Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-1985 City Council Agenda packethz.-v- 4 17,1S' AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: November 6, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Community Services SUBJECT: Issue Summary: In the Spring of 1984, the City Council adopted Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code which included the madatory refuse collection requirements for all Saratoga addresses. Section 7 also indicated that each Saratoga homeowner who failed to pay for the service would be turned over to the Ctiy for collection The City, in turn, would achieve collection through the filing of a lien against the owner 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 :.th.e:Lien..,. The list of delinquent accounts attached to this report is for the June through August, 1985, quarter. Recommendation: 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. The appropriate Council action should be the confirmation of the report by the Community Services Director Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. List of candidates for property liens. 2. Summary of 10/14/85 Administrative Hearing 3. Correspondence from Ms. Jean Denny Council Action: 11/20: Approved. 963 CITY OF SARATOGA Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens; Quarterly Period of June, July, and August, 1985 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. 'eV— y November 7, 1985 Account No. 512212725 Name/ Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens June, July, and August, 1985 Quarter Saratoga Delinquent Accounts Page 1 Mail Address Amount of Service Address Lien 504718626 Mildred B. McGill 18626 Aspesi Dr. $70.30 same 505012775 Kenneth Gloria Levy 1_2775 Bach Ct. 70.30 same 509119038 George B. Margaret Rice 19038 Brookhaven Dr. 94.20 same 512114595 Terrence J. Trudy A. Pose 14595 Carnelian Glen Ct. 70.30 same Bock Juana L. Dong 12755 Carniel Ave. 70.30 27805 Lupine Rd. Los Altos, CA 94022 513020341 Hortense E. Rozman 20341 Chateau Dr. 70.30 same 514021142 Mun K. Helen Lee 21142 Chiquita Way 63.45 same 514519804 Patricia A. Perdichizzi 19804 Colby Ct. 70.30 same 518118645 William L. Weeks 18645 Devon Ave. 70.30 3760 Macbeth Dr. San Jose, CA 95127 518118901 Nelson Medeye Keyes 18901 Devon Ave. 70.30 same 518818788 Nezir Medic 18788 Dundee Ave. 70.30 same 533719743 Frank Shepherd 19743 Glen Brae Dr. sane 545914057 April Elliott 14057 Lorro Rio Dr. same 550513250 Janet Danner 13250 McCulloch Ave. same 70.30 66.59 94.20 November 7, 1985 Account No. Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens June, July, and August, 1985 Quarter Saratoga Delinquent Accounts Name Amount of Mailing Address Service Address Lien 553019466 Leroy E. Murray 19466 Miller Ct. 70'.30 same 554218491 Karl F. Hendrika A. Stahl :.18491 Montpere Way 70.30 same 554912625 Dennis J. Joann B. Caton 12625 Nantucket Ct. 70.30 (trustees) 1601 Vickers Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80907 556419171B Richard Christine Tassara 19171 Oahu Lane #B 70.30 same 560518613 Cory's Place 18613 Paseo Lado 70.30 P. 0. Box 2142 Saratoga, CA 95070 561014281 564712451 564715500 568118663 575613750 577120423 580313250 581813360 &&gene J. Meyer, Jr. 14281 Paul Ave. same Lester P. Ethel M. 12451 Quito Rd. DeBar et al sane Guido Teresa Schiltz 15500 Quito Rd. P. 0. Box 32660 San Jose, CA 95152 Doughlas M. Betty Waldrop 18663 San Palo Ct. 1273 Colleen Way Campbell, CA 95008 Sidhartha G. Anuradha 13750 Surrey Lane L. Maitra same Milka Persa Kralj 20423 Thelma Ave. same John N. I. J. Denny 13250 Via Arriba Dr. same William D. Betty L. Cole 13360 Via Ranchero Dr. 1060 Minnesota Ave. San Jose, CA 95125 Page 2 70.30 94.20 47.47 70.30 70.30 70.30 56.29 70.30 November 7, 1985 Account No. 590218360 Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens June, July, and August, 1985 Quarter Saratoga Delinquent Accounts Page 3 Name/ Amount of Mailing Address Service Address Lien 584313472 Richard E. Ippisch 13472 Ward Way 70130 same Patricia A. Boro 850 Dairy Rd. Auburn, CA 95603 '48360 Baylor Ave. 70.30 LIEN HEARING FOR REFUSE BILL DELINQUENCIES October 14, 1985 10:00 am City Staff Present: Todd W. Argow, Community Services Director Hal Toppel, City Attorney The purpose of the hearing is to discuss delinquent garbage accounts for the June July- August 1985 quarter and any other quarter that payment may be delinquent, to determine if there are any problems or adjustments that are appropriate. Jane Alesso, 12669 Quito Road, Saratoga, was present and stated that the service address was occupied by a tenant and she had no idea that the bill had not been paid. Ms. Alesso said that this was the first notice of delinquency she had received; all other notices being sent to the tenant at the service address. Mr. Argow said that since this was the first notice that Ms. Alesso, the property owner, had received, the administrative fee would be waived. Ms. Alesso said she would stop by City Hall and pay the delinquent garbage account immediately. Mr. Argow then read into the record letters or phone calls he had received frcm refuse service subscribers and /or property owners of service addresses. Mr. Argow stated he had designed a form for garbage production by which people can indicate that they are not producing garbage. He said he had spoken with Mr. Norman Pronger, 20600 Lamita; Mr. Pronger is 65 and lives on a fixed income. He filled out the garbage exemption form and indicated he does not produce garbage nor want service. Mr. Pronger received a lien notice. Mr. Argow had one of the Community Service Officers investigate the property and it was found that Mr. Pronger has a son who also lives on the property and who produces garbage. Mr. Norman Pronger's contention that he does not generate garbage is not valid, therefore the application for exemption from mandatory garbage service will be denied. Mr. Argow will waive past charges as a good faith effort on the part of the City, but Mr. Pronger will be required to sign up for garbage service; he is eligible for senior citizen rate. Mr. Argow stated a Mr. Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, telephoned. He was upset. He attended the last garbage hearing proceedings and understood that someone would followup and sign him up for garbage service; he still does not use service. He received another lien notice for the June- August 1985 quarter. Mr. Argow told him the City would again waive the charges since he had not used the service, but that this was the last time. It was his responsibility to signup. Mrs. Ibisch, 14011 Pike Road, telephoned and sent City letter regarding lien notice. She had never used the service or been contacted by Green Valley. She immediately called Green Valley signed up for service after receiving lien notice. She asked that the charges for garbage service she did not use be waived along with the administrative charges. Mr. Argow indicated he would accommodate her request. Page 2 Mr. Marc Alexander, 18661 Martha Avenue, called and wrote letter indicating he was a tenant at service address. He stated he would be paying the total amount due in three monthly installments starting on October 15, because of severe financial problems. Mr. Argow indicated he would accommodate this request. Mr. Terrence J. Rose, 14595 Carnelian Glen Court, sent letter to City Attorney indicating he requested to learn specifically why he failed to meet the stated purpose of the ordinance. (Mr. Rose is on previous lien lists). No action taken per Mr. Argow. Correspondence from Jean Denny, 13250 Via Arriba, dated October 9, stating she has met with Mr. Argow on 2 previous occasions regarding possible lien proceedings because she wants one can service, not unlimited. The lien was not forthcoming because she paid promptly for one can service and check was accepted by Green Valley. She feels that if one can service is available to seniors it must be available to all as age discrimination is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Argow indicated the City would entertain her correspondence. Mr. Toppel indicated that the record should also reflect that when Mrs. Denny was at the last hearing, Mr. Dennis Varni specifically told her he would expect full payment. Her check indicating one can service was written on the memo line, not as a restrictive endorsement. It is up to Green Valley if they want to interpret that a restrictive endorsement; it would not meet the legal qualification of it being written on the reverse side as a condition of cashing. The fact is that Mrs. Denny was told that Green Valley would no longer accept payment for single can service only. 9/30/85, phone call from John C. Kelterer, 13794 Calle Tacuba, stated he was in hospital with cancer when he got bill. He had not previously used Green Valley service; he isover 65 and asked charges be waived in light of his circumstances. Mr. Argow will accommodate request. Call from Glen David of Cory's Place, a business, indicating he contests the City's right to put liens on property and require Green Valley be used for refuse service. Also opposes City's debt collection service for Green Valley. City does not provide debt collection service for other businesses. He would be willing to pay the debt, but only to Green Valley not the City. Request denied by City and Green Valley on grounds the debt had been turned over to the City, and it was explicitly stated in letter that debts were turned over to City. Mr. Toppel said this is not a matter of the City collecting a private debt; it is a matter of collecting a debt for the performance of a public operation. No one further appearing to speak, proceedings concluded and terminated at 10:25 a.m. for the administrative hearings for the garbage period of June, July, August, 1985. Proceedings re- initiated at 10:28 a.m. Cloria Vandermate, 20122 Chateau Drive, appeared for hearing. She was suprised to receive letter. This was the first notice she had received. She resides at the service address. She thinks she did pay garbage, but said she had lost some bills she had put in the mail. On 9/18/85 she sent in $35.94 and on 9/30/85 she sent in $30.30. Mr. Argow said these Page 3 payments would be applied to current quarter. Mr. Argow suggested Ms. Vandermate pay the delinquent amount now so lien proceedings are terminated, and we will research. Also, on 8/31/85 she said she sent Green Valley a check for $29.85, which may have been lost in the mail. She received non payment notices for some of her other bills. Green Valley's records do not show any payment received. When Ms. Vandermate gets her cancelled checks, she can determine if checks were received by Green Valley. Any duplicate payments to Green Valley would be applied for advance quarterly payments. Mr. Argow stated that if it is found that there was any error in the handling of the account or the payment was not properly credited, any interest late charges will be waived at that time based on that finding. Ms. Vandermate said she objected to the $40 administrative charge and the mandatory garbage service with Green Valley, and also having to pay for the service before she receives it. Let the record show that a check for $70.30 was received from Cloria Vandermate at the hearing today. The proceedings were terminated at 11:04 a.m. ubmitted by: Todd W. rgo Community Services Director Dear Mr. Toppol and Mr. Argew; 9 October 1985 On two previous occasions I have met with you bocauso of possiblo lion proceedings on our homo because wo havo too little garbage. On both these occasions tho lion was not forthcoming because wo had paid promptly for 1-can service, and chocks had been accopted by Green Valley Disposal. This same condition still provails. Our check #283 was accepted for 1-can servico through August of '85. As you know, my position is that multi-can sorvico is not the wisest course for a community as it fill tho dump sites too quicly as woll as refucos recycling and charitablo contributuons. I have further statod that if 1 can servico is available t seidDrs, lt must be availabo to all, as ago discrimination is forbidden undor the constitution. I do not want my home lionod, but I want to be forced to comply with a bad law even less, and I will continuo to contest this issue. LOA, ,Jed114 Denny s. J 12'O Via Arriba Saratoga, Ca. 9507 AGE ^rA BILL NO. 05 /4 DATE: 10 -17 -85 (11 -7 -85) CITY OF SARATOGA C. Atty. DEPA COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT C. Mgr. SUHJIxT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 7283, OAK THIRD STREET GARNER SORENSON FANELLI Issue Summary The public improvemnts required for the subject tract have been satisfactorily completed. This "contruction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "construction acceptance" and release cash bond for Tract 7283.— Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond Council Action Approved. Initial: Dept. Hd. A RSS /dsm MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 y V (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager FROM Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7283 Name Location: Garner Sorenson, 3rd Oak Public Improvements required for Tract 7283 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Dominic Virginia Fanelli, David Sorensen Edwin Address: 20812 Fourth St 2. Improvement Security: Type: Security Bond and Cash Bond Amount: $27,000.00 OgrEW OO fl° °A2S�CC�r' Saratoga, CA. 95070 Issuing Company: Indemnity Company of California Address: 820 North Parton Street Santa Ana, CA. 92701 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: Receipt 5622 648160 P 3. Special Remarks: Please release cash bond of $3000.00 Robert S. Shook DATE: Oct. 17, 1985 Garner AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 11 -1 -85 (11-7-85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development S Issue Summary CITY OF SARATOGA SARATOGA AVENUE /SARATOGA GLEN PLACE INTERSECTION Residents have petition for modification of intersection, either signage or configuration. Staff study defines 5 alternatives. Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Do nothing Construct left turn lane No turns allowed Close easterly end of Close median Saratoga Glen Place Staff recommends construction of left turn lane at a, cost ro mpro $10,000. Conceptual approval to left turn lane and direct Staff to meet with area residents to discuss. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $10,000 Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo from Community Development Director dated 11 -1 -85 2. Staff memo dated 10 -13 -85 3. 11 -15 -84 Petition 4. 4 -17 -85 Petition Council Action 11/20: To be agendized for a regular meeting after staff meets with residents. UTVW 04 0 `11' o C REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SARATOGA AVENUE /SARATOGA GLEN PLACE INTERSECTION Several inquiries and requests have been made by area residents for modification of this intersection, ranging from closure to changing the traffic control signing. Staff has reviewed this matter and developed five alternatives as follows: 1 Do nothing 2 No turns allowed 3 Close median 4 Construct left turn lane 5 Close easterly end of Saratoga Glen Place. The Staff report, which is attached, describes the alternatives. Our conclusion is that the best solution from a traffic standpoint would be to construct a left turn lane. To do so would require the removal or relocation if possible of a healthy 14" oak tree. This conclusion is not consistent with the petitioners' request but I believe it deals with the safety issues that prompted their request. I would suggest you give conceptual approval for the left turn lane and direct Staff to meet with area residents to get their additional input on this matter. RSS:cd Robert. Shook Director of Community Development DATE: 11 -1 -85 COUNCIL MEETING: 11 Mr27o4 �s 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: SARATOGA AVENUE /SARATOGA GLEN PLACE DATE: October 13, 1985 Reviewing the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Glen Place results in five (5) possible options based on citizen requests, accident history, circulation and sound engineering judgement. These options are discussed as follows: 1. Do nothing leave the intersection as is. This option would be acceptable, as presently there are no major contributing factors to justify any modifications, other than citizen complaints concerning a perceived hazard. 2. Place "NO -U- TURN "NO LEFT TURN" signs for NE bound Saratoga Avenue traffic at the median opening (there is already a "NO -U- TURN" sign for SW bound traffic). This option could be implemented very easily, but the results would probably create' problems such as continuing enforcement because of motorists ignoring the signs and feeling it necessary to make the manuever to gain access to both Saratoga Glen Place and Palo Oaks Ct. Cost for this option would be less than $100. 3. Close off the median opening completely This option would completely eliminate all potential vehicular conflicts at this location, but would result in motorist frustration. Residents of Palo Oaks Ct. traveling NE on Saratoga Avenue would have to go at least 1/2 mile out of their way via two possible routes in order to reach their homes. This option would cost approximately $10,000 to implement. 4. Construct left turn pocket. From a traffic engineering stance, this option seems to be the most desirable, as it does not interfere with the necessary circulation Saratoga Avenue /Saratoga Glen Place Date 10 -13 -85 Page 2 while at the same time would provide safety for the vehicles making either a left turn onto Saratoga Glen Place or a U -Turn to gain access to Palo Oaks Ct. There have been two accidents, in 41/2 years of rear -end type, primarily caused by inattention of motorists proceeding NE bound on Saratoga Avenue not allowing fbr vehicles slowing for the left turn /U -turn maneuver without adequate room to completely get out of the through traffic lane. This option would require the removal of a fourteen (14 inch Quercus Ilex (Holly Oak) tree. The cost for this option would probably be about the same as closing the median $10,000. 5. Cul -De -Sac or close off the easterly end of Saratoga Glen Place at Saratoga Avenue. This option could eliminate access to and from Saratoga Glen Place at Saratoga Avenue completely which would definitely reduce the use of the median opening and would stop the use of Saratoga Glen Place as a "cut through" street for non- residents. the impact of this proposal would only affect those residents living on Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Glen court. ACCIDENT HISTORY The cost of this option could range from less than $1,000 (for a barricade type barrier) to $12,500 (for a standard Cul -De -Sac). There have been five (5) accidents at this location in the last four and a half (41/2) years. Of these, there have been two (2) rear- enders involving northeast bound vehicles on Saratoga Avenue stopping for vehicles turning left onto Saratoga Glen Place. The other three (3) accidents were; a vehicle involved in a speed contest, driving reckless at a high rate of speed northeast bound crossing over the southwest bound land resulting in a head on collision; an accident involving a driver under the influence making a left turn in front of a southwest bound vehicle; and two northwest bound vehicles involving a left turn from the right hand (outside) lane. The collision diagrams for all of the accidents are attached. Although the review of the above intersection was generated primarily by requests from some of the residents on Saratoga Glen Place and Saratoga Glen Court, I feel that prior to proceeding further, all the residents of Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga Glen Court and Palo Oaks Court should have an opportunity to look over the options before any action is approved by the City Council. Erman Dorsey, Sr. Engr. Tech. Robert Shook, Director Traffic Control City of Saratoga 19566 Alendale Ave. Saratoga 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: We, the residents of Saratoga Glen Place, after having witnessed yet another serious accident at our intersection, demand that effective traffic control measures be taken immediately. A partial, quick and inexpensive solution would be the immed- iate installation of a "No left or U- turn" sign for north- bound Saratoga Avenue traffic. Investigation of police records would reveal that this intersection has extremely poor visibilty for northbound left and U -turn traffic on Saratoga Avenue; it would also reveal that Saratoga Glen Place drivers have poor visibility of Saratoga Avenue traffic conditions. These factors have con- tributed significantly to the numerous serious accidents at this site. Our lives and those of our neighbors are constantly threatened by poor visibility, left and U -turn traffic. Please install "No left or U- turn "signs for northbound Sara- toga Avenue traffic immediately! Sincerely, the residents of Saratoga Glen Place: 4 I t t I 4 I Z t I 4 i RECEIVED NOV 2 6 1984 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 15 1984 RE: Intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Glen Place p2, 4 We, the residents of Saratoga Glen Place would like to see a permanent solution in the form of street closure. We would definitely support having no access from Saratoga Avenue, preferably in the form..nf a permanent barrier. (The signs are understood as being a temporary and partial solution). vim l o S s bLAQ_Litiw-k 6 ePr c /67en /he bitt-riep- ,n sate Avenue c 7 *****************PETITION TO THE CITY OF Sr;RATOGA �r /f REAS=ON FOR THIS THE PETITION A poorly, designed left -turn arrangement on Saratoga Avenue for northbound traffic to enter Saratoga G l e n Dr i ve or make a U-turn, is creating a hazardous condition for motorist.This petition is a follow-up on earlier notices and requests from local residents to Saratoga City to redesign this intersection for safety. LOCATION OF wALARDOI S CONDITION The location of the hazardous turning condition is aon Saratoga Avenue at the intersection with Saratoga Glen effecting the safety northbound and southbound traffic and motorist s turning west onto Saratoga Glen or making a U- turn. DESCRIPTION OF THE HAZARD The permitted left-hand tur'ri arrangement has the following aspects: a /no stacking lane to allow turning motorists to leave clearance for northbound traffic. b /evergreen shubbery on the center island north of the c open i nca w h i c h obscures v i sab i ty between the turning motorist and the southboud motorist. c/a slanted centerbound indent in the center island before the turn opening sucagestive of a safe stacking lane like that at the Euckn_.11 intersection et al. The above described condition results in confused turning motorist who, feel s,or• i s.urla.bl e to clear northbound traffic and is unable to see and judge southbound traff 1 c a s•c'u thbound motorist unable to see the turning motorist navigating a left turn until that motorist is directly in his path leaving insufficient distance to respond; and a consequential accident with serious personal injuries and deaths to the commuters. JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS PETITIONI 1 f /f--,c last count there have been five major rPsultino in two de ath'=a.nd other serious personal i n j u r i e s in the two years_ prior to and includinothe last known accident on November 4.1984. ACTIONS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER' The petitioners request the City to do the following`: PETITI ONERS a /review the conditions and desi the intersection of Sar Saratoga Glen b /hold a public hearing regardin of safety at the inters measures that can be un c /rapid implementation of correc d/review of the performance of t engineering department to methods set -up for from unusually frequent and informal notices of gn of atoga Avenue. -and g the lack ection and corrective. dertaken by the City t i ve measures he City's particularly in regards red flagging" hazards accident occurrences public concern. Given the severity and frequency of the accidents at this location, a prompt response by the city to this petition is considered imperative. yi iRoJk_ E T77-ET ADDRESS C CIT s gjw ff 9-7 1 s tzr G 6 c4_,F4J 9f3 /7gIG iEl t 4,r-7z- S l 1 7 i s a i-s oz c i'70? 0 /c r 4-4e le, P/. ACTIONS REQUESTED ES`( THE PETITIOt'•1ERS The petitioners request the City to do the fol 1 oW i no: a /review the conditions and design of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Glen b /hold a public. hearing regarding the lack of safety at the intersection and corrective measures that can be undertaken by the City c /direct rapid implementation of corrective measures d /review the performance of the Saratoga City's engineering department particularly in regards to methods set -up for 'red-flagging" hazards from unusually frequent accident occurrences and informal notices of public concern. Given the severity and frequency of the accidents at this location, a prompt response by the city to this petition is considered imperative. PETITIONERS NAME 1• STREET ADDRESS CITY IV 4 t ft, edgifik 1 (q7c EIN L a -4u 46 (0d, e v /85'66 Svru2 z z P /a 1 74 ACTIONS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERS The petitioners request the. City to do the follc'ir a. /review the condi i cans and deli an of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Sara.tc oa Glen b /hold a public hearing regarding the lack of safety at the intersection and corrective measures that can be undertaken by the City ._c /direct rapid implementation of corrective measures d /review the performance of the Sara.toca City's engineering department particularly in retard_ to methods ..et -up for "red- flagging" hazards from unusually frequent accident occurrences and informal notices of public concern. Given the severity and frequency of the accidents at this location, a prompt response by the city to this petition is considered imperative. PETITIONERS NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY 7(7 5� 1�� 7 C7 �e 1 e C-tq. c f )9 C I S i b( C L p,_ S ARh rb q5- eC �'c ;y CAL 1zGGtj l Cry 1297 7 S 6 G' 9�� 76 AGENDA BILL NO. q 7 L DATE: 10 -31 -85 (11 -7 -85) DEPART T: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. 72 83 SUBJECT: TRACT 7268 ADDENDUM TO DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT Issue Summary Developer has entered into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to convert overhead utilities to underground at a future time. Developer has installed part of the work necessary for that conversion. Developer wishes the record to show that some of the work has been accomplished and credit for that work should benefit future owners in this tract. The attached Addendum to the Deferred Improvement Agreement will accomplish this. Recommendation Approve Addendum to Deferred Improvement Agreement and. authorize Mayor to execute on behalf of City. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments Addendum to Deferred Improvement Agreement Council Action 11/20: Approved. Recording requested by City of Saratoga After recordation return to: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ADDENDUM TO DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated 1985, by and between THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "City and FANELLI CONSULTANTS, INC., a California corporation "Owner is made with reference to the following facts: A. Owner is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California (hereinafter referred to as "the Property described as follows: Tract 7268, as shown on the tract map prepared by Louis Bini Associates, as recorded in Book 531, Pages 19 and 20, Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. B. Owner is constructing certain improvements upon the Property, pursuant to permits and approvals heretofore granted by City, and in connection therewith, Owner and City have executed a Deferred Improvement Agreement dated June 20, 1984, as recorded on July 25, 1984, in Book 1747, Page 617, Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. C. Owner has performed a portion of the work as described in said Deferred Improvement Agreement, as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. With respect to the undergrounding of electrical utility lines, as referenced in Exhibit B attached to the Deferred Improvement Agreement, City hereby acknowledges that Owner has installed underground conduit for such utility lines, in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by City and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Such conduit has been installed underneath the sidewalk adjacent to Oak Street and Third Street, at the location shown on the drawing attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and made a part hereof. 2. At such time as the undergrounding of electrical utility lines is performed, Owner or its successor in interest- -shall be entitled to a credit against Owner's pro rata share of the total project cost by reason of the work completed by Owner pursuant to the Deferred Improvement Agreement, the amount of such credit to be equitably determined by City at that time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Attest: GRACE E. COREY Deputy City Clerk Government Code §40814 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA On this day of 1985, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument as or on behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OWNER: Fanelli Consultants. Inc. B CITY OF SARATOGA By ss. Notary Public for California w.a7 w1 VI a o.1 E D c 6 C�E L Nis Q VC'1 NM /2- B-+crt cc >REn.G./ /s -72,/s/7 E Li 7 71/ 2 .1 75 r.F//,L/ l,PC/eSED ,Q5 _51 /13c5✓E.[ /E4775. .5 ,GY6. 2492-7,9LY 5t /K.3!c/Sr .Tvr1r.'L EOC7+ 454 6.4) EaC// :2.5LF1LfrX .<ESeenit5/4 1rae Re T WALLS LvliECE 7cEC1/7t ise.f'.e s24sJa/ To r?i lls. F"mE55 .$s ce" 4 Fr7c. F304,7s5 Dec L. 1&414 £X2'51) E /7R. F.e. =B C N5 ee' r CG1CV0.' crr>v 2 /s.. rs..7..c. 23 :3/6 C/"P /49 49NI 3 6/D6C FALErS 51c. A /4G NF ,21 CO. N17 4n• E.re. /lt 4:24 nM1(a EAJ /,N F.N. eL•S/R,/ 7"1.422 YGe R>4L 5 4.70 7.E.. LS/' lsruf.4 n.2-.e4- S_'[S r.'.'. /2'.!47.9 7,00 1 :I 4 5 INS,. cGV✓ 77( /500 /2! /140 5/55412: 77f r9.r19N -N Sass: 6 slam Ia cup 441',199/=.375754 s.: s .PE 7. -L -74.4 SPrI /1/00 2-/1144/ e 7/16 sLf /s,, 405 9 9' n 7&7 e/' xvs •1718.0.7 7 La:. L I 4. ct. 2YV Ene AWYCE n%44-4'S4775 .7 .:45 f11' h� /A4 61.c414 -se lit. 4• %,e roseser /NLN:. 2- 7174-/ /5797) 4av5 A-/O tic. Eynnet Ave. A/ zn4. /44 4, C c.777 (/44io 5-/sr f-59r✓4 ,2-4/5' /zero /ea/zoo e` •54410 a 7956 1-J9. 8Ki✓N -SL (fir) 97 ,(,✓7 -56 (f7/sr. e) 5954094- 5e/1211x) .2cU5r. c1. 19 1 x 3:10214 0/. 5K2 7941 ff 404.91 1/ TttEe 5F2' Zee 7D _1444 2(/ 5F243./.46, 22e.7. 4 S 7. 1 2100275 Mae. O7'A0/J42 ovolLli/rS /4505'4 S 2)3. /4493 LA25T /4499 Ala.; C o a 12.7 2.1.5 47974 lb /OU'.f 3/554924.7963, c®fMo'652 4271285 411£ 144 i1 f 14514 f2-Al 627L 4 315542147471, 70 417/70 70793FEK 44311 uF 57,.• Za57L 7asz2? ST' from &az 3/S:411[712G fa Gat.3u 941227925 fu..sFS:l ,650 S '5 /S1 F451 Call 3/5_32/279t(. To LLCesi3_53s2 2960 BEFORE YOU DIG CA).(. U. S. A. (SOO) 6-12.4444 48 HOURS IN sti /S AN01 to 77 .LEGEND 8 eek rLP- cave-Ac (4.', v).94:n 7; .94o 9/32-7 51,1/ 10. LCO✓JEG 47' 4Zvacf. .5 4-7/07 /0544 Ren, %L/40VS/6. 4./ -.D 4'Fi/T1 lYl L(KT/Nl 2aFlIS /W� C !d 1.36'424 Site£ e,r urc.cm. S. 7'vi/E D L e r 7 i2 4 'C/ r L f D.f/v17 Jw,ST7.4/E2) On, :7) /G A. 41N7FA' /NL 44V.9 1/167.V n/57 /De.- 1,'L L' D1/kED 76 151. C. 7/ 9,9 4 D//C 4 ge'N, lyd. 1.2 ,CLC. Z5 7 /5" 4 Dher. 4 5/0364421 .7.e 101 T LIRE) I/!srAILiATIS o w r■ar 7)::47 7g 5 S no E.__ tr�ET. uno 7r 7 1241 /2-A 5- 15 ,.fr, 7740/ Co- i4!914 71.7 S1 C PACIPIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 4i E I y/ 9 f 17M 1 C•71•0870• E E. ELECTRIC 1'n SG,RY GAS TELEPHON: CASTE TELEVISION SUba.JNFACF TRA.NSFORA:ER 54 3b' SPLICE BOX Sf LICE BOX RPLI^E. PDX "L!CE 005 D I,ENC■ SECTION FOR•.2 LENGTH 0, TRENCH SECTION Oc LT- r.;.: 1�EP,RCE'.I_'JTFE0'0 IFiNUn OCCT.P.r:'S �1 E R n PE /OLD PLAT SHEET 34'13 132. cPA``````�LL�LL ROT IJNPR TEST DATA LEAK TEST _MG FOR_Ail'JUTES T11418 PLASTIC I GV A rR: w c E. ^'r ^•..Ty.: EP: ICE O EXIS', F N.. Ssv)Li) 13 48 ;AUL- /taIGAL 1AC 51.1 CTED TECTED ;FORE YOU DIG CALL 11. (8C0) 612 -2s1 HOURS lti ADCA- \CE NO DATE DESCRIPTION GM /SPEC DW15 0550. SUP/. APVD. BY R E V I S I O N S 1 i 2 I 3 4 ...•ate /.VYTRL SLILJILGs TR Losis Q TW 2 5.Sll„ Prs Fo.-. Ez T G 3 Sot,. F -s kL. a dG r7 �•S'6ser uez Rm. Gw+ I zc TR. ELTV D Oni. toc'u BY LPV. AT G cr IDW ow -,t •fCQIE CHKD. O. K. DATE SCALES cos I 30C d BEFORE YOU DIG CA r L r r c A 48 HOI,IGS LY nuYtug4291 C oMPOSIrL S tLCA,lATsO,o 1�W6 Trua 'IZS3 apt (3' S?R,1n S n4.l Yn PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 1 5 MICROFILM BILL OF MATL DWG LIST SUPSDS SUPSD BY SHEET N0. 1- SHEETS RET OB-f/6 /&3M I I AGENDA BILL NO. Issue Summary Exhibits /Attachments 11/20: Approved. 946 ram. October 21, 1985 (11/7/85) DEpAT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Resolution MV No. 2. Staff Memo 3. Letter from Saratoga School 4. Location Map Council Action Initial: Dept. Hd. ESTABLISH SCHOOL CROSSWALK MID BLOCK ON KOMINA AVENUE We have been requested by Saratoga School on Oak Street along with the school's PTA Health, Safety, and Welfare organization to establish a midblock school crosswalk on Komina Avenue to accomodate the lower grade students using the entrance /exit at the southwesterly side of the school on Komina Avenue. They have also requested that four (4) parking spaces be eliminated (on both sides of the street at each crosswalk line). Reconmendation Adopt the MV Resolution establishing the midblock crosswalk and prohibiting stopping at the crosswalk between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Fiscal Impacts The cost for time and materials to place the signs and markings would be approximately $500.00 and would come out of the traffic safety budget. (Program 712, Fund 41, Division 70) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CROSSWALK BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS AND PROHIBITING STOPPING AT CROSSWALK LOCATION KOMINA AVENUE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: This resolution is adopted pursuant to vehicle Code Section 21106 of the State of California, and Section 9 -2 of the Saratoga City Code. Section 2: Pedestrian crosswalk is hereby established at the following location across the following public street of the City of Saratoga, and the Director of Community Development of this City is hereby directed to cause the painting of parallel lines across said street at said point, to designate said crosswalk, said lines to be approximately 10 feet apart: Komina Avenue Section 3: The following designated portion of street in the City of Saratoga is hereby declared to be a congested area and the following limits for the stopping of motor vehicles is hereby established for said portion of said street: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: STREET LOCATION OF CROSSWALK STREET Komina Avenue The above sections shall become effective at such time as the proper markings and signs are installed as delineated above. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 1985, by the following vote: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. MV- On both sides of street, one (1) space each, ad- jacent to the crosswalk lines as described in Section 2 of this Resolution Approximately 250 ft. southeasterly curb line of Oak Street DESCRIPTION STOPPING LIMIT MAYOR NO STOPPING 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday OgUT' ©0' 0 Ik'CoDigi MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 13, 1985 FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SCHOOL CROSSWALK ON KOMINA AVENUE We have been requested, by Saratoga School, to place a school crosswalk on Komina Avenue 200 to 250 feet south- easterly of Oak Street to accommodate the younger students that are dropped off and picked up at the Komina Avenue side of the school. If this crosswalk is approved, it would be necessary to eliminate four (4) parking spaces in order to provide safe clearance at the crosswalk location. The stopping prohibition would be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Komina Avenue is quite narrow and most of the time, during school hours, there are numerous vehicles parked along both sides of the roadway adjacent to the school as well as along the frontage of the tennis club. Vehicles traveling on Ko- mina Avenue have been observed to be at a slower pace than normal, because of the restrictive width. There has been no significant accident history of any kind along Komina Avenue. In keeping with our past policy of complying with school district requests for pedestrian safety, I recommend that we install the crosswalk along with the provisions of no stopping at the location requested. Erman Dors Sr. Engr. Techni ian -r� SARATOGA .SCHOOL 14592 OAK STREET (408) 867-3476 September 26, 2985 Mr. Erman Dorsey Senior Traffic Control Technician City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: School Crosswalk Respectfully, Lisa Akers, rincipal THE GOLDEN ON{ REC J Vet) SEP 3 U 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPAL.: LISA AKERS Dear Mr. Dorsey: Saratoga School is in need of a crosswalk and NO PARKING ZONE (for one parking space located on both sides of street and crosswalk). This entrance /exit is used by parents particularly for pick -up and delivery of younger students, since most lower grades are located on the Komina side of the school. Children are "dropped off" on both sides of this area which is too conjested to allow parents to park and walk their child into the schoolyard. Your prompt response to this request will be greatly appreciated by the parents, teachers, and children of Saratoga School. Shari Parkinson, PTA Health, Safety, Welfare Chairman cc: Dave Lapic, Community Service Officer Marty Clevenger, Mayor /City Council Member School Board of Trustees SCALE: e=60' L L J i... 0\ r O 4 Pail f Cross wo /k rvx AGENDA BILL NO. go DATE: 10/23/85 (11/7/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. FISCAL IMPACTS No fiscal impacts are anticipated. EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Negative Declaration 4. 2. City Council Resolution amending the General Plan 3. Report to Mayor and City Council dated 10/28/85 5, COUNCIL ACTION 6. 11/20: Approved staff recommendation. SUBJECT: GPA -85 -4, Odd Fellows Home of California Amendment to a Policy Concerning Overall Height Limit Within the Text of the Land Use Element of the GeJ rjl_,p ISSUE SUMMARY 1. The applicant requested that the City review and amend the text of the Land Use Element regarding overall height limit. 2. The policy that a structure not exceed two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary was included in the General Plan to minimize potential visual and privacy impacts to surrounding properties. 3. The applicant submitted preliminary plans indicating a three story structure that will step down the slope and will comply with the intent of the policy. 4. The Planning Commission at their September 25, 1985 meeting adopted a resolution recommend- ing that the Land Use Element text be amended to allow a three -story structure on sites designated Quasi Public Facilities (QPF) in the General Plan provided the slope underneath the three story area;is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used. 5. The applicant must apply for Design Review and a Modification to the Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the text of the Land Use Element. 2. The Council should open the ,public hearing, take testimony, and close the public hearing before deciding on the amendment. 3. If the Council wishes to approve the amendment;.,they must first approve the Negative Declaration for the project. Planning Commission Resolution GPA 85 -4 StaffF dated 9/6/85 Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/11/85 EIA -4 Saratoga PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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, 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. .I Amend a policy within the text of the Lnad Use Element of the General Plan concerning overall height limit. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Odd Fellows Home of California 14500 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed modification is minor and will not have substantial effects on the environment. Individual development projects would still be required to be reviewed separately for potential environmental impacts. Executed at Saratoga, California this 21st day of August 1985. ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER File No. GP -85 -4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN REGARDING STRUCTURE HEIGHT WHEREAS, The Odd Fellows Home of California has initiated an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow a three story structure on sites with a General Plan designation of Quasi Public Facilities on a slope of 10% or more using a stepped pad; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commissin at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on September 11, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the text of the Land Use Element concerning Overall Height Limit; and WHEREAS, after the closing of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan regarding structure height; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a regular meeting of November 7, 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 text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood by property separation and will have no adverse privacy or visual impacts on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect economic viability of the City. 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 text of the Land Use Element regarding Overall Height Limit shall be amended to read as follows: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan and on sites designated Quasi Public Facilities (QPF) in the General Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. On sites designated QPF, a three -story structure will be 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 7th day of November, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: allowed provided the slope underneath the tfLZee -story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used." CITY CLERK MAYOR ur ©2 Lana. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: GPA -85 -4, Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Odd Fellows Home of California DATE: 10/28/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/7/85 The text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan contains a section entitled "Overall Height Limit The section currently reads: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment." The policy was included in the General Plan to reduce potential visual and privacy impacts from development to surrounding properties. The applicant has preliminary plans for a three story structure and requested that the City review and amend the policy. Staff presented four options to the Planning Commission. The consensus of the Commission was to modify the text to allow a three story structure on sites designated Quasi Public Facilities on the General Plan map where the slope underneath the structure is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used The consensus was that the modification is almost specific to the Odd Fellows site and that the modification would not allow three story structures throughout the City. The Odd Fellows project will require Use Permit and Design Review Approvals. The Commission has the authority to modify height limits through the Use Permit procedure. The Commission adopted Resolution GPA 85 -4, at the September 25, 1985 meeting, which modifies the Land. Use Element concerning overall height limit to read as follows: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan and on sites designated Quasi Public. Facilities (QPF) in the General Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. On sites designated QPF, a three -story structure will be allowed provided the slope underneath the three -story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used." If the Council wishes to amend the text of the Land Use Element as recommended, the Negative Declaration must first be adopted. Robert'$: Shook Director of Community Development RESOLUTION NO. GPA 85 -4 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN REGARDING STRUCTURE HEIGHT WHEREAS, The Odd Fellows Home of California has initiated an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the General. Plan to allow a three story structure on sites with a General Plar designation of Quasi Public Facilities on a slope of 10% or more using a stepped pad; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on September 11, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the text of the Land Use Element concerning Overall Height Limit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend_ the text of the Land Use Element concerning Overall Height Limit to read as follows: No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan and on sites designated Quasi Public Facilities (QPF) in the General Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. On sites designated QPF, a three story structure will be allowed provided the slope underneath the three story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used." The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 25th day of September, 1985, by the following vote: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, AYES: Pines and Siegfried NOES: None i ABSENT: None ATTEST: Chairman, Planning Commission Option #1: No Change in the policy MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Date: 9/6/85 Planning Commission Meeting: 9/11/85 APPLICATION NO.: GPA -85 -4 APPLICANT: Odd Fellows Home of California ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend an amendment to a policy concerning overall height limit within the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan The applicant has requested that the City review and amend the text of the Land Use Element regarding the overall height limit. The policy currently reads as follows: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary. as defined in the Village Area Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment." "Story" is currently defined in the Zoning Ordinance as a structure with a room or area physically located above another room or area. The policy was included in the General Plan to reduce potential visual and privacy impacts to surrounding properties. The Planning Commission has indicated in the past the desire to keep the policy in the Land Use Element. The Planning Commission has made an inter- pretation of the policy that the policy refers to new development and not to an addition to an existing three story structure. The applicant, a quasi public institution, has submitted plans for the location of a three story structure on of the site. The proposal is for a structure that will step down the slope and will comply with the intent of the policy. Quasi public facilities include Odd Fellows Home, religious institutions, convalescent homes and schools. These are conditional .uses in the residential and agricultural districts. The uses are designated Quasi Public Facilities (QPF) on the General Plan map. The Planning Commission has several options concerning the height of quasi public facilities buildings and the overall height limit. If no change is made in the policy, a maximum of a two story strucutre could be constructed. The applicant would not be able to continue with the preliminary plans. Option #2: Delete the policy from the General Plan A recent revision to Section 3.8 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning height of structures in the R -1 district states that the main structure shall not exceed 30 ft. nor two stories. Currently the height limit in the Agricultural district is 30 ft. Removal of the policy would require that an applicant comply with the Zoning Ordinance but would allow the right to apply for a variance to the requirement. The applicant cannot apply for a variance if the policy remains in the General Plan. If the Planning Commission chooses this option, they may wish to add to the Agricultural district section of the Ordinance that a structure also not exceed two stories. Option #3: Modify the text of the General Plan The text of the General Plan could be modified to indicate a three story height limit for buildings on sites designated QPF on the General Plan map. Staff would recommend that a three story structure be allowed on parcels of 10 acres. By requiring that it be a larger parcel the structure could be located far enough from surrounding residences to minimize any potential visual or privacy impacts. Option #4: Modify the text of the General Plan The text of the General Plan could be modified to indicate a three story height limit for buildings on sites designated QPF on the General Plan map where the slope underneath the footprint of the structure is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used. This would allow a three story structure to be built that would step down the slope. Using a stepped pad tends to reduce the visual impacts of a structure and can help to minimize the perceived bulk of the structure. The use of a three story structure rather than a two story structure could potentially reduce impacts to the natural environment. The amount of grading on a site could be- reduced with the use of a stepped pad. The amount of impervious coverage can also be reduced by allowing a three story structure thus increasing open space and landscaping. The application is for the amendment of the General Plan policy and not the review of the structure. Design Review of the structure will be required as well as a Modification to the Use Permit. It appears from the preliminary plans submitted that the proposed structure would be about 44 ft. in height. If the policy is amended, Use Permit approval will be required to exceed the 30 ft. /two story height limit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests that the Commission recomend an amendment to the policy based on Option #4. APPROVED: LH /dsc P.C. Agenda: 9/11/85 CX�,U Lucille Hise Planner r Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes Meeting 9/11/85 V -706 and EP -21 The public hearing was opened at 10:18 p.m. lc standpoint, if there had been anyone who had appeared in opposition to the fence he would have been swayed to vote no. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve EP -21, per the Staff Report dated September 4, 1985 and Exhibit B. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 10. V -707 Carroll and Lois Bingham, Request for Variance Approval to permit construction of a garage addi- tion within 10 ft. of the side property line where a 20 ft. side yard setback is required in the NHR zoning district at 13801,�Pierce Road The application was described by Staff. They indicated that there are other locations on site on which the garage could be constructed which would not require a variance. Therefore, they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the applicants are restricted in terms of where the garage will be built because a great deal of the rear yard has been lost to a landslide. She described the site and the adjacent lot on the southwest. She commented that the applicant has indicated that he has spoken to the neighbors on that side and there is no objection to the proposal. Mr. and Mrs. Bingham, the applicants, discussed the suggestion in the Planning Report to build the garage in the front yard. They indicated that it would detract from the appearance of their home and the community and would block their view. They add that it would also be a detriment because of burglaries they have had. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris described the site and stated that, considering that the applicants have no back yard and very little front yard, she does not feel that they would have any yard space if they put the garage in the front. She added that it is logical to have the garage directly straight ahead of the existing driveway and leave them some front yard. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve V -707, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated September 4, 1985 and Exhibit B, making the finding that it would be a practical difficulty and a physical hardship not having a front yard. Commissioner Peterson commented that the practical difficulty would be the fact that the landslide took away about 70 ft. in the back and precludes any further expansion for a garage. Commissioner J. Harris added that were the garage to be in front, it would be blocking the house off too much from the road so that, from a security point of view, it would not be as safe. She added that all of these points would be exceptional circumstances, and it is a common privilege to have some sort of yard. She stated that she does not think it is a special privilege because it is not common to lose the back yard and garage as these people did. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 11. GPA -85 -4 Odd Fellows, Consider Amending a Policy within the Text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which reads as follows: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan" in order to consider placement of a three story structure at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 9/11/85 C' r Page 9 I GPA -85-4 Staff explained the proposed amendment of the policy within the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. They noted that Staff has provided four options for the Commission's consideration and discussed these. They stated that they were recommending approval of Option 4, which would have the text of the General Plan modified to indicate the three -story height limit for buildings on sites designated quasi public in the General Plan map, where the slope underneath the footprint of the structure is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used. The public hearing was opened at 10:29 p.m. The architect for the Odd Fellows described the site on which they will have a forthcoming application. He stated that they were making this request because they feel that in this particular case and hillside location that the three -story building is more environmentally sensitive than a two -story building on the bottom of the hill and a separate one story building on the top of the hill. He indicated that they have met with the neighbors. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson commented that Option 4 is almost specific to the Odd Fellows Home. At Commissioner Pines' inquiry, the City Attorney explained that a use permit would be required as part of this project, and under the ordinance the Commission would have the authority to modify height limits through the issuance of the use permit. He added that under Option 4 the height would possibly be implemented by some amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as well. Commissioner Pines moved to direct Staff to bring back the appropriate resolution, recommending Option 4 to the City Council. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney explained that under State Law there is a limit on the number of amendments to the General Plan that can be adopted this year, and there may be a decision to delay this item. The Odd Fellows indicated that a delay should not be a problem. 12a. NS -60.17 Consider an Ordinance adding Section 13.10 to the 12b. C -228 Subdivision Ordinance, 14.14 to NS -3 and XIII to Chapter 3 of the City Code relating to the require- ment for installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System 13. GPA -85 -5 Amend Chapter 3 of the General Plan, Seismic Safety and Safety Element, to require installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System to new residences over 5,000 sq. ft., residences which expand 50% increasing the total square footage to greater than 5,000 sq. ft., multi family dwellings, hotels, motels, and such commercial structures as determined by the Fire Chief The above two items were discussed simultaneously. The City Attorney explained the proposed amendments. Discussion was held on the 5,000 sq. ft. figure. The public hearing was opened at 10:48 p.m. Chiefs Ernie Kraule, of the Saratoga Fire District, and Doug Sporleder, of the Central Fire district, appeared. Chief Kraule discussed the cost and outlined the system. Chief Sporleder explained how the 5,000 sq. ft. figure evolved from the Task Force discussions. 9 AGENDA BILL NO. qtririf DATE: 10/29/85 (11/7/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: SDR -1606, V -703 UP -591; Smilja Maynard; 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Request for Refund of Fees for Appeal of 2 -Lot Subdivision and Use Permit Application f r .abarta Location ISSUE SUMMARY Applicant has requested refund of the appeal fee for a height restriction and for a Use Permit application on a pool house. The City upheld another appeal of a width variance which would have allowed a lot split. This action supersedes the need for the height restriction appeal and eliminates the need for the pool house use permit. All staff work had been performed relative to the height restriction appeal. Essentially, no work has been performed relative to the pool house use permit. RECOMMENDATION Appeal fee not be refunded Use Permit application fee be refunded FISCAL IMPACTS None EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report dated 10/29/85 2. Letters from Smilja Maynard COUNCIL ACTION 11/20: Approved. staff recommendation. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: t S. 00 Director of Community Development RSS /lh /dsc U MW Ln DATE: 10/29/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/7/85 SDR -1606, V -703 UP -591, Smilja Maynard; 19330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Request for Refund of Appeal and Use Permit Fees The Planning Commission granted approval of the two lot subdivision (SDR -1606 V -703) at the September 11, 1985 meeting. With the new lot line, an existing pool house no longer complied with the required 50 ft. rear yard setback. A condition of SDR -1606 was to relocate the pool house to comply with required setbacks or obtain Use Permit Approval. An appeal was filed by the Lucas' on 9/17/85 and by the applicant on 9/20/85. The neighbor was appealing the subdivision; the applicant was appealing a condition that the future residence not exceed 22 ft. (Condition VIII.A). The appeals were scheduled for the 10/16/85 City Council Agenda. The applicant filed a Use Permit Application (UP -591) for the pool house on 9/23/85. The item was scheduled for the 10/23/85 Planning Commission agenda. The City Council heard the appeals of SDR -1606 and V -703 on 10/16/85. The Planning Commission decision was overturned and the applications were denied. With the denial of the subdivision, the Use Permit for the pool house is no longer required. The applicant withdrew UP -591. The applicant is requesting a refund of the appeal and Use Permit fees. All staff work had been completed relative to the appeal. The Use Permit application was publicly noticed. Staff spent minimal time beyond the noticing. Since the staff report was not prepared, staff recommends a refund of the $250 application fee. 1 U Vi y .,«.J tr F f 1 n r l r f ?I y h-,. �.-p L y see t r w J JY Z. r q t>M 2 I .y �1; {„s s -a tr� q V i Y� i F e, x r ,.ti' v t'.. .∎..m.,. -a,'4 .M F -.4wy� it 'i x mow+ 1 J 1 .,A. JQ i Z r v �sJ S W.+^. C'! a3 w s :.r pp 2 1 K+ 1 w: a 2 r !t. t'tiY r ..i� x tv_ r 'y» rn i rr q W y Ii 1 1 Q t .7 A W !K .a.S+. 1 yr 1 5. tht ...Si- a ti" kn /SFA+'gs.. k s,n 1 v J A r.3 cl ..,..1.&,, ,..y, -N..J` ."...?..::.C..-2.-. "q:rte. 1 0 Y-� cA. to 't S'21 0 cL e.-.J v r -Q.._:: nAf 4- et i s e.K 4'A'' J.4.ln 1\ "'!3S'+- ti '�1Fa� 1 �.evs i:1 F' kc f r 'r i v 1 L t a r t s J J'S 4 R l' .-M Ir f, F y w a r AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: SUBJECT: Issue Summary Recommendation Fiscal Impacts Council Action 11/7: Approved. October 25, 1985 (11/7/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Exhibits/Attachments 1. Memorandum None CITY OF SARATOGA Final Acceptance for SDR -1533 Monte Vista Drive James W.Foley Jr. Grant Final Acceptance for improvements for SDR -1533 and release bond. Initial: Dept. Hd. All private improvement requried for SDR -1533 per Building Site Agreement have been satisfactorily completed. MEMORANDUM ANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1533 (Final Acceptance) All improvements required of SDR -1533 and agreed to in the Si i Approval Agreement dated March 20, 1985 have been satisfactorily competed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: RSS /dsm Location: Address: Amount: 3. Special Remarks: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Monte Vista Drive James Foley Jr. 18927 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Improvement Security: Assignment Investment Certificate Type: and Cash Bond $4127.32 $500.00 Issuing Co.: Bank of America Address: San Jose, CA ipt. -nand am Certificate No.: 08664 04801, Receipt 7167 Release Assignment Investment Certificate Robert S. Shook DATE: October 25, 1985 AGENDA BILL NO. q6, 0 DATE: October 25, 1985 (11/7/85) DEPARTMENT: community Development SUBJECT, Approval of Vacating Dedicated Public Service Easement Sanitary Sewer Easement and Ingress and Egress Easement Issue Sunmary Public Service Easement, Sanitary Sewer Easement and Ingress and Egress Easement were required on lot 3, 4, and 5 of 'Tract 5928, Marie Rose Gaspar subdivision, in 1979. On July 15, 1981, the City Council approved Tract 6665 and SDR -1426 for Parnas Corporation. Lots 3, 4 and 5 were part of the subdivision. All easements were rearranged under Tract 6665 and SDR -1426. The previous easements have not been used and are no longer necessary. Recommendation Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 11/20: Approved. Approve Resolution Vacating Public Service Easement, Sanitary Sewer Easement and Ingress and Egress Easement. 1. Resolution No. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd: C. Atty. C. Myi. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA VACATING DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS, SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS, AND INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENTS WHEREAS, MARIE ROSE GASPAR (hereinafter referred to as "GASPAR executed an Owner's Certificate dedicating to public use certain Public Service Easements (PSE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), and Ingress and Egress Easements (IEE). as identified, described and delineated on Lots 3, 4 and 5 of that Final Subdivision Map for Tract No. 5928 recorded and filed in Book 442 of Maps at pages 29 and 30 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 30, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Map and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga rejected said Public Service Easements (PSE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), and Ingress and Egress Easements (IEE), by Resolution No. 1257 -1 dated September 21, 1979; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477.2(a) provides that if. at the time a Final Map is approved, a dedicated street, path, alley. public utility easement, or similar item which directly benefits the residents of a subdivision is rejected, the offer of dedication shall remain open. and the City may at a later date rescind the rejection and accept the street, path, alley, public utility easement, or similar item; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477.2(c) states that offers of dedication which are covered in Government Code Secton 66477.2(a) may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as described for the summary vacation of streets by Part 3 (commencing with Section 8300) of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, GASPAR has requested that the City vacate portions of the rejected Public Service Easements (PSE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), and Ingress and Egress Easements (IEE) identified, described and delineated on Lots 3. 4 and 5 on the Final Map inasmuch as the referenced portions of the subject easements have not been continuously used as Public Service Easements (PSE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), and ingress and Egress Easements (IEE) for the five consecutive years immediately preceding the request for this proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the portions of the subject easements which GASPAR has requested to be vacated have not been used for the purposes for which said easements were dedicated for five consecutive years immediately preceding the date of this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLVES THAT: 1. Except as indicated in Paragraph 2 below, the Public Service Easements (PSE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), and Ingress and Egress Easements (IEE) dedicated to public use on Lots 3. 4 and 5 on that Final Subdivision Map for Tract No. 5928 recorded and filed in Book 442 of Maps at pages 29 and 30 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. on May 30, 4385 /BML /D1 -1- 1979, are hereby vacated pursuant to the authority of Chapter 4 (commencing at Section 8330) of Part 3. of Division 9 of the California Streets and Highways Code, and that from and after the date that this Resolution is recorded, said Public Service Easements (PSE). Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE). and Ingress and Egress Easements (IEE) shall no longer constitute Public Service Easements (PSE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), and Ingress and Egress Easements (IEE). 2. The following easements shall be excepted from the vacation as provided in Paragraph 1 above, and such easements are not vacated by the City at this time: (c) That ten (10) foot Sanitary Sewer Easement (SSE) described and delineated along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 as shown on the Final Map. 3. Except for the easements expressly vacated pursuant to the descriptions contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, all other easements identified. described and delineated on the Final Subdivision Map for Tract No. 5928 recorded and filed in Book 442 of Maps at pages 29 and 30 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 30, 1979, are not vacated by the City at this time. 4. The Saratoga City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution, attested by the Clerk under seal, to be recorded without Acknowledgment, Certificate of Acknowledgment, or further proof in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California. The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK (a) That ten (10) foot Public Service Easement (PSE) described and delineated along the westerly portion of Lot 5 as shown on the Final Map; and (b) That certain Sanitary Sewer Easement (SSE) described and delineated along the easterly boundary of Lot 5 as shown on the Final Map; and 4385 /BML /D1 -2- MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. qt l DATE: SUBJECT: Recommendation Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 10/25/85 (11/7/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Final Acceptance for SDR -1570, 14925 Sobey Road Jerry Schiffman Issue Sunmary All private improvements required for SDR -1570 per Building Site Agreement have been satisfactorily completed. Grant Final Acceptance for improvements for SDR -1570 and release bond. None 1 Memorandum 11/20: Approved.''7 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. MEMORANDUM Location: Sobey Road OEUT' AU g 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager DATE: October 25, 1985 FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1570 (Final Acceptance) All improvements required of SDR -1570 and agreed to in the Building Site Approval Agreement dated October 3, 1985 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Gerald Schiffman Address: 150 Wilder, Los Gatos 2. Improvement Security: RSS /dsm Type: Amount: Address: 3. Special Remarks: Assignment Investment Certificate $300.00 Issuing Co.: Pacific Valley Bank Los Gatos, CA RCC-e+pt -Boird--or Certificate No.: #3669 Release Assignment Investment Certificate Robert S. Shook