages 30 -31, Exhibit 8). If the properties were annexed, future development would have to meet city code requirements regarding adequate water to fight fires (1000 gpm for 2 hrs Sec 14- 30.040C) and install early warning fire alarm systems in structures (Sec 14- 25.110(b)). Neither exist at present and neither would be required if the subject property remained in the County. GEOLOGY Page 21 of the General Plan (Exhibit B) describes the area and states that "steep slopes combine with soil instability making much of the area hazardous to develop." The City geologist has completed a preliminary review of the site and concluded that development in the City should follow the restrictions of the City Code (Bldg section 16-65.040) for "Pd" area. It seems appropriate for the City to address this issue as it routinely does in the hillsides and allow only safe development. SUMMARY As outlined on the attached "Municipal Plan for Services (Exhibit A), most of the services are available to the area. Naturally, since Proposition 13, no additional taxation of the property would result from the annexaion. The existing taxes would be redistributed as required. The major public safety improvements that could result are improved roads and fire protection. In addition, the City could regulate any new development through it design review process and ensure safe development through the restrictions in the building code relating to geology. at*B,T a MUNICIPAL PLAN FOR SERVICES Nelson. 21350 Blue Hills Rd ,ewerae Water Fire Protection No district at present. Annexation to Hazardous fire area Central Fire (General Plan P. 21) Protection Dist. Installation of early warning system required with new development or 50% expansion. Extension of fire hydrants. -Provision of 1000 gpm for 2 hrs water. Storm Drain Air Pollution Control Library School Streets Present Proposed Cupertino Sanitary (recent annexation) (Sewers recently Installed through self- assessment by pr V ty owners) Arrowhead Mutual Arrowhead Mutual (No change proposed) Existing SCVWD No change proposed. Improvements constructed. Existing San Francisco Bay Air Pollution Control District County Cupertino Road 150' in Cupertino lacks curb, gutters, 26' width Blue Hills Road 10 -12' substandard private street. No change proposed No change proposed. No change No change No change at this time. Improvements to minimum 18'width required as development occurs in the City limits. (Would remain private at 18' width.) EXHIBIT B p.21 EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THE SPHERE Urban Service Area Thera are three major area of residential development in the Sphere. These coincide with the City's currently designated urban service areas. The northwest corner west of Prospect Road is an area of steep slope and brush cover, very hazardous because fires can spread easily and would be lna�.r.vaalbie. No direct roads connect to this area. ACCess is poor for the Saratoga and Central fire departments. Steep slopes combine with Soil instability making much of the area hazardous to develop. Existing developments and roads have experienced some obstruction by slides. Further studies and strict measures for soil engineering and construction techniques are needed. GENERAL PLAN Area Z This area is adjacent to Saratoga and forms its northwest corner. Slope in all of Area Z is greater than thirty percent. Sur ficial geology is very unstable when wet or as combined with steep slopes. Two faults cross the area from northwest to southeast. Brush vegetation combined with steep slopes designates the entire area as fire hazard. Area Z is more than one mile from either fire department in Saratoga and via Prospect Avenue is circuitous. A....oss from Stevens Creek Ranger Unit is also difficult and roundabout. Utilities have been extended to most of the southern and eastern portions of Area Z. The remaining northwestern corner is not ,served by any utilities. Sphere of Influence, City of Saratoga LAND USE PLAN 1973 EXISTING USES PROPOSED USES MI Parks :61 Parks Utilities 111111111 Slope Conservation Area See Text for' Permitted Densities 1111;;ii;;;:l Private Open Space Agriculture Williamson Act Ag Preserve Residential 0 1 2 3 4000' mmill omme mm oomon NOVEMBER 1973 II WILLIAMS MOCINE CITY REGIONAL PLANNING 1M5.MIAIOAM STREIT, MN FRANCISCO. CA %M MMINImm William Cotton and Associates TO: Kathryn Caldwell, Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic Review RE: Regnart and Nelson Annexation Blue Hills Lane GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 318 B North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 October 23, 1986 S1526 RECEIVED NOV 51986 PLANNING DEPT. At your request, we have reviewed sections of the City Ground Movement Potential (GMP) and Geologic Maps which cover the subject property. In addition, we have inspected the site to evaluate current conditions on the subject property. SITE CONDITIONS Regnart Property The Regnart property is generally characterized by steep to very steep (20 -28 east facing natural hillside and drainage swale topography. The property contains 300 feet of vertical relief from the base of a drainage swale in the northeast portion of the property to the summit of a knoll in the southwest corner of the property. The Town Geologic Map indicates that approximately one -third of the property is underlain by an old landslide deposit. A relatively small active landslide (about 160 feet in length) is located in the upper western portion of the property. The current boundaries of this active landslide appear more extensive than shown on the City Geologic Map. Approximately 80 percent of the property has been classified as "Pd" on the City GMP Map. "Pd" is defined as relatively unstable landslide debris commonly more than 10 feet in thickness on moderately steep to very steep slopes, subject to renewed deep landsliding. The remainder of the property is about equally divided between the moving shallow landslide and shallow bedrock GMP categories. Nelson Property The Nelson property is characterized by gentle to moderately steep (3 hillside topography. No signs of recent movement or major distress to existing structures were observed during our field reconnaissance. However, the City Geologic Map indicates that the entire property is underlain by old landslide and dormant landslide debris which has been classified as "Pd General Conditions Both properties are underlain, at depth, by semi consolidated bedrock materials (i.e., conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and claystone) of the Santa ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Kathryn Caldwell 2 October 23, 1986 Planner S1526 Clara Formation. The bedrock materials are partially overlain by landslide debris. The landslide deposits are, in turn, overlain by potentially expansive silty clay with gravel (soil and colluvium). Drainage is characterized by sheetwash to the east which is partially intercepted by a drainage swale in the northeast portion of the site. The potentially active Berrocal fault is located approxi- mately 1.8 miles southwest of the .site. CONCLUSIONS Development of the subject properties is constrained by underlaying landslide deposits, potentially expansive surficial materials, and the site's seismic setting. The Regnart property is additionally constrained by steep slopes. Specific guidelines are defined in Ordinance No. 3E-15 concerning development in a "Pd" area. If the applicants wish to develop their respective properties within the City, then the following conditions of Ordinance No. 3E -15 must be satisfactorily completed: WRC:TS:ls Geologic and Soils Investigation The applicants should retain the services of geotechnical consultants (engineering geologist and geotechnical engi- neer) to conduct a detailed geologic and soils investigation of the site of proposed development. This investigation should address at a minimum: the geologic setting of the subject property (illustrated by an original engineering geologic map and cross section(s)); characterization of all landslide deposits (i.e., depth, size, etc.) and stability analysis of the site's slopes and landslide deposits; geotechnical mitigation measures to ensure the long -term stability of the proposed development; and geotechnical recommendations for site preparation and grading, site drainage improve- ments and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls. If the conditions and analysis warrant, the geotechnical report should include the opinion of a Certified Engineering Geologist that the proposed site and proposed structures, as designed, will be safe from landslide related hazards. The geotechnical investigation report should be submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist to determine if the above cited conditions are adequately addressed. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. A AA 40 William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 William Cotton and Associates T... g COWO/treAf..1 ITM W.. 337 i C A.r.s...4 L.o mum, CDDC .t trUCTIVII• 044. ...71 fi j .ALFREO E. CARLSON- ASSESSOR i lkLAc 1_283 Ac :48 s 4.1 11 3 30 0 O 31 2 17 32 I It Jo .7: a 1.61 Ac fi 2 1.00 ACue Pct.. 8 /..4 2 4 3 X r 1 tr 1.017 Ac Gr tr,.7.• V q.04 ic 4 a It.0 5. 161-44• II li.2. t z R.O.S. 144 •?I 21 PCL. C L 27 44 43 Pt 1 4 ,,,;22.Sce Cltf" ,29C! 0 OC 12 sc. RM. 31044-A3 PM RANCH sueomsioN POR SEC. 26. T.7 S. R. 2 W. 22 4, s.t.)•"0.24 AC 3 :gam. 2/ 4 12 9 5 s“ F4 8 a 027 I 6 ct SOOF E pA 366 MT OF COPERFIN0 FORM WORKS NOV 0 71983 RECEIVED OgUT ©2 0 'V 03 TO: City Council Committee -of- the -Whole FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Annexation Policy /Blue Hills Road 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM 1 DATE: 1/13/87 At the City Council Meeting of 12/17/86, the Council requested information on past annexation decisions to compare the policy with the current proposal. Since the adoption of the General Plan in 1983, there have been two annexation requests one on Prospect Rd. and one one Bainter Avenue. The Prospect site, over 1,000 ft. from the City- maintained portion of Prospect Road at the north, was deemed to be inappropriate for annexation due to the cost of improving and maintaining Prospect Rd. The Bainter Avenue site had limited access but was annexed due to its visibility. These decisions were consistent with the General Plan policy (LU1.1) "to annex properties where public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilu- tion of services to existing residents." (Details of these actions are attached as exhibits #1 -4). The Council will be consistent with its past policy if it approves the annexation of the Blue Hills Road area. The 15 acre site to the west of the Nelson property will be developing. It is a highly visible site and should be controlled through Saratoga's review process, similar to the Bainter Ave. site. In addition, the costs for services will be essentially offset by increased revenues and will improve rather than dilute services to existing residents. As outlined on the following page, the cost for services are to develop the public infrastructure and improve public safety; costs which are not recoverable through developmental fees. The projected revenues are based upon FY '86 -'87 budget on a percapita or per household basis (3.1 persons per household; 10,000 households in Saratoga). The two exhibits show costs /revenues for the Nelson site and the entire Blue Hills Road area: 00I NELSON ANNEXATION EXHIBIT A Cost for Services Nelson Proposed Cost Nelson Law enforcement contract w /County Sheriff $47 /psn. x 3.1 psns. $146 /yr. per household ($1.4 million contract) 30,000 pop. Street maintenance- eventual maintenance of Prospect Rd. General Administration City of Saratoga REVENUES BLUE HILLS ROAD ANNEXATION EXHIBIT B Cost for services Law enforcement $47 x 37 persons 1,739 Street maintenance $8.60 x 136 TE 1,170 General administration $2,429 x 10.3% 300 REVENUES $8.60 /yr. /trip x 11.3' 97 /yr. trips /day (FY '82'83 +20% inflation) 10.3% of cost Utility tax (31/2% on P.G.& E. x $120 /mo. x 12 mo. x 1 SFD) 50 /yr. Property tax ($250,000 assessed valuation 87 /yr. Franchise taxes ($430,000 10,000 households) 43 /yr. Fines and forfeitures ($110,000 10,000 households) 11 /yr. Gas tax ($414,000 30,000) 14 /yr. Motor vehicle in -lieu ($909,000 30,000) 30 /yr. $235 *Existing property taxes will be respread. A conservative estimate is that that the City's General Fund will increase by 3.5% of the 1% /$1,000 of assessed valuation of the property and improvements. (Projected 5 new homes on 15 vacant acres, 7 existing homes on Blue Hills Road, 37 persons) 3,209 Utility users tax (P.G.& E.) $50 x 12 SFD 600_ Property taxes ($500,000 assessed val.) 175 x 12 SFD 2,100 Franchise taxes ($43/yr./household x 12) 516 Fines and forfeitures ($11 /yr. x 12 households) 132 Gas tax ($14 /yr. x 37 persons) 518 Motor vehicle in -lieu ($30 /yr. x 37 persons) 1,110 Swine Road assessment ($5,000 x 5 homes) 25,000 24 $267/yr. $29,976 V i O 2 Memorandum to City Council COW Re: Annexation Policy /Blue Hills Rd. Attachments: 1. Memorandum to City Council dated April 2, 1985, outlining General Plan policies on annexation and describing two sites proposed for annexation Bainter Avenue and Prospect Road. 2. Agenda Bill to City Council dated 9/4/85 and City Council minutes dated 9/18/85, ordering annexation of the Bainter Avenue site in order to retain control of development for the protection of both the City and the neighbors. 3. Memorandum to City Council dated 12/30/85 indicating that by unwritten City policy the Prospect Road site would normally be annexed into the City but that on April 9, 1985, the Council Committee -of- the -Whole decided it did not wish to annex the site. 4. City Council minutes dated January 7, 1986, waiving annexation rights for 21601 Prospect Road because the County road did not meet City standards. KC /dsc B:Annex 2 1/13/87 Page 3 GO 03 1 MEMORANDUM To: :City Council From: Senior Planner Re: Requests for Annexation for Site on Private Road off of Bainter Ave. Site on Prospect Road C /9P. April 2,4 Staff has received one application for annexation of a 3.39 acre site off of Bainter Road in the Southeastern Urban Service Area and the Council received a letter requesting waiver of annexation for a site off of Prospect Road. Both sites are contiguous to the City boundaries and, by unwritten City policy, would normally be annexed into the City. However our written annexation policies have changed with the General Plan adopted in May, 1983. The sites are presently in the County and the owners or potential owners wish to develop them. County policies require that in order for a contiguous parcel located in an Urban Service Area to be developed under County jurisdiction, the right to annexation must first be waived by the City. It is staff's understanding that this waiver is not forever, but would allow development within the County per their standards. At this time the owners are requesting a decision on annexation in order that they can proceed, either with the County or the City, to develop the lots. Since 1983 the annexations that the City has approved involved land which has received tentative maps in the City prior to annexation, or were annexed prior to receiving building site approval, but were non hillside lots. Because of these circumstances staff felt that the General Plan policies were met. However, these requests involve hillside lots, and may potentially be of more concern to the City. Therefore we have scheduled them for your review at this City Council Study Session and possible determination as to whether or not we wish to annex one or both of these parcels. This May act as precedent for future annexation requests. The General Plan, adopted in 1983, sets the following policy on annexations: LU 1.1 Lands shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contig- uous to the existing City limits and it is determined by the City that public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. LU.1.1 (Imp) Annexation proposals shall be carefully studied to determine their economic and urban service impacts on the City. LU 1.2 The City shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the County's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Policies and are appropriate for annexation and urban development. ti 0 0 C C LU.1.2 (Irp) All four urban service areas to be studied to to determine if further retraction of urban service area boundaries is required. These studies should be coordinated with LAFCO with public hearings before the Commission and Council. The sites that are proposed for annexation can be briefly described with respect to their development concerns and potential costs to the City as follows: The applicant for the 3+ acre site on Bainter intends to construct a large residence and tennis court on the sloping hillside lot. This will require some substantial grading although the applicant is proposing to contour his project to the site. The major concern for the initial development of the Bainter site is the access. The access is via a 15' wide grant of easement, at one point very close to an accessory structure on an adjacent lot. This roadway would provide the main access for the proposed home (replacing two existing smaller homes) and secondary or back access for three homes on Redberry. Driveways are required to be 14' plus one foot shoulders or 16' wide; minimum access roads are required to be 18' plus one foot shoulders or 20' wide. This access would remain a private minimum access road if it were to develop in Saratoga and would not be the responsibility of the City. After a site review, the Director of Community Development felt that the access for the site could be worked out, but the final decision would be made by the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal. The applicant is concerned that if he cannot develop the site in Saratoga because of our standard conditions that he find this out as soon as possible, and that if this is so, that he be allowed to develop in the County. Sewer and water as we require appear to be available to the site. As for City services, initially the City would receive its costs from the developer, but in the long run, the costs of additional homes will not (according to the economic section of the Owens EIR on a flat site) be fiscally beneficial to the City because their costs (police, street maintenance, general administrative, service, and recreation functions) are higher than revenues (property, sales, motor vehicle and cigarette taxes and revenue sharing). However, the costs to the City for annexing this site, appear to be the long term standard service costs rather than potential costs related to hillside development. The major concern for the initial development of the site on Prospect would be the setting of a precedent for annexation in that Urban Service Area. The geology is the unknown factor. A few years ago a large slide closed Prospect Road, and this site is near that area. The site is across Prospect Road and would cause the City to annex a portion of that roadway, setting the precedent for further annexation, and thus maintenance of the road. It also lacks the water the City requires (1000 gallons per minute for 2 hours) and sewer is not available nearby. The County may allow development on the current water system, and without sewer. It is staff's understanding that the owner intends to modify the large accessory structure on the site into a residence. The topography is hillside, but it is less than 20% in the building area, and not the steep hillside of the lots nearby. Again, residential development, in the long run,.will not be fiscally beneficial to the City under the current revenue system, even without the potential road maintenance concerns for this site. (J 05 C C With this description of the sites' and areas' problems and potential fiscal impacts, staff is looking for direction from the Council to 1) respond to these specific annexation requests, 2) develop further information needed to respond to these annexations or 3) create a more specific annexation policy for future requests. We have notified the potential developers of the sites of this meeting and anticipate that they will be available for any questions you may have. .Rir., Kat y Keraus Senior Planner Annex 06 C City of Saratoga Planning Department Gentlemen, We hand you herewith a "Petition for the Annexation of Territory to the City of Saratoga." This property, APN 510 -24 -006, is located in unincorporated territory immedi- ately adjacent to the City of Saratoga. Through informal discussions with Saratoga Planning Staff, it has been deter- mined that access to the subject property, while conforming with Santa Clara County requirements, does not conform with Saratoga requirements. Further, informal discussions with Santa Clara County Planning Staff indicate that no County processing can be undertaken until the LAFCO process estab- lishes jurisdiction. Therefore, this Petition is being submitted in order to clarify status and to facilitate processing in either the City of Saratoga, or the County of Santa Clara. If in fact the property is to be annexed to the City of Saratoga, it is requested that preapproval of the existing access be granted prior to formal annexation. If, in fact, the City of Saratoga does not wish to approve the existing access, it is requested that all processing of this single family homesite be released, without conditions, to the County of Santa Clara. Sincerely, 7 Z 3 E 4 7 o14 LJ., M o,v r e ,SE C2 g.r o j b 0007 7t Ba.t 4er S 1-1 p cz=S; ec 7 7 CC L9 C C C fY 6:0• c-A 17 Ad dOl C11:4 L6'' A O4)( 7a <_f%hG cL,Z -fa) 1 /c a G/ c vP, res /67 ce C1, C-'" C U /ece) ,)c li L Pc4-ci 2/97/ /`n. ,(•c:_7 4- c c a. f /4 e 6_ 014 /a ki c, 0 G G Gcl D vh-- 2 A-Ct h SG�� c--4( S/o j2 ;v /lvih J Ze yap 6'1'/7, T at/ ).2 6",eQ `7'0/1 e i yi D- f`� U V a a e/- A `1 Ck j;--/C4 V /YJ(%L._ G S 2°2.5 4,!4 ea" e') 4 9. 31 10 0 3)3 Lands of David H.and Carol J.Persing As Trustees Per Deed of Gift Recorded in Bk.H. 6 45 O.R.107 LOT ONE GROSS AREA=2.293 ACRES CIET AP,Ei\ 2"€.. rtY26 S• a 5095 f (0 ro ay 1 (a• el'an/,„S a. u Certificate of Compliance l /bh, ..17 rt, .N• (511 ppox i :12/' (-5 Sn ?El 7• 0 9: •C.,- 4, <0 .c.•b°)e.$) d -..3.- NO", .-0'• 1. T LC ts ly ‘3. 7•'.'"1 (2,1f •1 C IGO 93 i i Oi. 0 P ROSEr..r. co 551 !sic o_Rp .nA TE 'i f L;sr:T1 4, PG. 4B,SAN FA CLARA COU',.1 RLOOkUJ SCALE 1" 50 APRIL 1983 SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I-01.0S of s David H. And Carol J Persino LOT TWO GROS ARFA=2.',034ACRcS t.c. ACRE5 certificate oc rrip 11 a ri 'VT; kiss; 0.Ft. 693 5 r "LINE S 0 243 67 0 f 3 3 8 0 ft' t.5CE nJ 0 I CZ CITY LIMITS epY 0 Srec_-c" �►k� MIN M MI 1 1 11 1 NHF r AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/30/85 (9/4/85) DEPARTMENT: Community D evelopment S D Recommendation Fiscal Impacts 40 CITY OF SARATOGA 41 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Bainter 85 -1, Annexation of 3.39 Acre Site near Bainter Ave. Issue Summary The applicant has petitioned the City for annexation for his site which is adjacent and contiguous with the City boundary and is within the City's Southeastern Urban Service Area. The City Council reviewed this site at a Committee of the Whole in April and directed staff to begin the annexation process for this site because of its visibility. The applicant has received Site and Design Review Approval for development of the site. These approvals have been appealed and are set for public hearing at the City Council Meeting on September 8, 1985. Adopt Resolution No. making the required findings. Standard fiscal impacts associated with residential development. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Petition for Annexation 3. Road Compliance Letter from County dated August 20, 1985 4. Exhibit "B Map of Proposed Annexation Council Action 5. Memorandum to City Council dated 4/2/84 (r612 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS There was consensus to consider the first two public hearings together. A. Appeal of Negative Declaration, Building Site and Design Review Approvals by Planning Commission, 19288 Bainter Ave. (Appellant, S. Shankle; applicant, G. Hwang) (SDR 1605, A -1102) B. Consideration of Hwang Annexation (Bainter 1985 -1) Community Development Director pointed out locations of various features on the maps and answered Councilmembers' questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Suzanne Shankle spoke as the appellant, saying that she represented a number of neighbors. She presented a summary of their objections to the proposal and documents concerning County policies, including a prohibition of urban development on watershed lands generally above 15% slope. Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., objected to the project on the grounds that the Negative Declaration did not reflect the environmental hazards; the project would exceed Saratoga's standards for grading on hillsides; the size and bulk of the house were excessive; the annexation is not appropriate because it was simply an accommodation for the developer; some historical buildings would be taken down. 3- 9/18/85 #z jI j _t In answer to Councilmember Callon, Community Development Director explained the County standards, including prohibition of building on slopes over 30 but noted that the prohibition did not apply to lots of record. William Young then spoke as a design engineer representing the applicant. He stated that the only reason they applied for annexation was that the County would not process their project until they had done so. He stated that they had met all requirements of staff and planned to plant a great deal of landscaping; he presented photographs of another project which they had landscaped extensively and a model of the current project. He also said that Ms. Shankle's house was higher than the proposed house, and the project would not interfere with her view or anyone else's. Councilmembers asked about the proposed road, which would not be counted as impervious coverage because of its construction (unless the Planning Commission changed the definition of impervious coverage, which they were considering); location of neighbors' homes; landslide danger; details of the plan; easements; setbacks; and building on the slope. Mr. Young replied that the proposal did not make use of the existing road because it did not lead to the building as sited. He explained the proposed setbacks and stated that the easement was a previously existing easement for the old road. Bill Heiss, speaking as another engineer for the project, stated that the average slope of the site was 27 and that the geologist had pronounced the site satisfactory for building. John Stannard, 19280 Bainter Avenue, Los Gatos, stated he had not been notified of the project, although he had owned his nearby property since May. Community Development Director replied that, in accordance with law, homeowners of record as of the latest Assessor's Parcel List in March were notified of the project. Mr. Stannard then stated his concern that an easement appeared to pass through one of his buildings. Community Development Director stated he believed that the building had been allowed to remain in the development previously approved on the condition that a kitchen be removed so that the building could not be used as a second unit. Mr. Stannard requested a delay to resolve his concerns because he had not been notified of the project. Bob Lorinson opposed the project, saying that the roof would appear very high from his adjacent property. Diane Jefferson, 15895 Redberry, opposed the project, saying that she feared grading would endanger her house and property. Joyce Consoli, 19370 Redberry, opposed the project and the annexation, stating that she had not been notified of the proposal and was concerned about the effect of the very large house on the rural character of the area. Mel Wright, 19400 Redberry, stated that the neighbors wish the property to remain as it is. He was concerned about possible use of one building as a second unit, arrangements for an easement, and the drainage from the project. Community Development Director responded that the drainage must be dealt with to the satisfaction of City staff. Bill Robson, Ravine Road, objected to the project because of grading, bulk and size of the building, slope of the site, and inappropriateness of the annexation. Bruce Sogg, 19506 Redberry, opposed the project because he believed it could cause landslide problems. Georgia Nelson, 15821 Hidden Hill Rd., stated that she did not object to the proposal and felt the owners were entitled to build on the site. She believed the project would be an improvement. Fran Lorinson, 19450 Redberry, objected to the proposal because it would block out sun from her property. She felt that the house should be built on a flatter portion of the site. Chuck Shankle, 16303 Ravine Road, expressed concern that his house would be affected by any landslide caused by the project. He feared that the City would make exceptions to allow unsafe building, and he believed that the proposed project would be too visible. William Young rose again to state that the proposal was technically satisfactory and the owner had a right to build on the lot. He said he had letters of support 6 111 5- 9/19/85 from Mr. Hoag and Mr. Durkees, both residents of Bainter Dr. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:04 p.m. The majority of the Council felt the annexation was not inappropriate because it would not start a chain of new development, being surrounded already by developed land. Councilmember Fanelli stated that it has been the policy of the City to annex land on City limits to retain control of development for the protection of both the City and the neighbors. Councilmember.Moyles and Mayor Clevenger felt the annexation should not be approved because there was no reason to annex, since there was no further development which could be controlled by Saratoga. Mayor Clevenger felt that if anything were to be annexed, the Council should study the matter and consider annexing the whole area rather than one small part. CALLON FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2273 ORDERING THE ANNEXATION. Passed 3 -2 (Clevenger, Moyles opposed). As to the appeal, Councilmembers agreed that the project was intrusive and incompatible with the neighborhood because of its size and bulk; that the watershed issue was a possible factor against the house; the proposed house was not well situated; the City had not followed its own HCRD ordinance prohibiting building on a 30% slope. Councilmember Fanelli added that the City must provide for use of the site at some time; she believed the easement should remain but more trees should be provided with less grading so that the site would be intact. Councilmembers discussed procedures by which the applicant could return with another plan without the necessity for paying further application fees. FANELLI /CALLON MOVED TO REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS OF SDR 1605 AND A- 1102 AND GRANT THE APPEAL, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A NEW APPLICATION, BUT WITH THE APPLICATION FEES WAIVED FORA PERIOD OF 6.MONTHS. Passed 5 -0. There was consensus that the applicant would be required to pay out -of- pocket costs such as noticing fees in connection with the application. Mayor Clevenger then recessed the meeting from 10:29 to 10:40 p.m. OEU'W 04 Ce REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL KK /dsc Kathy Kerdus Senior Planner Attachment T 1 �?�C_� *cam r Oi„/).1 (L0-0L-- 4t1/43 SUBJECT: Request for Annexation for Site on Prospect Road Recommendation: Approve application for waiver of annexation rights for site at 21601 Prospect Road (A.P.N. 366 -32 -009). DATE: 12/30/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/7/86 In April, 1985, the City Council considered whether or not the City should annex a site off of Prospect Road. The site is contiguous to the City boundaries, and, by unwritten City policy, would normally be annexed into the City. The major concern staff expressed with the potential annexation was that it would set a for annexation in the Prospect Road Urban Service Area which could lead to City maintenance of Prospect Road (see Memorandum dated April 2, 1985 attached). The Council, at their Committee of the Whole on April 9, 1985 indicated that they did not wish to annex the Prospect Road site. The applicant is now requesting a formal letter be written to the County stating that the City waives its rights to the annexation of the site. Since this determination was made a Committee of the Whole, a formal motion is needed at a regular meeting to insure the legality of the determination. 7 ,7 TIME: Tuesday, January 7, 1986 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Fanelli, Hlava, Myles and Mayor Clevenger present at 7:06 p.m.; Callon present at 7 :15 p.m. B. MINUTES 12/18 MDYLES /FANELLI MOVED DO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. Passed 4-0. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jared v ers of Safety Specialists requested_payment for clean -up of ha dour material: on Tri.. •roperty. Consensus to agendize when' :staff report on the ect is ready III. CND CALENDAR A. CDNSID TION OF CLAIM Sales HLAVA/FANELLI MO by firm of lawyer B. OTHER ITEMS MINUTES SARATOGA CITY CODICIL 3. Resolution commending Fir- ghter of the Year RESOLUTION 2295 4. Resolution Reversing Appeal heard 12/18 RESOLUTION 2296 5. .City Ines. t Reports -.October, N 6. City Tre er's Report October 7. Appro :1 of Warrant List HLAVA FANELLI •VED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR B. Passed 4 IV. SCHED MATTERS A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 1. Reconsideration of Haydon Appeal (originally heard 12/4/85) Consensus to discuss after Item IV.'C. 1. TO DENY CLAIM. Passed 3 -0 -1 (Moyles taining because he is empk r 'resenting claimant). 1. Resolution c• •ing Edward Panelli RESOLUTION 2293 2. Resolution reappoin g Lewis.- Swanson to Public Safety Cannission RESOLUTION 2294 ssion Denial of SIAM 13 (McKenzie 2. Request for Waiver of Annexation Rights for Site at 21601 Prospect Road (APN 366 -32 -009) FANELLI HLAVA MOVED TO WAIVE ANNEXATION RIGHTS BECAUSE SITE AND ENTIRE AREA ALONG PROSPECT ROAD WHICH IS IN THE COUNTY DOES NOT (ET CITY STANDARDS AND IS CURRENTLY DEVEDOPED TO SUB -CITY STANDARDS. Passed 4 -0. 3. Request Concerning 1986 City Managers' Department of League of California Cities Annual Meeting FANELLI/HLAVA APPROVED CITY MANAGER'S AT1ENDANCE AT MEETING WITH REASONABLE EXPENS AS hrUL AS ABSENCE 2/12 -2/17. Passed 4 -0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 Report Summary: 12/17: Continued to 1/13. ToL Fiscal Impacts: None to City. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 3. Municipal plan for services 4. General Plan excerpts relating to subject area 5. Preliminary Geologic Review 6. Assessor's Parcel Map Motion and Vote: 2 AGENDA ITEM: 7 ORIGINATING DEPT.: planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Annexation (Nelson) APN 366 -06 -026 Recommended Motion: Deny request for waiver of annexation rights for site located at 21350 Blue Hills Road. 1. Applicant wishes to construct an addition to his existing 1800 sq. ft. residence and must either obtain a waiver of annexation from the Council or annex to the City. 2. The advantages of annexing to Saratoga include the possible improvement of fire protection and roads which benefits the safety and welfare of the community. 3. If the Council denies the waiver, applicant would have to annex prior to construction and develop under the codes of Saratoga. MUT' ©ff LiJ Duclge REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/10/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/17/86 SUBJECT: NELSON: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ANNEXATION OF 1.25 ACRES ON BLUE HILLS ROAD (APN 366- 06 -26) TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN 1800 SQ FT. SINGLE FZ11TJiL_D_W.ELLING_ DISCUSSION: Mr. Nelson applied to the County to construct an addition to his existing residence at 21350 Blue Hills Rd. The parcel is located in the County, is contiguous to the City and within the City's urban service area. County policies require that in order for a contiguous parcel located in an urban service area to be developed under county jurisdiction, the right to annexation must first be waived by the City. Staff is recommending that the Council deny the request for the following reasons: 1. The City should control the timing of development to insure minimum services are available. The property is contiguous to the City and is without adequate water for fire protection. Development within the City would require the developers to install early warning fire alarm systems and provide water at 1,000 gpm for two hours to fight fires or delay development. In addition, Blue Hills Road is substandard (10 -12') and should be improved to a minimum of 18' to meet City standards. This could occur with new development. 2. The Council's decision will set a precedent for annexation in the Blue Hills Road area. Owners of the fifteen acre parcel also located on Blue Hills Road have expressed interest in developing the site (Regnart, APN 366-06-02 Assessor's map attached). The property is a visible hillside where development should be controlled thorugh the City's design review process. 3. Annexation is consistent with the General Plan in that residents of Saratoga will be assured of safe and orderly development and not be overburdened by public costs associated with the risks of unwise development (General Plan MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 p. 32). There will be no fiscal impact on the City since the cost of public improvements will be borne by the developers. 4. The safety and welfare of the City of Saratoga will benefit from controlling the quality of development of Blue Hills Road area. Preliminary geologic review has been done and the City has identified the public improvements necessary. When the property is annexed, the City can ensure these issues are properly addressed prior to approving the development. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request and direct applicant to apply for annexation to the City of Saratoga. DATE: 12/3/86 APN:, 366 -06 -026 ACTION REQUESTED: Waiver of annexation, 21350 Blue Hills Rd APPLICANT: Jerome Nelson PROPERTY OWNER: Same ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHO Residential Hillside Conservation EXISTING LAND USE: 1800 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling SURROUNDING LAND USES: North City limits and existing single family dwelling South County and existing single family dwelling West Fifteen acres, vacant East Five single family dwellings with access from Blue Hills Road. PARCEL SIZE: 1.25 acres TECHNICAL. INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Mature landscaping surrounding the residence. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9% SITE A& PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Property is located on Blue Hills Road approximately 800' west of Prospect Road in the City's Urban Service area. The five parcels between Prospect Road and tha subject property are developed with single family residences. Subject property and the others taking access from Blue Hills Road are contiguous to the City limits at the north. The area is hillside topography rising from Prospect Road to the ridge some 500' to the west of subject property. The application for waiver of annexation is for APN 366 -06 -26 (Nelson) but staff has reason to expect development of APN 366 -06 -02 (Regnart) in the near future, which is fifteen acres of vacant hillside property. The major consideration to be addressed in the annexation of the property is public cost vs benefit of the Council's action. Staff sees no cost to the City in annexing and potentially great benefit to the public's safety and welfare with improved fire protection and street improvements. The developers' cost would depend upon the extent of the construction. Minor alterations are exempt from off site improvements and deferred improvement agreements are possible after improvements meet minimum standards. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Ideally, all the properties along Blue Hills Rd would eventually annex. With development, the City would require improvements to Blue Hills Rd and Prospect with the cost shared by developers and those who benefit from the improvements. After annexation of the subject property, the applicant would have the option to improve Blue Hills Rd from its present 10 -12' width to a minimum access standard of 18' or limit the size of his additon to less than 50% of the existing residence and be exempt from the improvement (Sec 14- 15.0200). When the fifteen acres to the west was developed, full road improvements would be required on Prospect (extend width to 26' and install curb and gutters from the present City limits southerly) and Blue Hills Road. FIRE PROTECTION The General Plan has identified the Blue Hills area as a fire hazard (Area Z, GP pages 30 -31, Exhibit B). If the properties were annexed, future development would have to meet city code requirements regarding adequate water to fight fires (1000 gpm for 2 hrs Sec 14- 30.040C) and install early warning fire alarm system in structures (Sec 14- 25.110(b)). Neither exist at present and neither would be required if the subject property remained in the County. GEOLOGY Page 21 of the General Plan (Exhibit B) describes the area and states that "steep slopes combine with soil instability Making much of the area hazardous to develop.' The City geologist has completed a preliminary review of the site and concluded that development in the City should follow the restrictions of the City Code (Bldg section 16- 65.040) for "Pd" area. It seems appropriate for tha City to address this issue as it routinely does in the hillsides and allow only safe development. SUMMARY As outlined on the attached "Municipal Plan for Services (Exhibit A), most of the services are available to the area Naturally, since Proposition 13, no additional taxation of the property would result from the annexaion. The existing taxes would be redistributed as required. The major public safety improvements that could result are improved roads and fire protection. In addition, the City could regulate any new development through it design review process and ensure safe development through the restrictions in the building coda relating to geology. Water Sewerage Storm Drain Existing SCVWD EXHIBIT a MUNICIPAL PLAN FOR SERVICES Nelson, 21350 Blue Hills Rd Present Proposed Cupertino Sanitary (recent annexation) (Sewers recently installed through self assessment by property owners) Arrowhead Mutual Arrowhead Mutual (No change proposed) Fire Protection No district at present. Annexation to Hazardous fire area Central Fire (General Plan P. 21) Protection Dist. Installation of early warning system required with new development or 50% expansion. Extension of fire hydrants. Provision of 1000 gpm for 2 hrs water. Air Existing San Francisco Pollution Bay Air Pollution Control Control District Library County No change School Cupertino No change Streets Pr.p.,.t Road 150' in No change at this time. Cupertino lacks curb, gutters, c 6' width Blue Hills Road 10 -12' substandard private street. No change proposed No change proposed. Improvements constructed. No change proposed. Improvements t o minimum 1 8'width required as development occurs in the City limits. (Would remain private at 18' width.) p.30 EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN p.21 EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THE SPHERE Urban Service Area There are three major are of residential development in the Sphere. These coincide with the City's currently designated urban service areas. The northwest corner west of Prospect Road is an area of steep slope and brush cover, very hazardous because fires can spread easily and would be in.,,.ssibie. No direct t roads connect to this .r .a. i5 poor for the Saratoga and Central fire departments. Steep slopes combine with soil instability making much of the area hazardous to develop. Existing developments and roads have experienced some obstruction by slides. Further studies and strict measures for soil engineering and construction techniques are needed. Area Z This area is adjacent to Saratoga and forms its northwest corner. Slope in all of Area Z is greater than thirty percent. Surficia1 geology is very unstable when wet or as combined with steep slopes. Two faults cross the area from northwest to southeast. Brush vegetation combined with steep slopes designates the entire area as fire hazard. Area Z is more than one mile from either fire department in Saratoga and access via Prospect Avenue is circuitous. Access from Stevens Creek Ranger Unit is also difficult and roundabout. Utilities have been extended to most of the southern and eastern portions of Area Z. The remaining northwestern corner is not served by any utilities. Sphere of Influence, City of Saratoga LAND USE PLAN 1973 EXISTING USES PROPOSED USES Parks Kk Parks -ter Utilities L Private Open Space Agriculture Williamson Act Ag Preserve Residential SARAATOGA'S SPHERE Of INFLUENCE 3 4000' NOVEMBER 1973 WILLIAMS MOCINE ERI CITY REGIONAL PLANNING SNS,SAMSOME STIEET, SAN EEANOSCO, CA wm 115 1 C•M1• Neel A Slope Conservation Area See Text for Permitted Densities I7 SARATOGA CITY LIMITS Q� 4„ William Cotton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 318 B North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 TO: Kathryn Caldwell, Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic Review RE: Regnart and Nelson Annexation Blue Hills Lane SITE CONDITIONS General Conditions October 23, 1986 S1526 RECEIVED NOV 5 1986 PLANNING DEFT. At your request, we have reviewed sections of the City Ground Movement Potential (GMP) and Geologic Maps which cover the subject property. In addition, we have inspected the site to evaluate current conditions on the subject property. Regnart Property The Regnart property is generally characterized by steep to very steep (20 -28 east facing natural hillside and drainage swale topography. The property contains 300 feet of vertical relief from the base of a drainage swale in the northeast portion of the property to the summit of a knoll in the southwest corner of the property. The Town Geologic Map indicates that approximately one -third of the property is underlain by an old landslide deposit. A relatively small active landslide (about 160 feet in length) is located in the upper western portion of the property. The current boundaries of this active landslide appear more extensive than shown on the City Geologic Map. Approximately 80 percent of the property has been classified as "Pd" on the City GMP Map. "Pd" is defined as relatively unstable landslide debris commonly more than 10 feet in thickness on moderately steep to very steep slopes, subject to renewed deep landsliding. The remainder of the property is about equally divided between the moving shallow landslide and shallow bedrock GMP categories. Nelson Property The Nelson property is characterized by gentle to moderately steep (3 -14 hillside topography. No signs of recent movement or major distress to existing structures were observed during our field reconnaissance. However, the City Geologic Map indicates that the entire property is underlain by old landslide and dormant landslide debris which has been classified as "Pd Both properties are underlain, at depth, by semi consolidated bedrock materials (i.e., conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and claystone) of the Santa ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Kathryn Caldwell 2 October 23, 1986 Planner S1526 Clara Formation. The bedrock materials are partially overlain by landslide debris. The landslide deposits are, in turn, overlain by potentially expansive silty clay with gravel (soil and colluvium). Drainage is characterized by sheetwash to the east which is partially intercepted by a drainage swale in the northeast portion of the site. The potentially active Berrocal fault is located approxi- mately 1.8 miles southwest of the site. CONCLUSIONS Development of the subject properties is constrained by underlaying landslide deposits, potentially expansive surficial materials, and the site's seismic setting. The Regnart property is additionally constrained by steep slopes. Specific guidelines are defined in Ordinance No. 3E-15 concerning development in a "Pd" area. If the applicants wish to develop their respective properties within the City, then the following conditions of Ordinance No. 3E -15 must be satisfactorily completed: Geologic and Soils Investigation The applicants should retain the services of geotechnical consultants (engineering geologist and geotechnical engi- neer) to conduct a detailed geologic and soils investigation of the site of proposed development. This investigation should address at a minimum: the geologic setting of the subject property (illustrated by an original engineering geologic map and cross section(s)); characterization of all landslide deposits (i.e., depth, size, etc.) and stability analysis of the site's slopes and landslide deposits; geotechnical mitigation measures to ensure the long -term stability of the proposed development; and geotechnical recommendations for site preparation and grading, site drainage improve- ments and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls. If the conditions and analysis warrant, the geotechnical report should include the opinion of a Certified Engineering Geologist that the proposed site and proposed structures, as designed, will be safe from landslide related hazards. WRC:TS:Is The geotechnical investigation report should be submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist to determine if the above cited conditions are adequately addressed. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ave,Ank William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 N v William Cotton and Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 86- 003 -02. 2. Staff Report. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12 17 86 FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR SD 86 -003 PIERCE ROAD, ROBERT BOSTEDT (2 Lots) Recommended Motion: 1. Move to adopt resolution No. 86- 003 -02, approving Final Map for SD 86 -003. 1. SD 86 -003 is ready for Final Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other Departments have been completed. 3. All bonds and fees have been paid. AGENDA ITEM LiD CITY MGR. APPROVAL •2. Move to authorize execution of Improvement Agreement and Deferred Improvement Agreement. Report Summary: SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 86- 003 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Robert Bostedt The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 0.367 Acres and 0.061 Acres Parcels designated as Parcel "A" and "B" on the Parcel Map prepared by David K. Ho, Civil Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: MAYOR MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SD:. 86 -003, (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication Date Submitted Record of Survey or Parcel Map 7 -9 -R6 Date Submitted -Storm Drainage Fee 1 900.00 Date Submitted 10-17-86 Receipt 372 All Required Improvement Bonds Date Submitted 11- 26 -86_ Receipt# 624 Required Inspection Fees CASE -All Re Date Submitted Receipt# q P 1800.00 10 -17 -86 P 372 Building Site Approval Agreement Date Signed ,Park and Recreation Fee 2600 Date Submitted 10 -17 -86 Receipt# 372 ENG INE RING It is, therefore, the y x ve Department recommendation that (Conditional) (Final). Building Site Approval for SD..- Rx_003be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance n r Ro Dir Community Development 7 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SD:. 86 =003, (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: -Offer of Dedication Record of Survey or Parcel Map '7 -9 -86 Storm Drainage Fee 1900 Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds CASH --All Required Inspection Fees 1800.00 Building Site Approval Agreement ,Park and Recreation Fee 2600 n Condition(s) Date Submitted Date Submitted fitted 1Q_17_86 Receipt 372 Date Submitted 11 26 86 Receipt# 624 Date Submitted 10 -17 -86 Receipt# 1_72 Date Signed Date Submitted 10-17L86 Receipt# 372 ENGINE RI_ G It is, therefore, the W� x sent Department recommendation that (Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for SD. s _n03be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Reason for Non Compliance Community Development SD -86 -003 (modification to approved conditions) 12890 Pierce Rd. Bostedt OPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSI =ear Prop AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 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 approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the 'hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 7th day of Jul 19 86 and is marked Exhibit B the hereinabovereferred o file, be and the same is ere y co ditionally approved. The conditions of said a particularly set forth on Exhibit PProval are as more in by reference. A and incorporated here .The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of Se tember 19 86 was present, by t a following vot at which a quorum e: RESOLUTION NO, SD -86 -003 -1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Mr. Mrs. Robert Bostedt, SD -86 -003 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga,'for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of '17.1.40 (2) .lots all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -86 -003 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen g p eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated September 10, 1986 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the W 9A4'4 k,a,WYMPTX) (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and Secretary, Planning Commission AD SORY AGENCY By: Chairman, arming •mmis on Exhibit A SD -86 -003 Conditions of Approval I. Specific Conditions Engineering Division 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to these conditions as finally approved with 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void. 2. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. 8. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling on Lot B. 9. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. 10. Construct valley gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view es. required at driveway and access road intersections including reducing the height of the existing fence along the east and west property lines to 3 ft. in the required front yard areas. 12. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 13. Engineered improvement plans required for street improvements. 3. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation and pay required checking and recordation fees. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. half street on Pierce Rd. 5. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as required. 6. Improve Pierce Rd. to City standards, including the following: a. Improve and pave Pierce Road to line up with the property located directly to the west. b. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to construct designed structural section 18 ft. between centerline and flowline. c. Enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to underground the existing overhead utilities. 7. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as ,needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant, Date Exhibit A, cont. Conditions of Approval, SD 86 -003 14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 15. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 16. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. II. Specific Conditions Cupertino Sanitary District 1. The subject property shall be annexed to the Cupertino Sanitary District so as to provide sanitary sewer service. III. Specific Conditions Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. The applicant shall, prior to final map approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review, certification and registration. IV. Specific Conditions Planning Department 1. The applicant shall remove the existing detached accessory structure located on the east side of Parcel A prior to Final Map approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY J 7(S Agenda Item 4 MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donations to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge $25.00 donation from Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Gladney of Saratoga. Report Summary Mr. and Mrs. H.M. Gladney of Saratoga donated $25.00 to Hakone Gardens. Their check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $25 donation. Attachments Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donations to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge $15.00 donation from Margaret B. Teall of Los Altos. Report Summary Margaret Teall of Los Altos donated $15.00 to Hakone Gardens. Their check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $15 donation. Attachments Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL /_(b Agenda Item 6 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donations to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge $10.00 donation from Walter and Marilyn Wagner of Santa Clara. Report Summary Mr. and Mrs. Walter Wagner of Santa Clara donated $10.00 to Hakone Gardens. Their check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $10 donation. Attachments Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 Agenda Item EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donations to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge $25.00 donation from Charlene Marron Henley of San Jose. Report Summary Charlene Marron Henley of San Jose donated $25.00 to Hakone Gardens. Her check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $25 donation. Attachments Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 Agenda Item 2t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /I q MEETING DATE: December 17, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donations to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge $10.00 donation from Richard and Nancy Kroll of San Jose. Report Summary Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kroll of San Jose donated $10.00 to Hakone Gardens. Their check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $10 donation. Attachments Motion Vote Staff recanendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 Agenda Item g2, p �E� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /a co MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: 4D CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Approve the negative declaration. Introduce the attached ordinance No. 71. SUBJECT: AZO-86 -001 SARATOGA AVENUE ASSOCIATES AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT AS A ODNDITIONAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT Report Summary: Applicant wishes to construct a parking lot to serve a proposed commercial development. The parcel is vacant and designated residential in the general plan but has no access to residential streets. Applicant applied for an amendment to::the zoning ordinance to acconodate his proposl. On November 12, 1986 the Planning Commission voted 3 -3 to approve the request. The 3 -3 vote constituted .a recommendation for denial. Applicant requested that this report be forwarded to the City Council for its action,. Fiscal Impacts: Minor increase in property tax revenues to the City from increase in assessed valuation Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Negative Declaration 3. Ordinance No 71 4. Staff report to Planning Commission dated October 22, 1986 5. Staff report to Planning Commission dated November 12, 1986 6.= Planni g_ Commission minutes dated October 22, 1986 7. Planning Commission minutes dated November 12, 1986 Nbtion and Vote: t /7 ISSUES: REOC MENIDATION: oaufw (Do %ace REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: AZ0-86 -001 SARA'IOGA AVENUE ASSOCIATES Approve the negative declaration and introduce the attached ordinance. DATE: December 8, 1986 COUNCIL MEETING: December 17, 1986 Applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to grant a conditional use permit for a commercial parking lot in a residential zone district. The subject property is land locked and abuts vacant commercial property (see Exhibit A). On October 22, 1986,.:the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4 -3 to direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinance. On November 12, 1986, the Planning Commission voted 3 -3 to approve the ordinance. The 3 -3 vote constituted denial of the motion. Applicant requested that this decision, a recommendation of denial of the application, be forwarded to the City Council for final action. 1. Due to its unique location adjacent to commercial property and without access to a residential street, the property cannot reasonably be developed as a residence. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal on October 22, arid; Nstember: 12,__1986:,. and_ would have recommended approval (4 -3) if the full Commission was in attendance. 2. The proposed ordinance has strict parameters which will severely restrict any future requests for development of parking lots in a residential zone. 3. Although the Planning Commission considered that an amendment to the ordinance was an extreme solution to the problem,it is preferred over an amendment to the General Plan. If the General Plan designated the property commercial,the parking lot would become a permitted use under the zoning ordinance and the City would lose the control it will have under the proposed conditional use permit process. Ehb' A (5) 386-Z3- 48 (b) IS6( 386.23- 49 (3) 12336 3 Q(r23 -46 2) 12348 3 86-23-- 45 11) 18687 3 86 23- 54 C°)) 19663 38 6 23- 52 7 1865( 3g So (8' 8451 384.23- 5( 386- 23-4/ 3 8 6 23 -42 6 ALUM' raasegnantio anwomm ilpanliSer Ali�'rQ3��i��► (37) (3g) (39) /245, 1244512425 31t46 386-J)- 386-1 22 21 20 (5‘) 12455 386 11 23 EIA -4 Saratoga PROJECT DESCRIPTION NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, .and. Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Amendment to City Code Section 15- 12.030 to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the R -1 zoning district. Saratoga Avenue Associates c/o Cypress Properties, Inc. 3000 Sand Hill Road, Bldg. 1, Ste. 150 M Park, CA 94025 By imposing strict development criteria /standards, the number of properties that could be developed as parking lots is restricted. Impacts will be mitigated through the use permit process and by application of existing codes and ordinances. Executed at Saratoga, California this 22nd day of •Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director File No: AZO-86 -001 DIRECPOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER October 1986 ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE PARKING LOTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUIMSTANCES The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: A new Paragraph (m) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(m) Parking lots providing off street parking for abutting commercially zoned property where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The site shall be utilized exclusively to provide off street parking for the uses located on the abutting commercial property and for no other purpose. (2) The site to be utilized for parking and the abutting commercial property shall be under common ownership. (3) The abutting commercial property shall be located outside of the jurisdictional limits of the City. (4) The site to be utilized for parking cannot reasonably be developed for residential uses. (5) No local street, as defined in Subsection 14- 10.290(g) of the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be used as a means of access to the parking lot. (6) The parking lot shall be used solely for the parking of passenger automobiles. No loading facilities of any kind and no overnight parking shall be allowed. (7) No signs, except approved directional signs, shall be maintained on the parking site. (8) The parking lot shall be screened from adjacent residential properties by fencing and landscaping approved by the City. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter. If a use permit is granted, the permittee shall execute a contract with the City agreeing to observe and perform all of the conditions of the use permit. Such contract shall be in form and substance satisfactory to the City and shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and shall constitute a covenant running with the land with respect to both the parking lot site and the abutting commercial property. SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The. City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 40- MAYOR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AZO-36 -001, Request for Zoning Text Amendment Saratoga Avenue Associates A. Proposal B. Background C. ISSUES MEMORANDUM 1 DATE: October 22, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: AZO -86 -001 SARATOGA AVENUE ASSOCIATES AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTION 15- 12.030) John Gatto, representing Saratoga Avenue Associates, requests the Planning Commission consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in R -1 residential zoning districts. The applicant wishes to develop retail shops and offices on 1.43 acres located in the City of San Jose on Saratoga Avenue, near Lawrence Expressway (see Exhibit A.). The subject property is zoned Commercial. Not included in the 1.43 acres, but included in the applicant's overall development plans is an adjacent .41 acre parcel located in the City of Saratoga, zoned R- 1- 10,000 (single family residential). The Councils of both cities have denied previous requests by the applicant to detach the parcel(s) within their respective jurisdiction. As a result, the applicant now requests Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts. The primary issue at hand is how the City of Saratoga can guarantee the protection of its residential neighborhoods if commercial parking lots are allowed as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts. By definition, the conditional use process will protect existing residential neighborhoods in that a public hearing must be held and the approving authority must find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the "public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity If the above finding cannot be made, the application must be denied. In addition, the approving authority has the right to impose conditions of development that it feels are necessary for the protection of adjacent properties. AZO -001 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE GATT Another issue is whether or not the City could expect a substantial number of use permit applications requesting approval of a commercial parking lot in an R -1 zoning district. Ultimately, the actual number of use permit applications will be determined by the development criteria and conditions imposed by the City. The recommended development criteria and conditions outlined below would, in Staff's opinion, severely restrict the number of requests for a use permit of this type. As additional information, a survey of five other cities in the area indicate that none of them allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in residential districts. D. Recommendation 1. Approve the Negative Declaration 2. Recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts under the following development criteria and conditions: a. The parcel to be used for parking shall abut one or more parcels zoned commercial. b. The parcel to be used for parking and the abutting commercial" zoned property shall be under common ownership. c. The parcel to be used for parking cannot be reasonably developed for residential uses. d. The parking area shall be accessory to one or more uses located on an abutting parcel and access to the parking area shall not occur from any residential streets. e. The parking area shall be used soley for the parking of passenger automobiles. f. No signs of any kind, other than approved directional signs shall be maintained on such parking areas. g. Overnight parking is prohibited. h. In addition to the above requirements, the parking area shall comply with any other requirements or conditions as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission for the protection of the residential district in which the parking lot is to be located. 2 AZO -86 -001 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE GATT 5. ATTACHMENTS 1. Negative Declaration 2. Exhibit B Report to Mayor and City Council, 7/16/86 3. Exhibit C City Council minutes, 7/16/86 3 DATE: November 12, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: AZO -86 -001 Saratoga Avenue Associates At, Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1986, the Commission discussed the proposal and directed that the attached ordinance be .prepared by the City Attorney. Inasmuch as the City Council is in the process of negotiating a jurisdictional boundary change in the Saratoga Avenue /Lawrence Expressway area which may result in the entire property being incorporated into Saratoga, staff recommends #3 be eliminated from the ordinance. The remaining seven (7) conditions and requirements to qualify a property for application for a use permit are restrictive enough to protect the residential neighborhoods of Saratoga. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Negative Declaration, recommend the ordinance to the Council eliminating condition #3. October 30, 1986 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SECURITY AND NOISE CONTROL: RECEIVED OCT 301 PLANNING DEPT. RE: AZO -86 -001 Saratoga Avenue Associates Conditional Use for Commercial Parking Lot in R -1 Zone On October 22, 1986,.I expressed my concerns before the Planning Commission about the above commercial parking lot that is being proposed by my house. I wish to reemphasize my concerns and to further clarify my position. My first statement to the Planning Commission was that I was totally unaware of the status of this entire project despite my request several months ago to Mr. Gatto of Saratoga Avenue Associates and Cathy Curtis of the City of Saratoga to keep me informed. The first communication occurred when I re- ceived the Planning Commission's agenda via the mail on the day of the public hearing. None of my neighbors were aware of this hearing. At this "public hearing it became clear to me that much city staff work had already been done, including some preliminary discussion on a "land swap" of unspecific properties with the City of San Jose. I am totally opposed to any "land swap" involving Saratoga Avenue. Associates' property in the City of Saratoga being turned over to the City of San Jose. The difficult issues of a conditional use in R -1 zone must be openly decided by the Planning Commis- sion and the City Council, not by making it disappear by a "land swap The City of Saratoga must keep involved and maintain as much control as possible via conditional use permit, reviews and contracts. If the final decision is to allow the conditional use, my main concerns about the project center around security, noise level, parking controls, building design and the type of occupants. This property is located near a very busy and noisy intersection. The deve- lopment of this property would not only increase the noise level but also significantly increase the security problem for the adjacent residential homes. -2- Since moving into my house eight years ago, there has been a problem with high school students jumping over my fence to take a short cut to Saratoga Avenue via the lot owned by Saratoga Avenue Associates. My fence has been broken many times and has been weakened in several areas. Frequent repairs have been necessary to maintain this fence. In addition, mature plants along the fence have been destroyed. For liability reasons, I try to stop students from jumping over the fence but this is met with hostility from some of the students. I have sopken with school officials and the Sheriff's Department but this is a difficult situation to monitor as the fence is easily climbed. It is requested that a requirement be made where an eight foot solid wall be placed between the commercial property and the residential areas and that proper landscaping be done. This solid wall would clearly separate the development from residential areas and would reduce noise. The height of eight feet for the wall is necessary to reduce the ability of the students to climb the wall from either side. This would be especially important as the paving of the now vacant lot could attract even more students to attempt this short cut. Also a high wall is needed to separate my backyard from the area where many students may be taking another short cut from Lawrence Expressway, once the lot is developed. I have noticed that a solid wall had been constructed around the Casco Service Station located on Saratoga Avenue, a few blocks away. This wall clearly separates this business from the residential area that is under construction. Also, there are two retail centers on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road that have solid walls that separate them from residential areas. I trust that this is the policy of the City of Saratoga to require such a wall because there needs to be a clear boundary between commercial and adjacent residential properties. PARKING CONTROLS: There has been problems in our immediate neighborhood where people would park to drink. This proposed parking lot would be an added attraction at night, especially since it is located directly across the street from a liquor store. Tn addition to no overnight parking, it is requested that a requirement be made where the entire parking lot be fenced and locked after hours. A medical building across the street (near the liquor store) does lock its parking lot after hours. BUILDING DESIGN AND OCCUPANTS: I have been told that the building design and the complete list of occupants have not been finalized. Mr. Gatto has expressed a willingness to meet with me and my neighbors on these issues within the next few weeks. For the re- cord, I am opposed to any food establishments, liquor stores and convenience stores. Also, the height of the building will need to be carefully reviewed. Hopefully, the City of Saratoga will have some control over these issues -al- though the building will actually be on the San Jose part of the property. -3- In closing, I wish to emphasize the following: 1. That the City of Saratoga maintain control over the project and not involve the Saratoga property in any land swap, 2. That I and my neighbors be kept informed of this project and be given advance notice of any public hearing, 3. That if the conditional use permit is granted, my recommendations be adopted as the requirements of the City of Saratoga (along with the other staff recommendations) as they substantially have impact on the "public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity 4. That I am willing to meet with representatives of Saratoga Avenue Associ- ates and the City of Saratoga to further discuss the above issues. Sincerely, Tomio Hamai 18651 San Palo Court Saratoga, CA 95070 cc: Saratoga Woods Homeowners' Association c/o Mr. and Mrs. James Russell Mr. John Gatto, Saratoga Avenue Associates City of Saratoga, Planning Department 1, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1986 3. AZO-86 -001- (Saratoga Avenue Associates), consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Chairwoman Burger read into the record the following names of individuals opposed to an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance: Mr. and Mrs. James Russell Mr. and Mrs. Al Burden Page 2 Planning Director Hsia summarized the Memorandum dated October 22, 1986. The City Attorney stated that information presented was not a proposed formal ordinance; rather, the information was presented to the Commission for discussion and recommendations regarding possible Conditions. He suggested that a proposal be drafted by the Staff and presented to the Commission for consideration; the City Council could then act upon an Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that the concern of the City and the reason the Council was not inclined to deannex the site, is that the City wishes to retain some control ova the development of the parcel in San Jose. This is a jurisdiction issue; the City of Saratoga wishes to insure that the proposed building is appropriate to the site and the neighborhood. One possibility offered by the applicant was the execution of a recorded contract stating that before construction of the parking lot, the Ciry would review and approve the building to be built within the territorial limits of the City of San Jose. This allows Saratoga the assurance that the building is appropriate for the site and that parking is adequate. Commissioner Harris asked whether allowing the Applicant to obtain a Use Permit for the parking area would intensify the use of the property in San Jose; the City Attorney replied that this is the reason Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit and he suggested that a recorded agreement be used to further buttress the Conditional Use Permit. Once the City approves the building, any modification intensifying the use would result in a revocation of the use permit for the parking site. The City wishes to set up the circumstance whereby the City can approve, even if indirectly, the structure to be built on the San Jose property; this would be accomplished by: Use Permit Contract with a Condition of the City's right to design review of the proposed structure Restriction that once approved, the structure cannot be altered by the applicant without approval of any modification by the City. The Planning Director stated that the City Manager and the City Council are currently considering, in conjunction with the City Council of San Jose, an exchange of property between the two cities, so that the Applicant's project would not be in two jurisdictions. No decision has been reached at present. The City Anorney advised the Commission not to base their decision of the Application on whether such an adjustment may or may not occur. Planner Caldwell noted that parcel 386 -23-39 is landlocked and explained that this was one of the reasons Staff wrote the ordinance amendment as presented. The Staff did not want residential propeny to be converted to commercial use nor did Staff wish to see numerous requests to make similar changes; thus the requirements for the amendment of the Code were very exact. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. Mr. John Gatto. representative of Saratoga Associates, stated that the Staff Report and the background information given was accurate and the Applicants concur with information presented. The Applicants are attempting to find a solution to an unusual problem in that the property owned is partly in the City of Saratoga and partly in the City of San Jose. The property is configured in such a way that it be developed as one properly; access to the site is very limited The Applicants are not anticipating nor asking for a judgement on the project; they are seeking a mechanism to present the project to the Commission at a laic- date. Initially, the applicants approached both cities to allow the project to be developed within the boundaries of either one or the other of the two cities; however, both cities wished to maintain their boundaries. The only logical way to proceed was to request an amendment of the Zoning Code allowing a review of the situation due to the unique circumstances, Mr. Gatto stated it was critical the Commission understand that the City will have control. The Applicants are seeking, and the mechanism will provide, a Conditional Use Permit Review; Applicants fully intend to present project plans to the Commission and the Council of Saratoga. He assured the Commission that the City would have the same control over development of the entire properly as if the property were located in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 OCTOBER 22, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, Mr. Gatto stated that the 1.8 acres of property are undeveloped at present. In response to Commissioner Tucker's questions, he stated that Saratoga Avenue Associates is a partnership of individuals with interest in the property; Cypress Properties is composed of the same individuals. He affirmed that the property could be developed commercially without the addition of the other parcel; however, this property is landlocked. Commissioner Siegfried noted that in such an instance the City would have no control over the commercial development of property in San Jose which abuts residential property in Saratoga. Mr. Tomio Imai, 186517 San Palo Court, Saratoga, stated that he was unprepared since notice of the hearing was only received earlier in the day. He stated that his concerns center on security and noise generated by the proposed building. With respect to security, he noted the stipulation prohibiting overnight parking and asked for an additional condition requiring that the parking lot be closed off when the office building is not in use. He cited examples of problems that have occurred from individuals trespassing on his property. With respect to both security and noise, he asked for information on the fence or noise barrier to be installed between the office site and the adjoining three residential homes. Commissioner Siegfried noted that by allowing parking on the site in question, the City gains the possibility to control development of the entire site. Even though most of the site is not in the City, concerns expressed by the speaker can be addressed by the City if the City allows this development to proceed as proposed. This is the uniqueness of the proposal under consideration. SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that initially he was very concerned when reading the Staff Report; however, upon reading the entire Report and making a site visit, he realized that this is a unique and credible answer to a difficult situation. In addition, the City will have some control of the development to address the concerns of neighbors. The City would not have control otherwise. Chairwoman Burger concurred but noted her concern that amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking in the R -1 zoning district may be an extreme measure. Commissioner Tucker concurred with the Chairwoman; she added that considering the General Plan, the parcel in question should remain R- 1- 10,000 zoning for single family dwellings. Commissioner Siegfried stated that only through use of the Saratoga parcel as a parking lot can the City have a vehicle to control development of the corner parcel located in San Jose. Commissioner Tucker stated that she would prefer to have a vacant lot to the rear of residential properties rather than a parking lot. Commissioner Pines stated that in the situation presented, the City has a choice between a vacant lot or working cooperatively to gain some control over the development of the San Jose commercial property. He concurred that if there were another way rather than an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, he would favor such; however, he felt that a similar situation would not occur again in the City. Chairwoman Burger summarized that some of the Commissioners were not so much opposed to the proposed plans, but rather, an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance allowing parking in the R -1 zoning district seemed extreme. Planner Caldwell stated that a General Plan Amendment was considered also; this was considered an even more extreme measure. In response to comments by Chairwoman Burger, the City Attorney stated that the problem is that if the City rezones the property commercial (parking in any commercial district is a permitted use), the City would then have given away control over the adjacent parcel. In reviewing the alternatives, Staff felt the most rigorous form of control was the Conditional Use Permit. This is the only vehicle which would give the City continuing jurisdiction, even though it would involve amending the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney stated that if a Use Permit is recorded, it would not have extra territorial authority beyond the limits of the City; thus a separate agreement would be recorded between the property owner and the City so that the agreement would obligate the property owner by contract to comply with the conditions of the Use permit -this recorded document would be the vehicle to extend the jurisdictional authority of the Use Permit to the San Jose property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1986 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried requested that in the Memorandum, amended to read "The parcel to be used for parking shall abut one more p e s wed commercial not under the jurisdiction of the City of Saratoga," The City Attorney added a condition, stating that a contract shall be recorded acknowledging the conditions of the Use Permit. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 12, 1986, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, A., TO READ, THE PARCEL TO BE USED FOR PARKING SHALL ABUT ONE OR MORE PARCELS -ZONED COMMERCIAL NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, AND CONDITION L, ADDED TO READ, 'THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT COMMERCIAL SITE NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD' Passed 4 -3, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Guch, Tucker opposed. Chairwoman Burger noted the principle involved and stated that she cannot accept a revision of the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking in the R-1 zoning district under any condition. Commissioners Tucker and Guch stated for the record that they concurred with the above. Commissioner Siegfried stated for the record that this is a unique situation; it is a vehicle which enables the City to have control of the development of a commercial site of which otherwise the City would have no control whatsoever in this development. The City Attorney concurred with Commissioner Siegfried. In response to a question of Mr. lmai, the City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission can impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect adjacent residential property. It was the intention of the City Attorney to add specific language requiring fencing and screening the parking area from adjacent residential. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING- ACTION ORDER November 12, 1986 15. AZO- 86-001 (Saratoga Avenue Associates), consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (Continued from October 22, 1986. Page 6 Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986; Staff recommended approval with the elimination of 3., Section I, of the proposed Ordinance, "The abutting commercial property shall be located outside of the jurisdictional limits of the City." In response, Commissioner Harris stated that she understood 3. to be the reason for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney concurred; however, he noted that a review of remaining conditions results in only one property to which the conditions could apply. Commissioner Guch also questioned the suggested elimination of this condition. City Attorney advised the Commission that if concerned, condition 3 could remain. Commissioner Harris asked whether, without use of the property in Saratoga, the City of San Jose would have only the parking available on site; in view of this, she asked if use would be less intensive on site without use of the Saratoga property. Staff were not sufficiently familiar with requirements of San Jose to answer the question. The Qty Atwmey summarized the rationale stating that the proposed amendment was viewed as die best mechanism to exercise direct control over property outside city limits. He confirmed that there was no change nor progress in discussions with the City of San Jose. In response to Commissioner Tucker's comments, he stated that the Ordinance could only have effect within the jurisdictional limits; one must review the process- -the Use Permit, which limits its issuance without review of I project design and square footage. It is through the mechanism of granting of a Use Permit that control of the adjacent property is exercised. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:45 P.M. Mr. John Gatto, Cypress Properties, reviewed the background of the Application. The Applicants are seeking to develop these properties as a whole. The only way to do this is a Conditional Use Permit. At present the Applicants are seeking the mechanism; approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance does not give project approval; a project has not been submitted for review. The Applicants have met with adjacent residents. PINES/HARRIS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:48 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Guch noted her concern at allowing commercial use in an R -1 zoning district. Chairwoman Burger stated that an amendment to a zoning ordinance, allowing commercial parking in an R -1 district seems an extreme solution to a small problem She stated that she would not vote in favor of this amendment to the zoning ordinance fora small parcel of land. Commissioner Callans stated that control of the property not in the jurisdiction of the City is desirable. Commissioner Pines noted that there will probably never be another case like this one; he will vote in favor of the amendment. PIIv'ES/CALLANS MOVED GRANOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE PARKING LOTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R -1 ZONING DISTRICT UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. Failed 3-3, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Guch opposed. The City Attorney advised the Planning Commission and the Applicant of options available to the Applicant. Mr. Gano stated that he would accept a denial of the Application and appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 3000 Sand Hill Road. Building 1, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025 (415) 854 -0333 John L. deBenedetti Timothy G. Sheehan John M. Gatto November 18, 1986 Mayor and Councilmembers City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Application AZO -86 -001 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: For the record, the denial by the Planning Commission of the subject application is hereby appealed. It is our understanding that this matter will be heard at the Council meeting of December 3, 1986 and we will be present to support the appeal that evening. At this time we would only like to indicate that the matter involves a procedural change to the ordinance to resolve a very unique land use situation. Also a review of the Planning Commission minutes should indicate the nature of their discussion and vote, which we feel warrants a favorable response to our appeal from the Council. Sincerely, CYPRESS PROPERTIES INCORPORATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. M 0 MEETING DATE: 12/17/86 ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: Repoft Summary: Staff recommendation 5-0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Community Services Proposed Change in Community Center Rental Rates Approve revised fee schedule as recommended by staff 7/6 c) AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Staff has reviewed the present Community Center rental rate structure and would like to recommend upward modification of the existing rate structure. Taken into consideration were fees charged by other cities and organizations for similiar facilities together with existing market demand for the community center facilities. Fees were last revised September 1, 1984. Fiscal Impacts: To determine the overall effect of the rate increase, staff took five actual building rentals from this year and applied the new rates. On this basis it is estimated the overall increase and rental revenue will be approximately 16 The fee schedule shall become effective 12/18/86 and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after the Qffective date. The recommended fees will increase revenue by $1,000 in F.Y. 1986 -1987 and 306,500 in F.Y. 1987 -1988. Attac ments: Current Rental Rates Schedule Proposed Rental Rates Schedule Resolution No. Motion and Vote: SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL RATES Effective September 1, 1984 A. PROCESSING FEE: The non refundable processing fee of $25 is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed. B. SECURITY DEPOSIT: The Security Deposit is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed. Function without alcoholic beverage Function with alcoholic beverage C. ROOM RATES: The rental fees are to be paid at least 30 days in advance of your function. 5/84 1. Community Center Multi- Purpose Room 2. Senior Center Large Room (includes adjacent kitchen) 3. Snack Bar Area 4. Multi- Purpose Room Snack Bar Area $100 $200 Resident 35/hr. 40 /hr. 50 /hr. 25 /hr. 45 /hr. 12 /hr. 5. Meeting Room or Arts Crafts Room 6. Kitchen without use, of dishes /utensils $25 /day 7. Kitchen with use of dishes /utensils $50 /day 8. Backyard $40 /day D. ADDITIONAL FEES: The regular room rental rates are not charged for the time spent setting up and cleaning up. This fee is charged for all time spent in the Center before and after the event. 1. Set Up and Clean Up Time 20 /hr. ,iMimimum of 2 hours charged if not prior to or after function time.) An employee of the Community Center shall be present during all hours of use of the facility. The staff person is not responsible for set -up or clean -up. 2. •Building Supervisor Fee 7 /hr. before midnight Non Resident 45 /hr. 30 /hr. 55 /hr. 15 /hr. 8 /hr. after midnight (City Holidays, depending on availability; minimum charge will be double) IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE FULL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF FUNCTION. SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL RATES Effective December 18, 1986 A. PROCESSING FEE: The non refundable processing fee of $30 is to` be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed. B. SECURITY DEPOSIT: The Security Deposit is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed. Function without alcoholic beverage Function with alcoholic beverage $300 C. ROOM RATES: The rental fees are to be paid at least 30 days in advance of your function. Resident Non Resident 1. Community Center Multipurpose Room (includes use of kitchen) 55 /hr 70 /hr. 2. Senior Center Large Room (includes use of kitchen) 50 /hr 60 /hr 3. Patio Room 35 /hr 45/hr 4. Multipurpose Patio Room 80 /hr $100 /hr 5. Meeting Room or Arts Crafts Room 15 /hr 20 /hr 6. Backyard 50 /day 7. The regular room rental rates are not charged for the time spent setting up and cleaning up. This fee is charged for all time spent in the Center before and after the event. Set Up and Clean Up Time 30 /hr (Minimum of 2 hours charged if not prior to or after function time.) D. NON- PROFIT GROUPS Non- profit groups will not be charged the regular rental fees if (1) admission fees are not charged for the function (2) event is open to the public and is for public benefit (3) at least 51% of the persons in the membership or attending the function are Saratoga residents. An employee of the Community Center shall be present during all hours if use of the facility. Non profit rate: $12 /hr IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE FULL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE THIRTY (30) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE FUNCTION. RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION ALTERING FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY CENTER RENTALS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby established for payment, to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the following uses of the Community Center. This fee schedule shall become effective December 18, 1986 and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after the effective date. Processing Fee Multipurpose Patio Room (includes kitchen) Backyard Multipurpose Room (includes kitchen) Patio Room Meeting Room Arts Crafts Room Senior Center Large Room (includes kitchen) Fee for set -up and clean -up time Non profit group rate Security Deposit without alcoholic beverage Security Deposit with alcoholic beverage AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR Resident Non Resident 30.00 80 /hr 50 /day 55 /hr 35 /hr 15 /hr 15 /hr 50 /hr $100 $300 $30 /hr $12 /hr 30.00 100 /hr 50 /day 70 /hr 45 /hr 20 /hr 20 /hr 60 /hr The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of by the following vote: 1986, SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL RATES Effective December 18, 1986 A. PROCESSING FEE: The non refundable processing fee of $30 is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed. B. SECURITY DEPOSIT: The Security Deposit is to be paid at the time the Reservation Form is completed. Function without alcoholic beverage $100 Function with alcoholic beverage $300 C. ROOM RATES: The rental fees are to be paid at least 30 days in advance of your function. Resident Non Resident 1. Community Center Multipurpose Room (includes use of kitchen) 55 /hr 70 /hr. 2. Senior Center Large Room (includes use of kitchen) 50 /hr 60 /hr 3. Patio Room 35 /hr 45 /hr 4. Multipurpose Patio Room 80 /hr $100 /hr 5. Meeting Room or Arts Crafts Room 15 /hr 20 /hr 6. Backyard 50 /day 7. The regular room rental rates are not charged for the time spent setting up and cleaning up. This fee is charged for all time spent in the Center before and after the event. Set Up and Clean Up Time 30 /hr (Minimum of 2 hours charged if not prior to or after function time.) D. NON- PROFIT GROUPS Non- profit groups will not be charged the regular rental fees if (1) admission fees are not charged for the function (2) event is open to the public and is for public benefit (3) at least 51% of the persons in the membership or attending the function are Saratoga residents. An employee of the Community Center shall be present during all hours if use of the facility. Non profit rate: $12 /hr IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE FULL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE THIRTY (30) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE FUNCTION. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. c Dc SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12 17 86 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: NONE Attachments: Final Map Approval for Tract 7919 Saratoga Avenue, Brian Kelly (5 :lots): AGENDA ITEM Recommended Motion: 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. 1622 -02, approving Final Map of Tract 7919. 2. Move to authorize execution of Improvement Agreement. Report Summary: 1. Tract 7919 is ready for final approval. 2. All requirements for City and other Departments have been completed. 3. All bonds and fees have been paid. 1. Resolution No. 1622 -02. 2. Staff Report. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. ;a RESOLUTION NO. 1622 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 7919 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7919 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the —1— estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Chap.. 14, Municipal Code as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance' of the City of Saratoga,'for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 5' lots, all as more particularly set forth in File Na. SDR o this City, and AYES: Guch, Pines, Siegfried, Burger NOES: None ABSENT: Harris, Peterson ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO, SDR- 1622.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Brian Kelly Develognent APN- 389 -34 -002 Secretaiy Plannin• Commission WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer ence to the Staff Report dated 6/25/86 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received. and considered the (Categorir+al E mpt- i -,_nnL_ (RTp) (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 664 74 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 23rd day of May 19 86 and is marked Exhibit the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby con- ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted, by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 25 day of June 19 86 at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: SDR -1622 EXHIBIT 'A' 1. Height of structure on Lots 1 and 4 shall not exceed 22 feet. 2. No tree identified on the tentative map shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 3. Applicant shall obtain design review approval prior to construction. 4. All requirements of the building department shall including demolition permit for existing structures. 5. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. met, 6. Submit tract map to City for checking and recordation, including fees. 7. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide 40' right of way for cul -de -sac except as shown on the tentative map approved by the Planning Commission. 8. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a minimum 60 ft. half street on Saratoga .Avenue .to satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide 10'. PSE along the streets as shown on the tentative map. 10. Improve cul -de -sac and Saratoga Avenue to City Standards, including the following: 1 Designed structural section 15 ft. between centerline and flowline on cul de -sac. 2. Designed structural section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide 40 ft. between centerline and flowline on Saratoga Avenue. City Engineer needs to determine final right of way configuration. 3. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -724) on both streets. 4. Underground existing overhead utilities on Saratoga Avenue. 11. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the 'Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. _2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. SDR -1622 change, retard or prevent flow. 1. Street improvements. 2. Storm drain construction 3. Access road construction 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 12. Construct standard driveway approaches. 13. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 14. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will 15. No direct access allowed on Saratoga Avenue from lots. 16. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 17. Engineered improvement plans required for: 18. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 19. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 20. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 21. Meet requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4. Requirements including connection to sanitary sewer, payment of fees and submittal of engineered improvements plans. 22. Abandon existing well No 08S1W06802 on the property to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 23. Provide bus stop and sidewalk on Saratoga Avenue north of the new street to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. 24. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled in accordance with the County Environmental Health standards. 2S. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. 26. Meet all requirements of the Saratoga Fire District including submittal of plans showing location of water mains and fire hydrants and installation of one new hydrant. 27. Maintain 15 foot vertical clearance over the road and driveways to building sites. SDR -1622 28. Submit plan to install landscaping in the area between property line and the new public street immediately south of Saratoga Avenue. Plan to include 15 gallon street trees, approved by the City Parks Superintendent and design review board and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the first residence. 29. Homes on all lots to be single story. 30. Applicant shall submit a traffic circulation plan showing prohibition of any left turn into the subdivision from Saratoga Avenue and such plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SD (have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication Date Submitted Record of Survey or Parcel Map Survey MAP Date Submitted July 1, 1965 Storm Drainage Fee 4,250.00 Date Submitted 12 -4 -86 Receipt 655 All Required Improvement Bonds 4:,000.00 Date Submitted 11 -14 -86 Receipt All Required Inspection Fees 1775.00 Date Submitted 7_31_86 Receipt# 10349 Building Site Approval Agreement Date Signed Park and Recreation Fee Date Submitted Receipt# •It is, therefore, the e RI NG p Department recommendation that (Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for SD:.- 86 =003 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance 1 R S loo 'rector of Community Development