Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1985 City Council Agenda packet7-,)-/71 4 e,.,f AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/26/85 (9/3/85); DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Issue Summary Recommendation Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 9/4: Approved. 9iq CITY OF SARATOGA Final Map approval, RE -2, Keith Mueller Montalvo Drive 1. This is an over 50% expansion to an existing single family house. 2. This application is in compliance with new exemption process for over 50% expan- ..f_L_sion to an existing single family house. 1. Resolution No. RE-2-01. 2. Staff Report. 3. Location Map. Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. 3. All conditions for the City and other_depar ments.have been- met.;- Adopt Resolution RE -2 -01 attached, approving Final Parcel Map for Keith Mueller. RESOLUTION NO. RE -2 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Keith Mueller The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.467 acres parcel shown as Parcel "A" on the Final Map prepared by Kevin Fisher and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga', be approved as one individual building site. 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: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR July 10, 1985 oauw ©g• TV o C� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Mr. and Mrs. Keith Mueller 14840 Montaluo Oriue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and'Mrs. Mueller: 4. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. uieu as required at driveway and access road intersections. 6. Engineered Improvement Plans required for 1. Street Improvements COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Fanelli John Mallory David Moyles File: RE -2 2. Submit "Irreuocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. Half Street on Montaluo Driue. 3. Improve Montaluo Drive to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section 20 feet between centerline and flouline. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter <R -36). 3. Undergrounding Existing Ouerhead Utilities, if required. 5. Prouide adequate_sight distance and renoue obstructions of 7. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improuement Plans. 8. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improuements to be completed within one <1) year from date of Agreement. 9. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required The Saratoga Community Development Department has considered your request for Exemption from Building Site Approual at 14840 Montaluo Drive. After careful review of this request, it has been approued subject to the following conditions which are to be done prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation <Pay required checking and recordation fees). <If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). improuements. RSS:KK 10. Submit plans shooing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Ualley Uater District for reuiew and certification. 11. Tree remoual prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. No development or pauing shall occur under the dripline of an oak tree unless approued by City Horticulturalist. No building may occur within 8 -10" of a tree unless in a manner approved by Community Development Department. Prior to issuance of any permit, protective fencing must be placed around trees and the new foundations staked. The fencing and staking are to be check by a planner prior to issuance of a permit. 12. Comply with requirements of Saratoga Fire District. This decision is subject to a 10 -day (calendar) appeal period, during which time you may appeal the decision. For assistance in completing these conditions, Idnani of the Engineering Diuision at 867 -3438. please contact Hrjan also be able to respond to question also Idnani will conditions. s you may have regarding the Uery truly you Robert S. Sh ok Director of Community Deuelo,pment. cc: Arjan Idnani` Fran Curtis Stephen U. Sanborn, 10340 Alpine Driue, U 3, Cupertino, CA z O r a •-e..-,.,.-e-E AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/26/85 (9/4/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1371 Vaccaro Issue Summary Recommendation Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action The one year maintenance period for the subject SDR has expired and all deficiencies have been corrected. At this time, the City must take action to accept the streets offered on the Parcel Map and release improvement bond. 1. Adopt resolution 36 -B. 2. Authorize release of the attached described improvement bond. The City assumes future maintenance responsibility of Sobey Road. 1. Resolution 36 -B. 2. Memo describing bond. 9/4: Approved Resolution 36 -B -215. CITY OF SARATOCA RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- Sobey Road RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS It appearing that on or about November 1979 the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviison 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 dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of SDR No. 1371 recorded in Book 436 of Maps, at Page 4 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on February 26 19 79 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: That certain Receipt No. 48270,36664dated 2/29/79 issued by Cash 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: CITY CLERK MAYOR and MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR 1371 Receipt, )ov0c i( ciZg c i a( No.: RSS /dsm 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Location: 14950 Sobey Road, Saratoga The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR 1371 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 36 B 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: 1. Developer: Savero, °Vaccar.ro Address: 7107 Pelican Island Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33614 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3. Improvement Security: Type: Amount: Issuing Co: Address: 5. Special Remarks: Cash $5825.00 Saverio Vaccarro 4. Miles of Public Street: 7107 Pelican Island Drive Tampa, Florida, 33614 48270 and 36664 October 6, 1982 Rober Shook DATE: August 26, 1985 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 8/30/85 (9/4/85) SUBJECT: Recommendation Fiscal Impacts DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA 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 l8, 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 9/4: Consensus to agendize for September 18, along with appeal. 9/18: Adopted Resolution 2273 3 -2. lila Or li/5 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. PA 5. Memorandum to City Council dated 4/2/84 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AND ORDERING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 19288 BAINTER AVENUE WHEREAS, GEORGE HWANG and HELEN HWANG "Petitioners have submitted a petition for annexation to the City of Saratoga of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as 19288 Bainter Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council is the duly designated conducting authority for proceedings to annex said property, pursuant to Sections 56250.5, 35150.5 and Article 2 (commencing with Section 35220) of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 56250.5 and 35150.5 of the Government Code the City Council has found and determined as follows: (a) That the petition has been executed by all of the owners of the territory to be annexed; (b) That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to the existing limits of the City of Saratoga and located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission "the Commission (c) That the territory to be annexed is uninhabited, as defined in Section 35038 of the Government Code; (d) That the surveyor for the County of Santa Clara has determined the boundaries of said property to be definite and certain, and in compliance with any applicable road annexation policies of the Commission; (e) That the proposed annexation will not split lines of assessment or ownership; (f) That the proposed annexation will not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services; (g) That the proposed annexation is consistent with the General Plan as adopted by the City; (h) That no conditions have been imposed by the Commission, or remain to be satisfied by the City, for inclusion of said property in the City's urban service area; (i) That the land use designation of the territory to be annexed, as contained in the City's General Plan, has not been changed from the WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves and orders that the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly known as 19288 Bainter, be and the same hereby is reorganized and annexed to the City of Saratoga, such annexation to be effective on the date this resolution is adopted. The City Council, as conducting authority, reorganized such property as indicated above without notice or hearing, it being found that the territory annexed hereby is uninhabited and all of the owners of such territory have filed a written petition for the City Council to initiate such reorganization. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk time the City's urban service area was adopted by the Commission; and s s s Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of September, 1985, by the following vote: Mayor EXHIBIT "A" All that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at a 4 "x 4" stake set at the most Southerly corner of that certain 17.00 acre tract of land Deeded to J.W. Rowe by Mrs_ Delilah Bainter by Deed dated June 7, 1887 and recorded in Book 101 of Deeds, Page 514, in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, said stakes being also in the Southwesterly line of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos and running thence along the Southwesterly line of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos being also the Southwesterly line of said 17.00 acre tract, North 45 °15' West 313.24 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 68 °15' East 292.08 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 87 °04' East 39.60 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 56 °34' East 80.25 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 32 °48' East 206.44 feet to an iron pipe and an angle point in the boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence along said boundary line South 60 °47' East 274.07 feet to an iron pipe set in the Southeasterly line of said 17.00 acre tract and another angle point in said boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence leaving said boundary line of the City of Saratoga and running along said Southeasterly line South 51° West 651.55 feet to the place of beginning and being a portion of said 17.00 acre tract and in the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 510- 24 -006 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dated: 2 aS PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA The undersigned, constituting all of the owners of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as 19288 Bainter Avenue, do hereby represent, request and petition as follows: (a) The petition is submitted pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977, commencing with Section 35000 of the Government Code. (b) The nature of the proposed change of organization is the annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the City of Saratoga. (c) The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. (d) The territory to be annexed is uninhabited, as defined in Section 35038 of the Government Code. (e) This petition is required by reason of the policy of the County of Santa Clara that owners of property within the urban service area of a city who wish to develop such property, must first request annexation to the city and such request must be rejected before the County will process a development proposal. (f) The undersigned collectively hold one hundred percent (10096) of the ownership interest in the territory to be annexed. (g) It is hereby requested that procedings be taken for annexation of said property pursuant to Section 35150.5 and Sections 35220 through 35229 of the Government Code. ORGE C f /urat HELEN HWANG EXHIBIT "A" All th:;t certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: BEGINJNING at a 4 "x 4" stake set at the most Southerly corner of that certain 17.00 acre tract of land Deeded to ,Rowe by Mrs. Delilah Bainter by Deed dated June 7, 1887 and recorded in Book 101 of Deeds, Page 514, in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, said stakes being also in the Southwesterly line of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos and running thence along the Southwesterly line of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos being also the Southwesterly line of said 17.00 acre tract, North 45 °15' West 313.24 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 68 °15' East 292.08 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 87 °04' East 39.60 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 56 °34' East. 80:-25 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 32 °48' East 206.44 feet to an iron pipe and an angle point in the boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence along said boundary line South 60 °47' East 274.07 feet to an iron pipe set in the Southeasterly line of,said 17.00 acre tract and another angle point in said boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence leaving said boundary line of the City of Saratoga and running along said Southeasterly line South 51° West 651.55 feet to the place of beginning and being a portion of said 17.00 acre tract and in the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 510 -24 -006 County of Santa Clara California Ms. Grace E. Cory, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 August 20, 1985 The attached map and description of territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Saratoga entitled BAINTER 85 -1 is in accordance with Government Code Section 35150.5/56250.5. The boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. Attachment c LAFCO Executive Officer (.w /attafchment An Equal Opportunity Employer JAMES F. SIRR County Surveyor Department of Planning and Development Office of the County Surveyor County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299 -2871 Annexation to City of Saratoga Name of Annexation Date February 26, 1985 EXHIBIT "A" BAINT ER 1 3 1 1 All that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at a 4 "x: 4" stake set at the most Southerly corner of that certain 17.00 acre tract of land Deeded to J.W. Rowe by Mrs. Delilah Bainter by Deed dated June 7, 1887 and recorded in Book 101 of Deeds, Page 514, in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, said stakes being also in the Southwesterly line of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos and running thence along the Southwesterly line of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos being also the Southwesterly line of said 17.00 acre tract, North 45 °15' West 313.24 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 68 °15' East 292.08 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 87 °04' East 39.60 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 56 °34' East 80.25 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 32 °48' East 206.44 feet to an iron pipe and an angle point in the boundary line of the City of Saratoga; as established by City's Annexation of Bainter ##1 79; thence along said boundary line South 60 °47' East 274.07 feet to an iron pipe set in the Southeasterly line of said 17.00 acre tract and another angle point in said boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence leaving said boundary line of the City of Saratoga and running along said Southeasterly line South 51° West 651.55 feet to the place of beginning and being a portion of said 17.00 acre tract and in the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos. Revisit ;date; POINT OF BEGINNING S 51 00' W I 7. PROPOSED ANNEXATION APN 510 24 00 6 3.39 AC. 651,55 4 r L 1 I CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIN '1 ANNEXATION Bainter #1 -79 aaa P p H�DOEN NIEL PROPOSED ANNEXATION LOCATION MAP BOUNDARY LINE OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION EXISTING CITY LIMIT LINE EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO CITY OF SARATOGA BRINTER 85 -1 ENTITLED DATE: FEB. 1985 SCALE: I 100' JOB No 2629 M 11 MEMORANDUM April 2, 1984 To: City Council From: Senior Planner Re: Requests for Annexation for -Site on Private Road off of Bainter Ave. -Site on Prospect Road 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. LU.1.2 (Imp) 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 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. 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. Kat y Ker us Senior Planner Annex Saratoga City Council Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Denial of Annexation and Denial of Design Approval of the Hwang Property Dear Council Members: Arthur J. Slemmons 19655 Redbery Drive Los Gatos, California 95030 September 12, 1985 The citizens of Saratoga deserve well thought -out plans for both zoning and annexation. "Spot Annexation" and "Spot Zoning" without adequate planning for either are the opposite of good government. Varience for Excessive slope and Cut and Fill "Building sites and potential access must not be on land greater than 30% slope." The proposed building site is on a 32% slope. Further, the The city of Saratoga can do better than re -zone or spot annex at the whim or convenience of a land developer or land- owner and can do long -term harm to the taxpayers of Saratoga for such un- planned and precipitate actions. The undersigned therefore urge that the Saratoga City Council deny the proposed spot annexation of the Hwang property on the 32% slope mountainside above Bainter Avenue. We have heard many times that Saratoga is stricter than the County for approving construction. The only reason the builder and landowner are before the Saratoga Planning Commission and Saratoga City Council is the County's General Plan (Section E; Constructed Environment, p. -9) specifically states: above section of the County's General Plan also prohibits Summary "Excessive cuts and fills To give you an idea of the excessive cutting and filling for the proposed building, the building will require a cut of 2250 cubic yards (about 375 truck loads) and a fill of 600 cubic yards (about 100 truck loads). The reason the builder and landowner are before you at all is because they believe you will be more lenient than the County. The Saratoga Planning Commission has already proven them correct in this assumption and this is why we are appealing their action to allow the proposed large building on this high slope site. The reason they want to be annexed into Saratoga is so they can make this more lenient decision possible by being under Saratoga's jurisdiction. We oppose the proposed building approval and spot annex- ation without adequate planning as being a disservice to the citizens and taxpayers of Saratoga and your neighbors. Very truly yo rs, J. Slemmons Margaret B\ Slemmons 2 SbAlKtis .;R yini -Amu p ramilirrAlk r)J1ro pm t 0I 6 i _0 SOUTHEAST URBAN `SERVICE AREA, APPEAL SUMMARY OF APPELLANTS OF WHANG PROPOSAL 9/18/85 I. ANNEXATION A) IS THERE A VALID REASON TO ANNEX THIS PROPERTY? ANNEXATION IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN AREA THAT IS UNDEVELOPED. THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS ALREADY DEVELOPED IN THE COUNTY B)UNLESS SARATOGA HAS STUDIED THE WHOLE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH THE INTENT OF ANNEXING THE WHOLE OF THE SOUTHEAST URBAN SERVICE AREA, HOW CAN ANNEXATION OF ONE PIECE AT A TIME BE JUSTIFIED? C) ANNEXATION OF THIS PARCEL WILL CREATE A "CHERRY STEM OR "STRING BEAN" TYPE APPENDAGE ONTO THE SARATOGA CITY BOUNDARY. D) DOES SARATOGA WISH TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS UNSTABLE LAND PARCEL WHEN NEARLY ALL THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN THE COUNTY? COUNTY RESIDENTS WILL BE HEAVILY IMPACTED BY EARTH SLIPPAGE AND SLIDES AND WATER RUN -OFF PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. II. A) NEGATIVE DECLARATION THERE WILL BE CONSIDERABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CREATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. EXCAVATING AND BUILDING ON THIS STEEP HILLSIDE LOT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT OF ADJACENT RESIDENCES: OCCLUSION OF SUNLIGHT, INCREASED WATER AND SOIL RUN -OFF, INCREASED PROBABILITY OF LANDSLIDES AND SLIPPAGE, IMPAIRMENT OF VISUAL, ESTHETIC AND RURAL QUALITIES OF THE AREA. SDR1605 SARATOGA'S STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTING LARGE BUILDINGS ON HILLSIDE SLOPES IN UNSTABLE AREAS ARE EXCEEDED IN THIS PROJECT. A) THE AMOUNT OF GRADING IS EXCESSIVE TO THE POINT OF ENDANGERING DOWNSIDE RESIDENCES. B)THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND THE APPEARANCE OF BULK ARE CONTRARY TO SARATOGA'S HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT WILL BE EXPERIENCED FOR GREAT DISTANCES. C)THE SITING OF THIS PROJECT IS IN A VERY PROMINENT PART OF THE. HILLSIDE PROPERTY AND PLACED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CREATE GEOLOGIC HAZARDS FOR SURROUNDING RESIDENTS, DESTROY VIEWS, AND OCCLUDE SUNLIGHT. DESIGN REVIEW(A1102) THE SARAGOGA CITY PLANNING STAFF HAVE DONE A PROFESSIONAL, THOROUGH AND SENSITIVE ANALYSIS. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, EXCERPTS IF THIS PROJECT IS DENIED IN ENTIRITY, SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN REGULATIONS REGARDING THIS PROJECT WILL APPLY: D2, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, POLICY REGARDING VISIBLE SCARS ON THE LANDSCAPE D25,.. DENY CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES WHICH EXCEED 30 E5, CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT POLICY #4,.. NO URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN UNSUITABLE AREAS,.. (i.e., WATERSHED LANDS GENERALLY ABOVE 15% SLOPE.) E7, "CHERRY STEM ANNEXATION" E16 AND E17, INCORPORATION AND DISINCORPORATION OF CITIES.(ZEROX COPY OF THESE SECTIONS ATTACHED). F 20, HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION, #1D," ADOPTING COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STRICTER THAN THOSE OF THE SURROUNDING CITY" CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT POLICIES I. County zoning within urban service areas shall be sufficiently more restrictive than city zoning for comparable areas so as to discourage unincorporated development. 2.* No development applications, use per- mits or rezonings to more intensive urban districts shall be occepted on any parcel of land which is within an urban service area and contiguous to city, unless the land is suited for urban development and unless annexation was applied for and rejected by a city. 3." When an application for annexation of a parcel of land suitable for urban development and contiguous to o city hos been denied, the County will consider development appli- cations, urban use permits, and rezonings to urban districts only under the following conditions: a. The use will not require on increase in the level or type of services provided by government to the site or area. b. The proposed'iise'i`s compatible with the general plan of the city and the density of the use conforms to the County General Plana c. The design of the proposed project meets the design standards of the city or County, whichever ore higher, and has been reviewed and commented on by the city. 4.• For land within an urban service area of o city which is suitable for urban develop- ment and which connot be annexed by the city becouse it is not contiguous to the city, development applications, urban use permits, and rezonings to urban districts shall be approved only under the following conditions: a. The use will not require an increase in the level or type of services provided by government to the site or area. b. The proposed use is compatible with the general plan of the city and the density of use conforms to the density of the County General Plan. c. The design of the proposed project meets the design standards of the city or County, whichever are more restrictive, and has been reviewed and commented on by the city. d. The land use is existing and is com- patible with the applicable general plon and in such event subdivisions b. and c. hereof shall be inoperative, except that the proposal has been reviewed and com- mented upon by the city. Existing uses may be recognized and on application for a minor modification may be permitted. *As arnerided 15, I981. 5. Core should be taken so the quality and integrity of existing residential neighbor hoods is preserved. t•unso 1 nut, 1 cu crm V inure VI I'1 1 IMPLEMENTATION I. Review and omend the County Zoning Ordinance in urban residential districts inside urban service areas to apply larger lot sizes than comparable city zoning. Urban residen- tial districts shall include the following per- mitted uses: a. Single family residences which hove a minimum building site of 20 acres, or b. Agricultural uses. c. More intensive uses are subject to a use permit specified for each residential zone. (Implementor: County) 2. Amend the County Zoning Ordinance in non residential urban districts so that all uses are subject to a use permit, and the uses. allowable by permit would be specified. (Implementor: County) 3. Issuance of a use permit in any county zoning district should be subject to the fol- lowing conditions: a. The use is consistent with the city gen- eral plan and development standards, b. The proposed use will not interfere with the city's orderly growth and the effi- cient and economic provision of public services in the area, c. The proposed use will not require or benefit from city services, d. For land contiguous to unincorporated land, a proposal for annexation hos been denied by the city, the Local Agency Formation Commission, and all reason- able measures to make the annexation acceptable to these bodies have been token by the opplicont and .the,cit.y as requested the County to consider the app lca:tion. e. The public health and safety will not be endangered by the lack of city services in the proposed project. Note: The County should charge fees com- parable to those charged by the cities. (Implementor: County) 4. Consider a full cost recovery fee sched- ule for processing of development proposals in the unincorporated territory. (Implementor: County) 5. Require dedicated easements for roads, sewers, and utilities that are compatoble with city prezoning and master plans. (Implementor: County) Initial: AGENDA BILL NO: qZ 6" Dept. Head: DATE: September 4, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Purchase of Car for City Manager Issue Summary After looking into purchasing a used car through a car rental company and checking with new car dealers the availability and prices of new cars, I have located what I believe will best fit the City's needs. The attached appropriation resolution will provide funds to purchase a new 1985 Chevrolet "Celebrity" along with a 2 -way radio for the City Manager's use. The car will be purchased from Cerrito 'Chevrolet in Los Gatos. The total cost including sales tax is $11,239.17. The 2 -way radio is to be purchased from the General Electric Company for a total installed price of $1,200. Recommendation Adopt Appropriation Resolution No. Approve the purchase of one 1985 Chevrolet "Celebrity" from Cerrito Chevrolet for $11,239.17. Fiscal Impact The funds are being appropriated from the General Fund Reserve. Attachments Appropriation Resolution No. P.O. #20005 to Cerrito Chevrolet Invoice for 1985 Chevrolet "Celebrity" Council Action 9/4: Approved Resolution 22241.5. City Atty: City Mgr: Subsidiary: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2241.5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1985 -86 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it is recommended that the following adjustment be made increasing the present budget appropriations: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2241.0 be amended as follows: Transfer: $12,450.00 from general ledger account 21 -2909 general fund reserve for appropriations increases, to general ledger account 21 -2940, general fund appropriations. Fund 21 General Fund Program 880 City Manager's Car (21- 4550 880 -72) Purpose: To increase appropriations to purchase a city car for the City Manager's use. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of ,by the following vote: Mayor TO DEPARTMENT errito Chevrolet 6151 Los Gatos Boulevard os Gatos, CA 95030 Maintenance Dan TrL ad, Jt Director of Maintenanc ORDER TITLE 1. SEND TWO COPIES OF INVOICE. PURCHASE ORDER COTY SAR nk. TOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. PHONE 867 -3438 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 We will not assume responsibility for marterial shipped not covered by this order or not shipped according to instructions. PURCHASING OFFICER DIVISION NAME FUND NO 21 ACCOUNT NO. 4550 PROGRAM NO. 880 DELIVERY TO THIS ORDER NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY CLERK I CERTIFY THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THIS ORDER. AND THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR THE PAYMENT rHEREOF Harry Peacock, City Manager INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS CLAIM NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ORDER PROMPTLY, ADVISING WHEN SHIPMENT WILL BE MADE OR WORK PERFORMED. 3. SHOW PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES. DELIVERY SLIPS AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THIS ORDER. 5 DATE September 4, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9507C DIVISION NO 72 VENDOR'S COP QUANTITY ARTICLES AND DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE ..MOUNT Purchase of: Vehicle ID #1G1AW19W6F6305162 Celebrity 4 -door sedan dark blue metallic Stock #8249 am /fm cassette installed $10,503.90 Tax 735.27 Total $11,239.17 TO DEPARTMENT errito Chevrolet 6151 Los Gatos Boulevard os Gatos, CA 95030 Maintenance Dan TrL ad, Jt Director of Maintenanc ORDER TITLE 1. SEND TWO COPIES OF INVOICE. PURCHASE ORDER COTY SAR nk. TOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. PHONE 867 -3438 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 We will not assume responsibility for marterial shipped not covered by this order or not shipped according to instructions. PURCHASING OFFICER DIVISION NAME FUND NO 21 ACCOUNT NO. 4550 PROGRAM NO. 880 DELIVERY TO THIS ORDER NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY CLERK I CERTIFY THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THIS ORDER. AND THAT FUNDS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR THE PAYMENT rHEREOF Harry Peacock, City Manager INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS CLAIM NO. PURCHASE ORDER NO. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ORDER PROMPTLY, ADVISING WHEN SHIPMENT WILL BE MADE OR WORK PERFORMED. 3. SHOW PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES. DELIVERY SLIPS AND ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THIS ORDER. 5 DATE September 4, 1985 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 9507C DIVISION NO 72 VENDOR'S COP ;A I 06 033 i1G1AW 19W6F6305162 TYD' Options and Erit•a Eouip ,.)1 9 J1 AB32 AB33 AC49 AC6 0 AD6 5 AK34 AL56 AE1X1 AN33 AQFF AUF 7 AYFS AZI7 A27D A31L 1544.00 ExDrra! on of Transit Time Description CELEBRITY 4 -DOOR SEDAN 0101TINTED GLASS 010!COLOR KEYED FLOOR MATS -FRT ONLY 010!COLOR KEYED FLOOR MATS -RR ONLY 020' ELECTRIC REAR WINDOW DEFOGGER 010LAIR CONDITIONING 020iSPORT MIRRORS LH REM RH MAN 0101ELEC SPEED CONTROL W /RESUME SPD 01012.8 LITER MFI V6 020'AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION. 010 COMFORTILT STEERING WHEEL. 010 P185/75R -14 ALS S/B RAD W/S 010 GAGE PACKAGE W /TRIP ODOMETER 010 CALIFORNIA EMISSION REQUIREMNTS 010 EXTERIOR MOLDING PACKAGE 060 CDD6 BLUE CLOTH BENCH 010 DARK BLUE METALLIC AM /FM Stereo Radio w /cassette Suggested 9etad F• 1044 TNS KEY NOS. 4A46 8C52 TIME 2.0 D Vi A r e, on .enicIe and oouonist eowpmenl inc uae reimoursement to Chevrolet Motor Division tor any tax tnat It nas oaxl inCurreo or aoreeo to oa'v tnereon mrmw 't l not r•+ "t the ultimate Cost Ot the vehicle in view of the ooss,bd!ty of tuture rec•ares. allowances. Ciscoun7s and ircen• awards !rem r martyr i. lures• r_ r••= d -a mwomxr Uir In Amt Dir no Amt iJezt na non I T Ret: Model j •Model D H ODt A dv Option D H Invoice Total Less Moldoa Bess GI Amt memo inv Bess r I Cnarge For Dealer Acct; For .Adv I 'tioidea-x Aov 7295.80 1 .00 2324.60 .00 414.0 10034.401 333.901 50.001 9650.50 Dealers CERRITO CHEVROLET Name and Address 16151 LOS GATOS BLVD 18/19/85 LOS GATOS CA 95030 -4515 Hi 08/09/85 08/22/85! 2i7 5 DI(' Inv Amt Gar 5 Options 6454.00 7295.80 115.00 97.75 17.00 14.45 12.00 10.20 145.00 123.25 750.00 637.50 61.00 51.85 175.00 148.75 510.00 433.50 450.00 382.50 115.00 97.75 58.00 49.30 64.00 54.40 99.00 84.15 55.00 46.75 50.00 42.50 N/C N/C 219.50 'C H A incur)! 00 7295.80 00 97.75 .00 14.45 00 10.20 00 123.25 00 637.50 00 51.85 .00 148.75 00 433.50 00 382.50 00 97.75 00 49.30 00 54.40 00 84.15 00 46.75 00 42.50 N/C N/C (dent No I ABA Dealer Routing No Order No I interest Date 1716421 12100035 8FM663 08/26/85 bF -A QUARL=RLY UY: -1