Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-21-1985 City Council Agenda packet
1 --az l -i AGENDA BILL NO. 9/Z DATE: 8 -13 -85 (8- 21 -85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. Issue Suinnary The City received four bids on August 13, 1985 for the Overlay Certain City Streets project. This project was approved in 1985 -86 Capital Improvement budget. The lowest bid was Raisch Construction Company of Mountain View, with a total bid of $527,283.89. The Engineer's estimate for this work was $624,648.86. Recommendation mendation Award the contract for the Overlay Certain City Streets project to the low bidder, Raisch Construction Company. Fiscal Impacts $527,283.89 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1985 -86 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program. Exhibits /Attachments Bid Summary Council Action 8/21: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. AWARD OF CONTRACT OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS 1985 DATE: August 13 ,198 TIME 2, 00 P•M- Community Development Department yin SIJMMARY PROJECT Overlay Certain City Streets Eng. Estimate Wattis O'Grady Pavnn_g Piazza Constru• Raisch Construc ;en: Description Quantity Unit .nit ic- Amount 11: 'R Amount Unit y Amount Unit pr;ce Oiit Amount Amount 1. Install 12" Overlay 7,443 ton 33.51 249,340.50 37.8 281,940.84 33.81 251,573.40 32.0 238,176.0 el. ►30,733.0 2. Install Fabric Mat 146,885 S.Y. 0.71 102, 819.50 0.47 69, 035.95 0.45 66, 098.25 0.55 80, 786.75 0 58 754.0 3. A.R. 4000 Asphalt 1 Binder 39,659 gall 1.30 51, 556.70 1.05 1 1.0 39,659.0 1.30 51,556.70 Repair Failure Secti 1 U 1 3) a) a w m4,018 S.F. 2.00 8,036.00 1.56 6, 6:..: I 3.0 12,054.0 1.50 6,027.0 Heater Remix 24,419 S.Y. 1.20 29,302.80 1.24 0, 1.15 28,081.85 1.20 29,302.80 Recycle Agent 4,884 gall 1.50 7,326.01 1.81 8,:41 -I' -:1 8,791.20 1.68 8,502.0 1.75 8,547.0 4" Crushed Granite a) nci ,-I b a) m U r 36.0 0.01 33,228.0 27,7• 8,301.19 Rock 923 ton 40.0 36,920.00 42.91 I •s 075.0 23,075.0 36.0 33,228.0 8. CRS -2 Emulsion 23,158 gal 1.20 27,789.6. 1.18 TM 22,000.10 9. Power Sweeping 830,119 S.F. 0.04 33,204.7: 16,602.38 0.02 16,602.38 10 Wedge Cut 5,784 L.F. 1.0 5,734.06 5,494 -80 7,056.48 1.15 6,651.60 1.0 5,784.0 11 3/8" Leveling Course 301 ton 40.0 12,040.0. I i 35.0 10,535.0 63.0 18,963.0 31.0 9,331.0 12 Repair Street Along Lip 21,910 S.F 2.0 43,820.01 1.56 34,179.60 1.75 38,342.50 3.0 65,730.0 1.50 32,865.0 13 Raise Manholes 135 ea 100 13,500.01 180.124,300.00. 150.1 20,250.0 160.1 21,600.0 145.1 19.575.0 14 4" Double Yellow Stripe 2,704 L.F 0.3C 811.2. I•' 1,162.72 0.45 1,216.80 0.21 567.84 0.50 1,352.0 15. 4" Single Yellow Stripe 106 L.F L.F 0.2C 0.1( 21.21 48.61 0.30 31.80 0.30 31.80 0.21 22.67 0.30 31.80 16 Paint Pavement Marking 486 0.26 126.36 0.26 126.36 0.21 102.06 0. i 145.80 17 Paint Pedestrian 500 Cross Walk L.S. L.S 500.0' 938.1 938.00 200C 2000.00 "4117 n 117 0 1 DATE: August 13 ,198 TIME 2, 00 P•M- Community Development Department yin SIJMMARY PROJECT Overlay Certain City Streets DATE: August 13 ,19 85 TIME: 2: 00 City of Saratoga Community Development Department BIDSUMMARY S h e e t _2,,, o f ,,2 PROJECT Overlay Certain City Streets Eng. Estimate Wattis rhiit Const. O'Grady Unit price Const. Piazza Const. Amount Raisch knit Price Const. to Descri tion p Quantity it n i Amount Amount Amount Unit Price Amount L8 Paint Pedestrian Cross Walk 6 100' 600.00 97.2( 583.20 100 600.00 50.0 300.00 95.0 570.00 L9 Paint School Cross Walk 9 ea 100 900.00 L108 972.0 I 990.00 50.0 4.50 450.00 360.00 120.C1080.00 5.0 410.00 10 Install Double Yellow "D" Marker 82 ea 4.0 328.00 4.32 354.24 4.56 369.00 624,648.86 599,593.45 566,258.96 6 96,666.00 527,283.89 DATE: August 13 ,19 85 TIME: 2: 00 City of Saratoga Community Development Department BIDSUMMARY S h e e t _2,,, o f ,,2 PROJECT Overlay Certain City Streets AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/12/85 (8/21/85) q/3 DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: C -224 Clarence Neale, 14230 -C Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Issue Summary Applicant is requesting that the 1.16 acre parcel at 14230 -C Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road be rezoned from RM -4000 to RM -3000. This would allow 13 additional units on the site where 3 units already exist. This action would be in conformance with an adjacent rezoning for the Morrison /Fox parcel. This site has already received subdivision approval to allow five (5) units on approximately half of the site. On appeal, the condition for an improved emergency access to Walnut was deleted. With this rezoning and the rezoning of the adjacent parcel (allowing 25 additional units overall) staff feels an emergency access through to Walnut is more critical. We intend to condition the Morrison /Fox proposal at the time of subdivision approval, and would do the same with this parcel when additional units are proposed. Recommendation 1. Staff recommended approval of the proposed changes to the Commission, and the Commission recommends that you approve the rezoning. 2. The public hearing must be opened, testimony taken and then closed prior to Council action. 3. The Council must approve the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed changes. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Negative Declaration dated 7/10/85 2. Ordinance Amending Zoning Map 3. Planning Commission Resolution C -224 -1 4. Staff Report dated 7/15/85 Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA 8/21: Approved Negative Declaration and introduced ordinance 4-0. 9/4: Adopted. Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/24/85 c.- ri L 1 I I 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 Clarence W. Neale 14320 Saratog Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, Ch. 95070 Executed at Saratoga, California this 10th day of File No. C -224 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Rezone a 1.16 acre parcel from R M 4,000 to R M 3,000 which could allow the eventual construction of a Maximum of 13 additional dwelling units (based on gross site area) where 3 units already exist at 14230 -C Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, CA. The proposed prOjcct will not have a significant affect on the environment since the act of rezoning does not have a direct effect On the environment. The project involves a small infill parcel which will not require the significant extension of urban services. However, the construction of e project allowed by this rezoning could have some effect on the environment. These impacts will be mitigated by the application of existing City Codes and ordinances and through conditions of project approval. Further environmental assessment will be required when a specific project is proposed. July 1985. ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF S iTOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER (a) (b ORDINANCE NO. NS-3-7C- Design Review structures. Approval of existing EXHIBIT gi AN ORDIJANCE CONDITIONALLY AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3 THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: APN 397 -27 -15 FROM R -M -4000 TO R -M -3000 SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subject to Section 2 of this Ordinance, Sectional District Map No. 0 -224 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within- adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within- adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION Pursuant to Section 18.11 of Ordinance NS -3 the reclassification set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance is conditioned upon the following requirements being fully satisfied within twenty -four (24) months from the effective date hereof: Tentative and Final BuildingSite Approval pursuant to Ordinance NS -60, showing preservation of all existing residential units and location of proposed new structures. and proposed In the event the foregoing conditions are not satisfied within the time prescribed in this section, the zoning reclassification shall not become effective. SECTION 3: This Ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain property shown on the attached sectional map from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. This ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk 4 Mayor RESOLUTION NO 0-2 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGri G' WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 24th day of Jvily 1985 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "E" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "F he and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Plannino Commission, State of California, this 24thday of July 1985, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines, Schaefer and Siegfried None None Chairman of the Planning Commission FINDINGS: 'c.�4 Exhibit "F" 1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 2. The proposed re:oninn will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. DATE: 7/15/85 COMMISSION MEETING: 7/:4/85 APN: 387 -27 -15 APPLICANT: Clarence Neale OWNER: Same APPLICATION NO. E. LOCATION: C -224; 14230 -C Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ACTION REQUESTED: Rezone subject property from R -M -4000 to R -M -3 00 D" OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Tentative (Modification) and Final Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval required prior to Building Permit issuance. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. ZONING: R -M -4,000 (existing) GENERAL PLAN Residential DESIGNATION: Multi-Family EXISTING LAND USE: Multi Family Residential (2 units) and storage. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North Single Family Residential (R -M- 4000); east vacant S.C.V.W.D. land zoned R -1- 12,500; south and west Multi-Family Residential (R- M- 3000). PARCEL SIZE: 1.16 acres (50,529 sq. ft.) NATURAL FEATURES E, VEGETATION: Southern portion of site subject to flooding from Saratoga Creel:.; mature oak and redwood trees on site. Report to Planning Commission Date: 7/15/85 C -224., Neale Sara- Sunnyv'le Page AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Gentle PROJECT HISTORY: On September 16, 1981 the City Council rezoned (C -197) the subject property from 8 -1-- 12,500 to R -M1 -400: consistent with the General Flan which would allow additional multi-family units to be placed on the site. At that time the applicant indicated his desire to move two structures on the Saratoga Federated Church property to the subject site and later convert therm to multi- family dwellings. The applicant was permitted to rove a structure onto the site under certain conditions prior to Tentative Building Site Approval without giving the applicant any vested right to ultimately have the structure located on site. The Planning Commission granted Tentative Building Site Approval (SDR -1511) February 24, 1982 to allow the property to be split into two multi family lots. The applicant appealed certain conditions dealing with the need for secondary or emergency access to the site to the City Council. The Council modified the Commission's conditions and granted Tentative Building Site Approval for the project on June 2, 1982. This approval has been extended twice by the Commission. The applicant moved a surplus structure from the church onto the site but .then determined that he could not complete the conversion of the structure into three units. He then applied for and received Design Review Approval. (A -990) to convert this structure into an accessory storage structure on an interim basis (application approved July 25, 1984). On June 20, 1984 the City Council approved a request for rezoning (0 -206) the adjacent property to the west from R -11 -4000 to R -M -3000. The applicant is making the same request for the rezoning of his property. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The density permitted under the proposed R -M -3000 zoning is consistent with the maximum density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre allowed under the multi family designation of the General Plan. Using gross site area, the traffic generated (78 Average Daily Trips) by the 13 additional units that might' be built on the site if this rezoning is approved could be accommodated by Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and would be consistent with the following general goals: LU.6.0 Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazards. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. Report to Planning Commission C -224, Neale. Sara Sunny' le STAFF ANALYSIS Th Date 7/15/85 Page CI.5.0 Use presently planned street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable development densities. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall. he in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. The Area E Guidelines for Area Development, of which this parcel is part, generally support the proposed rezoning, through the following statement: The applicant must conform with the following General Plan policies: a 1. The southern corner of Area E should be reviewed as possible sites for additional multi- family housing units. The proximity of this area to public transportation, Highway 85 (Old Highway 9), Saratoga Avenue, the Village, commercial and professional facilities, and churches make this a highly satisfactory area for such developments. LU.8.1 Prior to initial approval, the decision raking body shall consider the cumulative traffic impacts of single family residential projects of 4 or more lots, multi family residential projects of eight or more units, and commercial projects designed for an occupancy load of more than 30 persons. CI.2.7 Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more single- family units; 8 or more multi family units) or major commercial (more than 30 person occupancy) projects along the City's major arterials, the impacts of. increased traffic shall be studied and a plan for minimizing these i=mpacts shall be developed to the extent feasible. If the applicant wishes to build eight or more dwelling units on the site, a traffic impact study will have to be submitted when application is made for Tentative Building Site approval. This study must take into account the cumulative traffic impacts of future development along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and indicate how these impacts, if significant, can be mitigated. The applicant has plans to develop only half of the 1.18 acre site at this 'time (Parcel A: 25, 680 sq. ft. (gross); .20,389 sq. ft. (net)). This site could accommodate a total of 6 units (2 existing 4 new units)) based on a ratio of ldu /3000 sq. ft. using the net site area excluding the S.C.V.W.D. easement. The applicant shows a total of seven units in 3 structures on his tentative plan for developing Parcel A. The existino duplex on site would be remodeled and the existing accessory structure would be converted to 3 units. Two new units would be built in a new structure east of the existing duplex. This can only be done if there is 21,000 sq. ft. of net site area and if the Report to Planning Commission C-224, Neale, Sara- Sunny'vle Gate 7/15/85 Page 4 units are contained in only 2 structures. (Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires an additional 2 000 sq. ft. of site area for each additional structure over 2 containing a dwelling unit.) If the net site area of Parcel A was increased to 23,000 sq. ft., then 7 units could be contained in 3 separate structures. As the Commission is aware there: is a need for more housing in Saratoga as expressed in the Housing Element. This project when completed would contribute to meeting some of that need. Rental housing is very limited in Saratoga with less than 220 multi family rental units in eiistence. It is unlikely that 13 new units would ever be added to the 1.16 acre site because of the loss of site area due to the S.C.V.W.D. easement in the south and the occupancy of the northern portion of the site (Parcel 8) by an existing single family_ residence and detached garage. So potential impacts from the project are likely to be pore limited than the aniticipated worst case situation. A further limitation to development on the site is the need for additional parking to serve existing and proposed development. Fourteen parking spaces (seven covered) would be required for Parcel A alone plus any additional parking the Commission feels would be necessary for guests and visitors. If the project is rented to seniors exclusively, parking needs will be limited. The tentative plans do not show precisely how parking will be accommodated on site. It should be noted that the setbacks shown on the tentative development plan are not in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements. The new duplex provides only a 15 ft. rear yard (easternmost property line) where 25 ft. is required. The existing accessory structure shows a 15 ft. side yard where 18.6 ft. is required. Also, a new deck is shown as encroaching 5 ft. into the same side yard. These setbacks must be corrected prior to any building permit approval. The approval for SDR -1511 must be modified to accommodate any additional development to that already approved under SGR -1511. A new Design Review Application will also be required. It should be noted that per Section 18.11 of the Zoning Ordinance any R -M rezoning can be conditionally approved for a period of time. Staff intends to condition this proposed rezoning in the same manner the adjacent property to the west was conditionally rezoned from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. If this rezoning is eventually approved by the City Council, a small triangular shaped "island" of R -M -4000 coning (made up of two parcels) will remain between two larger blocks of R--M -3000 zoning. The Commission may want to consider rezoning this "island" of R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 sometime in the near future to allow a consistent pattern of development in this area. Report to Planning Commission C -224, Neale, Sara- Sunny'vie FINDINGS: In accordance with Section 18.8 of the Zoning Ordinance staff has prepared the foliow.ino findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 2. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment or adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission male the necessary findings and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council rezone the subject property shown on Exhibit "B" from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 subject to the following conditions: APPROVED: MF /kah 1. Within 24 months of the effective date of the ordinance conditionally rezoning the subject property, the applicant shall submit the following: A. Tentative and Final Builting Site Approval showing the preservation of all existing residential units and the location of new structures. E. Design Review Approval P.C. Agenda: 7!74,'85 Date 7/15/88 Page 5 Michael Flores Associate Planner 00 Do V14 I T I T U 1 S ec:n otirA(-- 7)l 5774 7 MA Rezone from R M -4000 to R -M -3000 1 -20,0 Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes Meeting 7/24/85 A -1103 reduction in the exterior dimensions of the home as shown in the attached exhibits; Condition #2 amended to show a maximum height of 26 ft. for the structure and 28 ft. for the tower, and deleting Conditions #6 and #7. It was noted that the approval is per Exhibits "F -1 "C" and "D Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -2, with Commissioners J. Harris and Burger dissenting. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she thinks this home is almost 700 sq. ft. above the standard for a one -acre lot. The appeal period was noted. 8a. A -1097 James and Roxanne Axline, Request for Design Review and Tentative Building site Approval to remove an existing residence, construct a two- story, single family residence and exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. on site allowable floor area standard at 20170 Thelma Avenue, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from July 10, 1985 (application withdrawn) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 9. A -1101 Mr. and Mrs. Sudin Vittal, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two -story single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from July. 10, 1985 (to be continued to August 14, 1985) It was directed that this item be continued to August 14, 1985. 10. C -224 Clarence Neale, Consider Granting the Rezoning of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 14230 -C Saratoga- Sunny- vale Road from R -M -4000 (10.89 dwelling units /acre) to R -M -3000 (14.52 dwelling units /acre) Staff explained the application. The public hearing was opened at 8:11 p m. Mr. Neale, the applicant, indicated that he had paid $15,000 for a fire hydrant and water main. It was noted that that was relative to conditions of the Tentative Building Site Approval on the site. Commissioner Siegfried moved to adopt Resolution C- 224 -1, recommending approval of the rezoning to the City Council. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. lla. Negative Declaration SDR -1602 Tom and Ann Copenhagen lib. SDR -1602 -Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative Build- 11c. A -1107 ing Site Approval for a three (3) lot subdivision of a 14 acre site with an average slope of 31 and Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two story, single family residence on lot B in the NHR zoning district at 14440 Pike Road The project was described by Staff. They commented that the application involves a cul -de -sac longer than 500 ft. with more than 15 units on it, and the requirement for such a situation is that there be an emergency access. They noted that an emergency access from Pike Road to Saratoga Hills Road has been conditioned if the project is to be approved. They stated that the feasibility of this project had been discussed at a study session, and at that time the major item under discussion dealt with the emergency access connection. They added that the applicant had been requested to determine the availability of that access by contacting the appropriate property owners between their property and Saratoga Hills Road to determine if it was possible. Staff indicated x. 49 oC MRS. MARY RUTH OWEN P. 0. Box 281 141B0 VICTOR PLACE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 RECEIVED AUG Z 01985 o caLe 94- 2162,44-ez- (-0 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/12/85 (8/21/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. GPA -$5 L, a Issue Summary Applicants are requesting an amendment to the General Plan Map from Residential Very Low Density Single Family and rezoning from HC -RD to R -1- 40,000 on a 1.525 acre parcel on Peach Hill Road. This request is necessary to avoid a split zoning situation in conjunction wi a lot line adjustment with John Carey. Mr. Carey wishes to add the additional area to his lot (which is zoned R- 1- 40,000) for open space purposes. In order to insure that Carey cannot de- velop this area being adjusted, an Open Space Easement has been required on it. Additionally, another agreement has been required by the Planning Commission which insures that Carey will be able to split his property into two (2) lots, but not three (3). Recommendation 9 4-1 C -219 Joseph Kennedy Karen Mayers, 15480 Peach Hill Road The Planning Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Map change and rezoning to R -1- 40,000 as conditioned. Approval would be conditioned on execution of the referenced agreements. The Staff Report recommended approval of the changes, but to HC -RD. Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action N/A 1. Negative Declaration dated 5/8/85 2. Staff Report dated 5/15/85 3. Resolution No. C -219 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA 4. Minutes from Planning Commission dated 5/22/85, 6/12/85 and 7/10/85 5. Resolution Amending General Plan Land Use Element 8/21: Approved Negative Declaration and introduced ordinance 4 -0. Initial: Dept. Hd. 9/4: Adopted Ordinance NS 3 -ZC -93 and Resolution 2270 amending General Plan. J EIA -4 File No: GPA 85 -2 Saratoga C -219 LL #7 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. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves amending the General Plan.designation from Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family to Residential Very Low Density Single Family and rezoning from HC -RD to R -1- 40,000 a 1.525 acre parcel located due east of 15320 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga, CA. This change could allow 1 additional lot to be created when the site is combined with 15320 Peach Hill Road with a lot line adjustment. NAME AND ADDRESS- OF APPLICANT Joseph Kennedy and Karen Mayers 15480 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment since only one new building site could be created. Any construction activities on the site would require a separate environmental impact assessment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 8t"' day of `Yneel,... ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 19 (it.6 ZONING: Existing: HC -RD Proposed: R- 1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: Accessory Structures SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Existing: Residential Hillside Conservation Proposed: Residential Very Low Density DATE: 5/15/85 COMMISSION MEETING: 5/22/85 APN: 517- 22- 30(portion) Kennedy; 517 -22 -95 Carey APPLICANT: Joseph Kennedy /Karen Mayers OWNER: Same APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: GPA 85 -2, C -219, LL #7; 15480 Peach Hill Road 15320 Peach Hill Road ACTION REQUESTED: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Lot Line Adjustment to change a 1.525 acre portion of a lot from Residential Hillside Conservation (HC -RD) to Residential Very Low Density Single Family (R -1- 40,000) and making it part of an existing R- 1- 40,000 lot. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Site Modifications and Building Permits for future accessory structures. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. PARCEL SIZE: +1-1.525 Acres Portion of Kennedy parcel to be rezoned +1 -3.959 Acres Remainder of Kennedy Parcel -2.97 Acres Existing Carey Parcel NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Steep topography with some large oaks and pines. Report to Planning Commission GPA 85 -2, 0 -219, LL #7, Kennedy /Mayers, Peach Hill AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: (Carey Parcel portion of Kennedy Parcel) 22.64% PROJECT HISTORY: On November 7, 1984, the City Council changed the General Plan designation of the Kennedy parcel (APN 517- 22 -30) from Residential Very Low Density Single Family to Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family and rezoned the site from R- 1- 40,000 to HC -RD. This was done as a condition of Lot Line Adjustment Application LL #4 to avoid having two (2) different zoning designations on the same site. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants wish to sell 1.525 acres of their property to John Carey who owns a 2.97 acre parcel to the west of the applicants' property. According to the applicants, Mr. Carey wishes to use the additional site area for open space purposes. The purpose of the Lot Line Adjustment is to combine both parcels. In order for the new combined parcel to maintain the same land use designation and avoid a "split zoning" situation, the General Plan and zoning designation of the 1.525 acre Kennedy/Mayers parcel, or the 2.97 acre Carey parcel, must be changed. The applicants are proposing that the 1.525 acre parcel be changed from Residential Hillside Conservation (HC- RD) to Residential Very Low Density (R -1- 40,000). STAFF ANALYSIS: If the project is approved as the applicants have requested, no non conforming sites or setbacks would be created. There is the possibility that an additional building site could be created if the combined parcel is zoned for R- 1- 40,000. It should be noted that the existing Carey parcel (APN 517- 22 -95) could be divided into two (2) parcels without the proposed-additional acreage and under its current zoning. Since the slope of the combined parcel will be over 10'/, the Subdivision Ordinance slope density formula would be used to determine the allowable density for the site: Acres /DU A S 22.64% Acres /DU A 1 1.089 0.01778(S) 1.089 0.01778(22.64) 0.6864608 1 0.5 .008S 5/15/85 Page 2 1 1 A 1.457 acres /DU The combined parcel would be 4.495 acres in size. Dividing 4.495 acres by 1.457 acres /DU yields a potential of 3 lots for the combined parcel. This is one more lot than would be allowed if the lots remained as they are now. If the combined parcel were zoned HC -RD, a different density formula would be used: Report to Planning Commission GPA 85 -2, C -219, LL #7; Kennedy /Mayers, Peach Hill S 23% (rounded to nearest whole percent) 1 1 A 3.164 acres /DU 0.5 .008(23) 0.316 5/15/85 Page 3 Dividing 4.495 acres by 3.164 acres /DU yields only one (1) building site on the combined parcel, thus not allowing any additional dwelling units on the combined parcel. Considering the slope of the combined parcel, the hillside setting of the area, and the general difficulty of development in hillside areas, staff would recommend that the combined parcel be planned and zoned for HC -RD use. The agent for Mr. Carey has indicated a preference for R- 1- 40,000 zoning because its regulations regarding the height of accessory structures and impervious surface are more flexible. Mr. Carey intends to build a detached garage on his site sometime in the future. Mr. Carey's agent has indicated that he would be willing to place an open space or scenic easement on the 1.525 acre parcel tp prevent further development of that parcel. If this is done, the existing accessory structures on that parcel would have to be removed. Staff is of the opinion that the General Plan and Zoning Designations of a parcel should not be determined by the type of accessory structures that might be built. These designations should be determined by the physical circumstances of the property. The regulations regarding accessory structures or impervious surface in the HC -RD district can be varied, if such a variance is warranted, through the variance process. Designating the combined parcel as Residential Hillside Conservation and zoning it HC -RD would effectively preclude unsuitable development of the site. RECOMMENDATIONS: General Plan: Staff recommends that the Carey parcel (APN 517- 22 -95) be designated as Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family and that the 1.525 acre parcel remain with the same designation. Zoning: Staff recommends that the Carey parcel (APN 517- 22 -95) be rezoned to HC -RD and that the 1.525 acre parcel remain zoned HC -RD. Lot Line Adjustment: Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment per Exhibit "8 subject to the following condition: 1. The new parcel shall have the same General Plan and Zoning designation throughout. If the combined parcel is designated Residential Very.Low Density Single Family and zoned R 1 40,000, staff would recommend that the following conditions be added to LL##7: 2. An open space easement shall be recorded covering the entire 1.525 acre COMMENT: APPROVED: MF /dsc Report to Planning Commission 5/15/85 GPA 85 -2, C -219, LL #7, Kennedy /Mayers, Peach Hill Rd. Page 4 parcel to preclude any structures in this area. The wording of the easement shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the City within 5 days of recordation. 3. The owner of APN 517 -22 -95 (.Carey) shall enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for Peach Hill Road. Staff has not prepared a resolution for the General Plan change or an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map. When the Commission determines the General Plan and zoning designations that will be utilized, staff will prepare the appropriate resolution and ordinance for Commission consideration at the next Commission Meeting. P.C. Agenda: 5/22/85 )1-) #1{" Michael Flores Planner MOW T'ALvO GPI �s -z le.ei4N6DY I i Yo s ABSENT: None ATTEST: Secretary RESOLUTION NO. C -219 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following item and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 10th day of July 1985, at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report to Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of July 1985, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: None 7 1 Chairman, Planning Commission FINDINGS: C -219 Exhibit "B" 1. The proposed rezoning is required to ensure that a consistent development pattern is created for this parcel. 2. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. 2 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Sectional District Map No. C -219 attached hereto and incorparated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within- adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: This Ordinance reclassifies certain property shown on the attached sectional map from HC -RD to R -1- 40,000. This Ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: ORDINANCE NO. NS -3 -ZC EXHIBIT "C" AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: APN 517- 22-30 (NORTHERN 1.525 ACRE PORTION) FROM HC -RD TO R -1- 40,000 CITY CLERK MAYOR Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes Meeting 5/22/85 DH -1 residential area, crossing the street and coming back down, passing the front of Rhett's, and then recrossing the street. From 1:30 until 2:00 a.m. we stood directly outside the Duke of Wellington on the corner and observed what happened for half an hour. I will report exactly what I saw. Bathroom facilities apparently are inadequate. The males relieved themselves outside. Females came across the street to use the facilities at the Duke of Wellington with no objection from the management at the Duke of Wellington. As far as nuisance, noise and traffic are concerned, I observed, between 1:30 and 2:00 a.m. high decibel music when the door of Rhett's opened, loitering outside Rhett's, drinking outside Rhett's, yelling and screaming in the streets, excessive use of foul language, prolonged honking of horns, reving motors, racing around corners, use of Big Basin Way in front of Rhett's to double park, back up, turn around, drive down the wrong side of the street, patrons of Rhett's standing in or running across Big Basin Way, necking and petting along the sidewalks on both sides of the street. a lot of parking up Big Basin Way adjacent to residences, with no attempt by the patrons of Rhett's to quiet down as they entered the residential area. There was an employee stationed outside the front door of Rhett's. He was totally useless. He made no attempt to regulate noise, foot traffic, auto congestion or loitering. The dumpster next door to Rhett's was open and almost full. Between 1:30 and 2:00 I observed the Sheriff's car ride by once, shortly before closing time. There was little or no disturbance outside Rhett's at that time; people had not yet spilled out on the streets. There was no evidence of a Sheriff's patrol during the peak time of disturbance." Commissioner Siegfried noted that he had observed many of the same things pointed out by Commissioner Burger. Commissioner Peterson commented that this is a use that is frankly incompatible with the Village; it is too close to residential; it takes up parking; it-is noisey, and he certainly cannot support it. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that, on the petitions signed by customers in support, approximately 20 out of 100 live in Saratoga. Commissioner Burger moved to recommend denial of DH -1, per the Staff Report dated May 16, 1985. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The appeal period was noted. The City Attorney stated that if there is no appeal, the Planning Commission decision would be effective in ten days. If there is an appeal and the decision is affirmed, it would be effective at that time. If there is an appeal the dancing could continue until the decision by the City Council. 10a. GPA 85 -2 10b. C -219 lOc. LLA #7 Mr i Joseph Kennedy and Karen Mayers, Consider Amending the General Plan and Zoning Designations of the northern- most 1.525 acres of a 5.485 acre site from Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family /HC -RD (maximum density of .5 DU /Acre) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family /R -1- 40,000 (maximum density of 1.09 DU/ Acre) at 15480 Peach Hill Road and Grant Approval for Lot Line Adjustment Staff explained the application and the history of the site. They indicated that they were recommending that there be a change to the General Plan and the zoning, but that it be to the existing lot, rather than the area to be attached to that lot, and the change be from R -1- 40,000 to HCRD, which would preclude any further subdivision of the property. They added that, with that provision, they would recommend approval of the lot line adjustment. Discussion followed on the options. The public hearing was opened at 9:07 p.m. John Carey, who is planning to purchase the property, described the Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes Meeting 5/22/85 GPA 85 -2 existing site. He indicated that he intends to purchase the 1 -1/2 acres and combine it with the 2 -1/2 acres, and make it into a parklike area. He described the plans for the area. He added that he would like to combine the two lots and make it into residential, very low density, single family R -1- 40,000. William Young, 15391 Hume Drive, commented that he was told the 1 -1/2 acre lot would be a green belt area, and he designed the house toward that area. Therefore, he would like to see the green belt conditions remain. Kay Long, 15629 Hume Drive, stated that their home was also oriented to the green belt and the view, and questioned the change. Commissioner Siegfried explained to Mr. Carey the history of the site and the discussions that were held with the neighbors on every side who wanted that area to be maintained as'a green belt. Mr. Carey stated that he is not planning to change the nature of that land at all. Commissioner Peterson pointed out that if the 1 -1/2 acres is changed to R- 1- 40,000, Mr. Carey might sell it and someone else might have some different ideas about use. Staff clarified that Mr. Carey could split his parcel under current R -1- 40,000 standards, and if the 1 -1/2 acres is added and the combined area zoned HCRD, he could only get one parcel. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to find a way to preserve the 1 -1/2 acres but not impact Mr. Carey in the sense that he somehow loses a building site by adding some acreage, which somehow should be conditioned so he doesn't get a net of three houses. Commissioner Schaefer agreed and discussed the options. She added that the other question is do we allow landscaping, other than natural vegetation, in a scenic easement. The City Attorney stated that customarily the City has not allowed structures or even landscaping in scenic easements that they have obtained. He explained that under the normal scenic easement Mr. Carey would not be allowed to do any of the things that he has described as his intention this evening. Further discussion followed on an option of accomplishing what Mr. Carey wants without causing him to lose a building site. The City Attorney stated that he wanted to emphasize that the reason for the Staff, recommendation of HCRD is that in their opinion it is a HCRD lot. He commented that the only other option he could see would possibly be recording some document which would constitute a relinquishment of development rights that would apply to the entire combined parcel and specify a site density with respect to that combined parcel, and having that as a relinquishment of any right Mr. Carey would otherwise have to subdivide that into three parcels in consideration for having this matter in the form of a lot line adjustment. Staff suggested that another possibility, other than the outright purchase of the property, might be some kind of easement granted from Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Carey. They commented that they would not think that would allow for the construction of any accessory structures because those would have to be folded into the major structures on the lot, whenever that lot is developed. It was directed that this matter be continued to June 12, 1985, to allow the applicant to consider the options and discuss them further with Staff. 11. A -1080 Allyn Becker, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a new two story, single family residence on a hillside lot at 12264 Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district (to be continued to June 12, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to June 12, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS Break 9:15 9:30 p.m. 6 PlanningCommission Page 6 Minutes Meeting 6/12/85 9a. GPA 85 -2 Joseph Kennedy and Karen Mayers, Consider Amending the 9b. C -219 General Plan and Zoning Designations of the northern 9c. LLA #7 most 1.525 acres of a 5.485 acre site from Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family /HC -RD (maximum density of .5 DU /Acre) to Residential -Very Low Density. Single Family /R -1- 40,000 (maximum density of 1.09 DU/ Acre) at 15480 Peach Hill Road, and Grant Approval for Lot Line Adjustment; continued from May 22, 1985 (to be continued to June 26, 1985 The City Attorney gave the history of the application, stating that at the last study session there had been consensus to recommend that the parcel to be acquired by Mr. Carey would be rezoned R -1- 40,000, on two conditions: 1) There would be an agreement executed by Mr. Carey whereby he relinquishes any development rights which would otherwise allow him to subdvide the consolidated property into more than 2 lots, and 2) With respect to the parcel being acquired from Mr. Kennedy, an open space easement would be placed upon that property, restricting its use to garden type accessory structures. He added that unfortunately there was miscommunication, in that Mr. Carey thought the Commission needed completed agreements by this evening, whereas he was under the impression that the Commission could go ahead with the rezoning and General Plan changes, and then having the agreement be a condition of those approvals. He commented that Mr. Carey's attorney had drafted a letter form of agreement; however, the attorney was told that that would not be satisfactory, since we need a document to be recorded and a matter of public record, so that the relinquishment of development rights and the restriction on the use of the Kennedy parcel would be binding upon subsequent owners. Moreover, Mr. Carey would be required to file a parcel map showing the consoldidation of the two parcels and the open space easement would be delineated on that map; in addition to that there would also be an open space easement agreement. The City Attorney added that Mr. Carey's attorney indicated that the documents would be submitted and they have been executed by Mr. Carey, more or less as an indication of his good faith intentions to proceed. However, because of the mixup in communications it was indicated on the agenda that the Commission would be continuing the matter. He commented that he thinks a continuance is appropriate for the further reason that it may be of assistance to the Planning Commission to have some form of preliminary landscape plan submitted as a form of guidance in framing the open space easement. He explained that normally when there is an open space easement agreement the City restricts any form of improvement whatsoever, including landscaping, whereas that is not the intention of the Commission in this case. He asked for the Commission's thoughts on the types of things that should be put in the open space easement agreement, relative to what the Commission feels is allowable within the Kennedy portion of the property. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Dottie Bilner, realtor respresenting the buyer and the seller, described the agreements, discussing the proposed landscaping. The City Attorney indicatedthat he had some problem with the language in the agreements, which can be worked out. Discussion followed on types of garden structures which would be allowed in the open space easement. Ms. Bilner noted that Mr. Carey intends to incorporate that area into his backyard, and Mr. Carey would be submitting a landscaping plan. It was directed that this matter be continued to July 10, 1985, and the applicant was asked to submit a conceptual landscaping plan for that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Page 3 3a. GPA 85 -2- Joseph Kennedy and Karen Mayers, Consider Amending the 3b. C -219 General Plan and Zoning Designations of the northern 3c. LLA #7 most 1.525 acres of a 5.485 acre site from Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family /HC -RD (maximum density of .5 DU /Acre) to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family /R -1- 40,000 (maximum density of 1.09 DU/ Acre) at 15480 Peach Hill Road, and Grant Approval for Lot Line Adjustment; continued from June 12, 1985 A -1095 Gallo will be as sensitive not only to the sites, as he has been in building the homes, but to the fact that his neighbors are concerned by the fact that he may in some cases exceed the guidelines. Chairman Peterson agreed, and told Mr. Christian that his point is well taken and the Commission will be discussing variances at a study session. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1095, making Findings #3 and #4 with regard to bulk, given the reduction in the height of the home and the square footage, and with reference to the homes in the area in terms of height and square footage this home is compatible. The following changes should be made to the Staff Report: The exhibits will be B -1, C, C -1 and D -1; Condition #1 changed to reflect a height of 28.5 ft.; Condition #3 changed to state that a bridged foundation shall be used within 8 ft. of a tree, and Condition `4 changed to read "not exceeding a gross floor area of 5,444 sq. ft." Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining. Staff explained the history of the application, noting that the applicant has determined not to landscape the property at this time. They commented that their recommendation remains that the designation on this property remain HC -RD. They recommended approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and explained the proposed conditions for such an approval. Discussion followed on a development agreement, and the City Attorney noted that he would be drafting such an agreement. Dottie Bilner, representing the buyer and seller of the property, clarified that the applicant has seen and understands the conditions. David Brown and Harold Long, adjacent neighbors, stated that they purchased their parcels with the understanding that the parcel under discussion was HC -RD and that nothing could be built on it. Chairman Peterson commented that it is clearly the Commission's intent, other than the possibility in the future of some kind of landscaping, that there be no development on this site. Commissioner Siegfried explained that today on the property the applicant owns, he could have two sites, and by adding this parcel and zoning it all HC -RD, he ends up with only one site. He commented that the Commission has attempted to come up with a compromise, which says that it will all be zoned R -1- 40,000, but it will have very specific recorded conditions on the property, so that the applicant can never have more than the two existing sites that he could have today without buying this piece of property. The City Attorney explained to Messrs. Brown and Long that when this application was started it was the intent of the applicant to submit some form of landscaping plan, showing how he proposed to improve with landscaping only, not structures, the 1.5 acre parcel he is acquiring from Mr. Kennedy. He commented that the matter was then continued for several weeks, and the applicant decided not to landscape the area. Therefore, at the applicant's request the matter was brought back to the Commission, with the understanding that an open space easement would be put on that 1.5 acre parcel covering all of it, and that would be the Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 GPA -85 -2, C -219 and LLA #7 standard form of easement which would not allow any form of development, either structure, landscaping or otherwise; it would have to stay in a natural state: He added that that is an easement that will go on record as a condition of that approval. The Staff Report says it cannot be terminated without the consent of the City, and to make sure that adjacent neighbors have knowledge if the applicant does want to do something, that easement document will require a public hearing of any request to change it and notice of that hearing will be given to everyone within 500 ft. of the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to recommend approval of GPA 85 -2 and C -219, with the conditions discussed, and with the condition that the City Attorney draft the development agreement. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve LLA #7, per the conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0 4a. A -1097 James and Roxanne Axline, Request for Design Review 4b. SDR -1600 -and Tentative Building Site Approval to remove an existing residence, construct a two- story, single family residence and exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. on site allowable floor area standard at 20170 Tehlma Avenue, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be continued to July 24, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to July 24, 1985. 5. SD -1584 J. Lohr Properties, Inc., Request for Tentative Map Approval for a 28 -lot subdivision on 10.2 acres in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela Drive and Glen Brae Drive; con- tinued from June 26, 1985 Staff explained that this matter had been continued so that there could be additional information relative to the grading, pad elevations and the structure heights. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern relative to the number of lots at the end of the cul -de -sacs, stating that she feels it is crowded. Staff explained the frontage for those lots and noted that they are within the ordinance standards. They also noted that the homes will be coming before the Commission for Design Review. The public hearing was opened at 8:21 p.m. Jerry Lohr, the applicant, stated that three -car garages seem to be standard, but a tandum garage has a lot of merit. He added that he does not anticipate any problem with the lots and described the garages. Staff discussed the height changes in the subdivision. Dr. Wood stated that he he backs up to lots 5 and 6, and Mr. Lohr has agreed to lower the pad on Lot 6 to help his view. He expressed concern with Lot 7 as a possible two -story with a 26 ft. height. He asked that Lot 7 be changed to a single -story with an 18 ft. height. He explained that the pad on Lot 7 is going to be another 2 ft. taller than the pad on Lot 6. He commented that he feels there are too many two- stories in the subdivision. The pad elevations were discussed. Mr. Lohr stated that he did not have a problem with limiting Lot 7 to a single story. He commented that he would like to keep as much flexibility in the subdivision as possible, and probably will have 8 -10 two stories. 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT WHEREAS, Joseph Kennedy is the owner of a 1.525 acre parcel just north of 15480 Peach Hill Road as shown on Exhibit "C" attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. GPA 85 -2; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application from Joseph Kennedy to amend the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the subject property from Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family; to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held public hearings on May 22, 1985, June 12, 1985 and July 10, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, after closing of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Element designation for the subject parcel as described above; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a regular meeting of August 21, 1985, held a public hearing in accordance with Government Code Section 65355, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the said Land Use Element; and Having heard the evidence presented, both written and oral the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS in connection with the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will maintain the residential character of the neighborhoods affected and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding areas. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the findings set forth hereinabove, the City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves as follows: That the Land Use Element of the General Plan be, and the same is hereby amended with respect to the subject parcel by changing its designation from Residential Hillside Conservation Single Family to Residential -Very Low Density Single Family as shown on Exhibit "C" of Planning Commission Resolution No. GPA 85 -2. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of September, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: GPACC CITY CLERK 2 MAYOR AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: August 21, 198 5 D Fiscal Impacts WEED ABATEMENT Exhibits /Attachments cps DEPARTMENT: City Manager Council Action 8/21: Approved_Resolution 2269. CITY OF SARATOGA Recommendation 1. Conduct public hearing to consider any protests. 2. Close public hearing and adopt resolution. 1. Resolution for adoption with attached list of 1985 assessments. Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary Under State and local laws, the County and the cities routinely abate seasonal fire hazard of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and nine of the cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Building Official. In many cases, property owners find it more convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through the procedure of a property tax lien. This past year, the County Building Official had weed abatement performed on 113 parcels in Saratoga at a total cost of $23,229.22. Tax liens and assessments upon the owners of these 113 parcels range from a high of $1690.42 to a low of $8.41. The average assessment is $205.57.. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. None upon City if the assessments are levied. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on August 21, 1985,_the Building Official of Santa Clara County submitted a report to this City Council consisting of all unpaid bills for weed abatement expenses and a proposed assessment list, and the. parcels against which said expenses including applicable administrative and collection costs to be assessed, all pursuant to Article II, Chapter 6 of the Saratoga City Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard said report and all objections thereto, and the Council, finding that no modifications need be made to any of said assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the 1985 Weed Abatement Assessments Report, City of Saratoga, prepared by the Building Official of Santa Clara County, which report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, be and hereby is confirmed. Each of said parcels as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to have a lien against it in the amount set opposite said parcel number in the last column thereof; and the Santa Clara County Auditor is hereby directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as general Municipal property taxes are collected. A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County Auditor. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of August, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A'1'1'i ST RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. Mayor c• APN 366 -13 -007 366 -20 -032 366 -22 -022 366 -43 -019 386 -14 -024 386 -14 -027 386 -17 -053 386 -23 -039 386 -33 -027 386 -47 -035 389 -06 -001 389 -06 -003 389 -06 -016 389 -06 -017 389 -10 -005 389 -10 -006 389 -12 -017 389 -19 -009 389 -19 -019 389 -23 -006 389 -23 -007 393 -01 -030 393 -01 -031 397 -01 -019 397 -01 -052 397 -01 -053 397 -01 -054 397 -01 -055 397 -01 -064 397 -03 -046 397 -03 -067 397 -03 -069 397 -03 -081 397 -03 -082 397 -03 -083 397 -03 -084 397 -05 -006 397 -05 -066 397 -05 -068 397 -05 -087 397 -07 -086 397 -07 -092 397 -07 -094 397 -07 -095 397 -08 -081 397 -13 -053 397 -13 -056 397 -15 -014 OWNER NAME QUARNSTROM, JOHN E THERESA LYNGSO, JOHN H MARY E CASHIN, EMMET J DOROTHY C MATLOCK, DAVID L ZOE A TERESI, JOSEPH L COX AVENUE PROFESSIONAL CENTER KUSALO, MATO SARATOGA AVENUE ASSOC FARRAND, MICHAEL 0 COX, HELENE T STURLA, WARREN A MEDICAL VILLAGE OF SARATOGA MEDICAL VILLAGE OF SARATOGA MVS CO CAL WEST CONNUNITIES,INC CAL WEST COMMUNITIES INC PROFESSIONAL VILLAGE OF SAR SCHLESINGER, OPAL A COSTA, MANUEL F KATHERINE G SHRIVER, PATRICIA J CARDONA, CARL C JACQUELINE RODEO OAK CREEK PARK OF SAR RODEO OAK CREEK PARK OF SAR FUJIKAWA, KENNETH TOSHIKO BARRON, JACOB S RUTH Z WORTHINGTON, J. R. BARBARA KOURETAS, PETE BESSE HORNE, DONALD R MARY T KOSICH CONSTRUCTION CO CHMIEL, JOHN A HANCOCK, LELAND W BEVERLY J HANCOCK, LELAND W BEVERLY CDC DEVELOPMENT CO CDC DEVELOPMENT CO CDC DEVELOPMENT CO CDC DEVELOPMENT CO WOODHULL, ROBERT B KIRKHAM, NEAL P LILLIAN DORICH FARMS TSAI, BING L CHO -YUIN JANOVICH, STEVE FRANCES ROLIZ, INC LEPOSAVIC, WAYNE FARR, HASHEM M NASRIN M CRAIK, JAMES K JUDI B GALEB, SLOBODAN MARGARET HEICHER, DONNA A CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, LDS 1985 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA OWNER ADDRESS 535 SHADOW GLEN BOX 667 1500 W. CAPE DR, NO 105 20821 MAUREEN WY 117 LAMA VISTA CT 17920 DAVES AVE 561 TIOGA CT 3000 SAND HILL RD, NO 150 12111 CAROL LN 19161 COX AV P. 0. BOX 21 P. O. BOX 2067 P. O. BOX 2067 P.O. BOX 2067 1700 S EL CAMINO, NO 301 1700 S EL CAMINO NO. 301 P. O. BOX 2067 3333 S BASCOM AV 5622 MADDEN RD 18733 METLER CT 18737 ASPESI DR 107 CAMPANULA PL 107 CAMPANULA PL 1725 ROGERS AV 14140 TEN ACRES CT 14131 TEN ACRES CT 14153 TEN ACRES CT 14175 TEN ACRES CT 18867 KOSICH DR P 0 BOX 512 14450 LELAND CL 14450 LELAND CL 3077 CORVIN DR 3077 CORVIN DR 3077 CORVIN DR 3077 CORVIN DR 18530 SOBEY RD 18630 SOBEY RD 2435 FOREST AV, NO. 200 18668 VESSING CT 7639 PROSPECT RD P. O. BOX 728 18540 VFSSING RD 6861 QUEENSWOOD WY 13449 KODIAC PL 12340 S SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD P. O. BOX 5392 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE ST CITY STATE ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE SAN JOSE, CA 95129 58.21 BELMONT, CA 94002 537.85 SAN MATEO, CA 94404', 311.89 SARATOGA, CA 95070 260.61 LOS GATOS,CA 95030 152.65 MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 282.05 SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 250.15 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 60.30 SARATOGA, CA 95070 186.66 SARATOGA, CA 95070 260.00 SARATOGA, CA 95070 41.38 SARATOGA, CA 95070 41.38 SARATOGA, CA 95070 17.53 SARATOGA, CA 95070 65.07 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 49.08 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 39.27 SARATOGA, CA 95070 1,690.42 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 234.38 LIVE OAK, CA 95953 158.15 SARATOGA, CA 95070 135.16 SARATOGA, CA 95070 53.85 SAN JOSE, CA 95124 518.84 SAN JOSE, CA 95124 130.18 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 258.14 SARATOGA, CA 95070 180.41 SARATOGA, CA 95070 91.77 SARATOGA, CA 95070 50.91 SARATOGA, CA 95070 188.44 SARATOGA, CA 95070 420.12 SARATOGA, CA 95070 145.77 SARATOGA, CA 95070 174.15 SARATOGA, CA 95070 205.14 SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 145.77 SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 185.95 SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 145.77 SANTA CLARA, CA 95051 159.39 SARATOGA, CA 95070 93.96 SARATOGA, CA 95070 25.24 SAN JOSE, CA 95128 57.78 SARATOGA, CA 95070 283.27 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 231.75 SARATOGA, CA 95070 137.16 SARATOGA, CA 95070 214.83 SAN JOSE, CA 95120 238.57 SARATOGA, CA 95070 212.60 SARATOGA, CA 95070 30.44 SAN JOSE, CA 95150 248.91 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150 49.08 APN 397 -15 -016 397 -24 -022 397 -25 -064 397 -28 -043 397 -28 -050 397 -37 -016 503 -09 -006 503 -09 -007 503 -13 -059 503 -14 -032 503 -15 -027 503 -15 -031 503 -17 -008 503 -17 -026 503 -18 -105 503 -18 -106 503 -19 -067 503 -24 -004 503 -24 -042 503 -25 -012 503 -27 -081 503 -28 -117 503 -28 -118 503 -28 -119 503 -28 -120 503 -28 -121 503 -28 -122 503 -28 -123 503 -28 -124 503 -29 -012 503 -29 -078 503 -30 -002 503 -30 -010 503 -30 -030 503 -30 -040 503 -31 -002 503 -51 -003 503 -53 -061 503 -55 -053 503 -55 -054 503 -55 -063 503 -62 -014 503 -62 -015 503 -62 -018 503 -62 -019 503 -62 -020 503 -62 -021 OWNER NAME CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, IDS MOORE, ELLEN C ROBERTSON, CHARLES CLARK, WILLIAM H DOLORES E LEUNG, SAVIO T WALKER, WILLIAM W SHIRLEY A M E V CORP CONE, BETHEL M HORVATH, FRANK J DAGMAR M CONN, MICHAEL L CAROLE A CHADWICK, ALLEN L BARBARA COCCIARDI CORPORATION LISAC, WILLIAM MARIA MARTINEZ, MICHAEL R MARILYN COFFEY, L. D. COFFEY, L. D. TOUGAS, BERNARD E DORIS G CHABRE, AIMEE MASEK, JOSEPH C MICHELLE SARATOGA REAL II ISIDORO, FRANK W RETINA L MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS RIDDER, JOSEPH B KIDDER, JOSEPH B WALKER, THOMAS E SUSAN POLITI, JOSEPH E SANDRA BOHN, ROBERT H GAY M SHEMANN, MARY A DE MARTINI, ALLEN F BARBARA PERASSO, =TILDE M DHAKA, VIR A MOHINI BLAIR, JEROME C ARLENE WEISER, RICHARD A ABBY N SHANAFELT, JOHN J MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC GENO, RICHARD E JOAN GENO, RICHARD E JOAN MC BAIN GIBBS INC OWNER ADDRESS 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE ST 1089 S. DANIEL WY 1181 LOCHINVAR AV, NO 137 19404 SHUBERT DR 14040 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD 19601 KILT CT 22020 MT EDEN RD 409 AIBERTO WY, #3 15209 BLUE GUM CT 1171 CAPRI DR 13539 MANDARIN WY 22631 MT EDEN RD 13850 TEMPLETON PL 5885 DASH CT 5131 MOORPARK AV, #301 5131 MOORPARK AV, #301 20604 WARDELL RD 24550 SANTA CRUZ HY 14482 BIG BASIN WY 14275 SARATOGA AV 15041 PARK DR P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 750 RIDDER PARK DR 750 RIDDER PARK DR 1134 LITPLECAK CL 14447 DEER CANYON LN 20056 KERN CL 5030 E SECOND ST 17TH FL, MILLS TOWER 596 PACIFIC AV 31028 MARNE DRIVE 3549 MAURICIA AV 21216 HAYMEADOW DR 918 VERMONT ST P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 1042 W REDDING ST, #200 1042 W ST, #200 P 0 BOX 908 2. CITY STATE SALT LAKE CITY, UT SAN JOSE, CA SUNNYVALE, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA LOS GATOS, CA SARATOGA, CA CAMPBELL, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA SARATOGA, CA LAS GATOS, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA LONG BEACH, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA RANCHO PAIRS VERDES, SANTA CLARA, CA SARATOGA, CA SAN JOSE, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA HALF MOCK BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 84150 38.14 95128 188.39 94087 193.29 95070 112.00 95070, 223.98 95070 149.32 95070 37.33 95030 74.66 95070 159.39 95008 165.03 95070 634.63 95070 85.40 94022 300.97 95120 597.31 95129 159.34 95129 159.34 95070 244.01 95030 74.66 95070 74.66 95070 175.72 95070 55.81 94019 138.93 94019 149.32 94019 170.11 94019 407.20 94019 212.45 94019 194.37 94019 261.32 94019 278.48 95190 389.49 95131 212.45 95129 163.48 95070 194.37 95070 69.28 90803 219.66 94104 149.32 94133 447.97 CA 90274 78.72 95051 317.82 95070 149.32 95126 127.11 94019 953.86 94019 825.94 94019 149.32 95126 298.65 95126 298.65 94019 149.32 APN 503 -62 -023 503 -62 -024 503 -72 -006 503 -72 -024 503 -75 -008 503 -75 -009 510 -52 -005 517 -08 -023 517 -12 -032 517 -18 -040 517 -18 -041 517 -18 -043 517 -18 -044 517 -18 -045 517 -18 -046 517 -18 -047 517 -22 -037 517 -22 -103 0.41NER NAME MC BAIN GIBBS INC MC BAIN GIBBS INC PARK, JOSEPH C YOUNG J SUDIAW, WILLIAM J BARBARA S COPAN, INC MASTERS, CHAS. T SANDA 0 ROSENDIN, RAYMOND J DIANE C CHRISTIAN, LORRAINE PRONGER, NORMAN BUTLER, GERALD D JUDITH L BUTLER, GERALD D JUDITH L RAPPORT, MARK DEBORAH BUTLER, GERALD D JUDITH L MAISON MONTALVO ASSOC BUTLER, GERALD D JUDITH L BUTLER, GERALD D JUDITH L KOCBER, RAISA R FULDE, WALTER J CATHERINE D OWNER ADDRESS P 0 BOX 908 P 0 BOX 908 1584 MALLARD WY 20758 MAUREEN WY 10880 WILSHIRE BL, #2102 18443 TWIN CREEKS RD 880 MABURY RD 437 LONDON ST 20600 LOMITA AV 15015 VICKERY AV 15015 VICKERY AV 19450 BURGUNDY WY 15015 VICKERY AV NONE SHOWN ON TAX ROLL 15015 VICKERY AV 15015 VICKERY AV 15139 PARK DR 15164 MONTALVO RD 3. CITY STATE HALF M ON BAY, CA HALF MOON BAY, CA SUNNYVALE, CA SARATOGA, CA LOS ANGELES, CA MONTE SERENO, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA, CA Parcel Count: 113 Total Assessments: $23,229.22 ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 94019 138.93 94019 298.65 94087 156.88 95070 74.66 90024 194.74 95030 305.71 95133 261.57 94112 375.19 95070 62.41 95070 191.36 95070 26.51 95070 210.44 95070 23.14 8.41 95070 12.21 95070 58.34 95070 87.86 95070 121.02 AGENDA BILL NO. q 16 DATE: August 21, 1985 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Services C. Mgr. SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROPERTY LIENS Issue Summary: In the Spring of 1984, the City Council adopted Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code outlining financial collection procedures for solid waste disposal accounts in conjunction with the requirement that all Saratoga addresses would have to subscribe to Green Valley's solid waste collection service. Section 7 indicated that each Saratoga homeowner who failed to pay for the service would be turned over to the City for collection. The City, in turn, would achieve collection through the filing of a lien against theDowner of the property. The lien would include the amount of the original bill, interest and late charges added by Green Valley as authorized by ordinance, and a $40 administrative charge imposed by the City to recover the costs associated with the processing of the lien. The attached list is for the billing period starting7December 1 1984._and ending February 28, 1985. RECbMMENDATION In accordance with Section 7 of the Municipal Code, the individuals identified.on:.. the list are eligible to have liens placed on their properties for the amounts indicated due to either the non payment of their refuse bill or non compliance with the City's mandatory refuse collection ordinance. Fiscal Impacts: None known at this time. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. List of candidates for property liens. 2. Summary of August 8, 1985, Administrative Hearing. Council Action: 8/21: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. OTVW ©2 0 Lni 12) REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens DATE: 8/14/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/21/85 PURPOSE In accordance with Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the purpose of this report is to inform the Council of delinquent solid waste disposal accounts which have been referred to the City for collection. Section 7 of the Municipal Code states that the City will attempt collection through the filing of a property lien against the property at the service address, when other means of securing payment have been attempted and have failed. ANALYSIS In the Spring of 1984, the City Council adopted Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code outlining financial collection procedures for solid waste disposal accounts in conjunction with the requirement that all Saratoga addresses would have to subscribe to Green Valley's solid waste collection service. Section 7 indicated that each Saratoga homeowner who failed to pay for the service would be turned over to the City for collection. The City, in turn, would achieve collection through the filing of a lien against the property. The lien would include the amount of the original bill, interest and late charges added by Green Valley as authorized by ordinance, and a $40 administrative charge imposed by the City to recover the costs associated with the processing of the lien. The Municipal Code indicates that individuals who are candidates for the lien proceedings will have a right to two public hearings; an administrative hearing and a hearing before the City Council. The purpose of the administrative hearing is to give individuals who feel they are on the list of delinquent accounts by mistake, the opportunity to show cause why their names should be removed. The purpose of the Council hearing is to give individuals who participated in the first hearing an opportunity to appeal their cases to the City Council. The attached list of delinquent accounts is for those who had not paid their quarterly refuse bill during the months of December, 1984 and January and February, 1985, and have not shown sufficient cause for their names to be removed from the list. Their administrative hearing was held on August 8, 1985, in the City's Community Center. A summary of the hearing is attached. One person attended the hearing, and no one presented sufficient evidence causing a name to be removed for this particular list. Others have submitted written testimony in lieu of attending the administrative hearing, or have called and referenced evidence which was confirmed by Green Valley Disposal, causing their names to be removed from the list (in most cases, payment was made to Green Valley instead of the City when the account was in the process of being transferred to the City for collection). CONCLUSION In accordance with Section 7 of the Municipal Code, the attached list of individuals are eligible to have liens placed on their properties for the amounts indicated due to either the non- payment of their refuse bill or non compliance with the City's mandatory refuse collection ordinance. PREPARED BY: ce Todd Arg' Community Services Director twa12 ACCOUNT 11 ACCOUNT NAME 509119038 Rice 513020341 Rozman 533719743 Shepherd 546020600 Pronger 560518613 Cory 563620730 Shaffer 564712451 De Bar 565413960 Sartino 571414021 Peck /Spaich 576012400 Chisam 584313501 Hann 587519743 Smith 503118427 Pagan ACCOUNT ADD. 19038 Brookhaven Drive 20341 Chateau Dr. 19743 GlenBrea Dr. 20600 Lomita Avenue 18613 Paseo Lado 20730 Prospect Road 12451 Quito Road 13960 Ravenwood Drive 14021 Shadow Oaks Way 12400 Ted Avenue 13501 Ward Way 19743 Yuba Court 18427 Purdue Drive APN 378 -24 -049 393 -08 -030 391 -08 -158 517 -12 -032 391 -15 -020 366 -23 -005 386 -46 -018 403 -23 -001 397 -16 -041 386 -54 -006 391 -11 -080 386 -42 -041 403 -28 -060 PROP. OWNER RICE, George B. Margaret ROZMAN, Hortense E. SHEPHERD, Frank PRONGER, Norman (Trustee) CORY'S PLACE SHAFFER, Lorie L. DE BAR, Lester P Ethel M. et al. SORTINO, Anthony T. Virginia SPAICH, Nedjo Jean CHISAM, Peter H. HANN, Donald R.'& Patricia C. SMITH, Maxie R. Linda J. BROSTROM, Rilda C. et al December February 1985 OWNER ADD. same same same same PO Box same same same same same same same same AMOUNT $209.50 69.96 105.67 127.19 2757, Saratoga 107.14 70.30 147.46 105.67 88.35 70.30 92.15 132.37 30.30 AUGUST 15, 1985 ACCOUNT. NO. NAME 509119038 RICE 513020341 ROSMAN 518118901 TIFFIN 518818788 MCCORMICK 533719743 SHEPHERD 546020600 PRONGER 551113178 EVJEN 553214800 TRAINA 554218491 VICARI 554621777 ZABIELSKI 556419171B 558015043 560518613 563620730 FER 564712451 E BAR 565413960 SARTINO 571414021 PECK /SPAICH 576012400 CHISAM 584313501 HANN 5875197 SMITH 50311:427 PAGAN SARATOGA DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ADDRESS DEC. 84 FEB. 85 AMOUNT 19038 BROOKH EN DR. $209.50 20341 CHAT U DR:. 69.96 18901 DE), N AVE. 70.30 18788 ,00 DU O NDEE AVE. 70.30 19743 /GLEN BRAE DR. $105.67 20 00 LOMITA AVE. $127.19 13178 MCDOLE AVE. 70.30 14800 MONTALVO RD. 68.91 18491 MONTPERE WAY $135.95 21777 MT. EDEN RD. 60.62 19171 OAHU LANE #B 70.30 15043 ORIOLE ROAD 69.96 18613 PASEO LADO $107.14 20730 PROSPECT RD. 70.30 12451 QUITO ROAD $147.46 13960 RAVENWOOD DR. $105.67 14021 SHADOW OAKS WY 88.35 12400 TED AVENUE 70.30 13501 WARD WAY 92.15 19743 YUBA COURT $132.37 18427 PURDUE DR. 30.30 Time: Place: Type: August 8, 1985, 9:21 a.m. Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue Garbage Proceedings The meeting was called to order at 9:21 a.m. City Attorney Hal Toppel, Todd Argow, Community Services Director, Dennis Varni of Green Valley Disposal Company and Mr. David Smith were present. Mr. Toppel explained that the purpose for this hearing was to listen to objections to the imposition of many liens and consider adjustment of charges but not to consider the merits or wisdom of the ordinance as a whole or any philosophical arguments pertaining thereto. David Smith explained that he paid what he thought he owed and that the amount owned was never in dispute. What was in dispute was procedures and service. Some of the concerns raised had already been addressed at the City Council Meeting, and those concerns are not the current issue at this hearing this morning. Mr. Smith stated that he just wished to go over some points of concern to make sure they are correct. When he first moved into Saratoga seven years ago, he took up garbage service, it wasn't provided, he cancelled it and everybody went away happy. Then, sometime in October, he received a note on his door that he was going to be receiving service and to please call Green Valley. Mr. Smith called Dennis Varni, and Dennis explained that the service was mandatory. Despite his objections, Mr. Smith was signed up for Garbage removal. He currently disposes of his own garbage on a daily basis, himself, which was much cheaper than paying the $10.00 /mo. charge. The service was constantly interruped, and his garbage wasn't picked up for 4 weeks. Since the garbage wasn't picked up, he refused to pay his bill. He was then enlightened that he would pay the bill whether or not his garbage was picked up or not. If the bill was not paid, it would then be passed onto the City for collection. He stated that he had discussed this situation with Dennis with the suggestion that a new contract should be written stating that on a Friday pickup, if Green Valley is called before 2:00 p.m. they would have to come out and pick up, if there are more than three cans, bags etc. He did not feel it reasonable for Dennis to come out and pick up one can. The ordinance currently states that if Green Valley misses a customer on the pick up day, they must pick up on Friday. However, Dennis stated that if the customer will not be home on that Friday, the customer would be asked if they could possibly wait until the following Monday. That is a modification of the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that the contract states that if Green Valley misses a house, and the customer calls, Green Valley has to go back and pick up regardless of whether there are three cans or just one. Mr. Smith had called Todd Argow about the fact that his garbage had not been picked up. Todd called Dennis and 1 they came out and picked up Mr. Smith's garbage. Green Valley missed the pick up the very next week. Dennis Varni made the point that Mr. Smith's garbage was not out every week. Mr. Smith stated that all he wants to do is to get the bugs out of the system and make it easier for the next person. Mr. Varni stated that there are some bugs in the system, but they are trying to work those out so everyone will be satisfied. Mr. Smith stated that the other part to this process, and stated again that he understands that it is a learning process; he got a notice that his bill had not been paid (even though his garbage had not always been picked up). He doubled the amount of the bill and sent it in. He called Green Valley to verify the amount he owed to make sure he had paid enough. Green Valley informed him that he was now paid ahead, and that his next statement would reflect the amount he had paid ahead. Dennis Varni explained that a portion of the amount due had been assigned to the City, therefore, Green Valley's books would show a zero balance due, thus reflecting an overpayment on Mr. Smith's account. Dennis Varni explained that when a customer calls in to check on an account, that it should reflect on the computer that a certain amount had been transferred to the City for collection. This amount did not show up, therefore, the City still showed an amount outstanding. This amount was subject to a lien by the City. Dennis Varni explained that they were working these problems out so this situation would not keep reoccurring. Todd Argow stated that he will be sending out a letter explaining that the customers must deal with the City when paying so the accounts will be credited properly. Mr. Smith made the suggestion that if Green Valley received a paymentto be credited on an account that Green Valley should at least look and see if any money is owed to the City. Dennis Varni stated that there is now a code "09" that comes up on the computer to tell the operator that a "balance due" has been assigned to the City for collection. Mr. Smith stated that he had to send his amount due to a post office box, therefore, he could not obtain a receipt that the bill had been paid. He feels that he either wants to mail it in or stop by the City Offices to pay the bill so his account will reflect the credit properly. Dennis Varni stated they they will all be sitting down to iron out all the bugs so the collections system will flow smoothly. Mr. Smith stated he received notice that one may now have bundles but that the rates are being redistributed. Mr. Smith suggested that the next time notices are sent, they should state how those bundles are to be tied. Dennis Varni explained that they don't care how they are tied just as long as they hold the refuse. He also stated that if customers use small boxes instead of bundles that two boxes will be considered like a can. Todd strongly suggested that when calling into Green Valley, obtain the name of the person who handled the problem so he can inform Dennis Varni of the problem. If Green Valley has the names of the people who were talked to, the matter will be 2 handled in a more expedient manner. Hal Toppel moved that since no lien had been put against Mr. Smith's property and with no one further appearing to speak, the hearing was declared adjourned at 10:00 a.m. PREPARED BY: 3