Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-1987 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. IR MEETING DATE: 4/1/87 ORIGINATING DEPT.; Planning Recommended Motion: N/A SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: 62f3 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Growth inducing impacts of annexation to County Sanitation District #4 Report Summary: 1. County Sanitation District #4 proposes annexation of the Cats Restaurant and 80 acres south for public sewers. This is supported by the County for public health reasons. 2. The Town of Los Gatos opposes the annexation citing "growth inducing impact." 3. The County Sanitation District #4 could similarly expand into Saratoga's sphere of influence and development would occur under County regulations. However, there does not appear to be any significant difference in the intensity of development under City or County regulations the same constraints exist. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Director's Report 2. Public Services Map 3. General Plan pg. 24 "Existing Measures to Regulate Development" 4. Land Use Maps 5. General Plan description of Area T 6. Sanitary District minutes of March 11, 1987 Motion and Vote: Council representative to make decision at SD #4 meeting after public hearing. g'117 04 0 'V o 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 3/27/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/1/87 SUBJECT: Annexation to County Sanitation District #4 outside the urban service boundary The Council requested an analysis of what the impact of annexation to the County Sanitation District #4 beyond the urban service boundary would be on Saratoga. As shown plan, the Montalvo, boundary. southerly but within on the attached public services map from the general County Sanitation District #4 serves the area east of south of the City limits but within the urban service Any further annexation to the Sanitary District would extend out of the City's urban service boundary the sphere of influence. Development of property within the City's sphere would be subject to the County zoning laws. The City would be notified of any proposals and could comment on the development but could not annex the property because it was not contiguous to the City. Therefore, the City would exercise no direct control over development. Theoretically, however, it appears that the intensity of development under the City or County control would not differ significantly, based upon the environmental constraints (15 -30% slopes, geologic faults) and the similar general plan land use designations and zoning as described in Saratoga's general plan: County* City* Land Use Resource Hillside Designation Conservation Conservation Hillside Residential District 1 Report to Mayor City Council 4/1/87 Re: Annexation to County Sanitary Dist. #4 Page 2 outside the urban service boundary Zoning 300 acres, 15 -30% slope A la Yt uek Hsia P nning Director YH /kc /dsc County* City* RHS HCRD Slope formula Slope formula 1 du /1 -10 acres approx. 3.09 ac /du 22% slope Estimated D.U. 60 97 (300 acres) (300 acres) Avg. 5 acres per d.u. Avg. 3.09 acres per d.u. In summary, if a similar situation occurred in Saratoga, it could be growth inducing; however, the intensity of development would not differ significantly under County or City regulations. As such, we do not believe this would create an adverse impact on Saratoga. The Council should acknowledge the points raised at the County Sanitation District #4 Board of Directors Meeting of March 11, 1987, that extension of sewer service will not mean that subdivision (or development) will be allowed to take place and the District is a purveyor of sewer services and relies on the general jurisdictions to regulate growth. The cooperation between the City and County would insure adequat fire protection, roads, water, police, etc., was provided prior to development. 2 tgam Sphere of Influence, City of Saratoga PUBLIC SERVICES MAP WATER SERVICE AREAS Electric Services VA Private Source Gas Service Area B' San lose Water Works County Fire District El Saratoga Heights Water CO. Sanitary Sewer District Area with all Services available SARATOGA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE NOVEMBER 1973 0 1 2 3 4000 IRI WILLIAMS MOCINE M CITY REGIONAL PLANNING 1045 SANSOMF STREET. SAN FRANCISCO. CA 54115 Summit It k TAHLE MTN. f tired Area with 4 Services Cupertino Sanitary District County Sanitary District No. 4 4c R9 v 6arN selr(h bo k.n r'/ EXISTING MEASURES TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT In the Sphere Zoning in the Sphere of Influence is under the authority of Santa Clara County. Present zoning, south of Congress Springs Road, is RHS, a new provision which uses slope and available services considerations to determine densities. RHS densities vary from one unit per acre to one unit in ten acres. North of Congress Springs Road in the Montebello Ridge Study Area, an interim ordinance is in effect. It was enacted by the Board of Supervisors because they were concerned that important resources might be lost or damaged before the conclusion of the study. The interim ordinance specifies five -acre minimum lots with use permits allowing up to one -acre lots. Saratoga has designated urban service areas adjacent to the City where development is anticipated during the next five years. These areas may be annexed to the City and services extended. Once annexed these areas will be protected only by Saratoga's hillside residential subdivision ordinance which requires a site development plan to be submitted when average grades of a lot or parcel are in excess of l0 percent. The site development plan must include a grading plan, drainage provision, soil stabilization planting, and structural sections of retaining walls. There are no standards set; approval rests with the Director of Public Works. There is a need for a zoning category for lower densities of residential use; the lowest density pro- vided for in Saratoga's zoning ordinance is one unit per acre. Elsewhere in the Santa Cruz Mountains The San Mateo Coastside Mountain Study is underway with interim measures proposed but not yet in effect. A comprehensive matrix was approved by the Planning Commission as a device to determine residential densities in the mountains. It relates densities to slopes, flood plains, agricultural uses, faults, accessibility, remoteness, and soil quality. permanent open spaces; rather it gives permitted uses. 24 It does not assign Sphere of Influence, City of Saratoga LAND USE PLAN 1973 EXISTING USES MI Parks Utilities Private Open Space Agriculture Williamson Act Ag Preserve Residential SARATOGA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE twom••∎ im■ s 0 1 2 3 4000' NOVEMBER 1973 WILLIAMS MOCINE CITY REGIONAL PLANNING IWS SANSOIAE SPSFFL SAN FRANCISCO, CA •I11 1111111111 Coax. floe. PROPOSED USES Parks Slope Conservation Area See Text for Permitted Densities a W SARATOGA CITY LIMITS ndevelo nv se-rv,ces /6 -302o slope- {r Area T The western portion of Area T is served by Bohlman Road. The eastern part is the urbanizing area south of Quito Road which is served by numerous winding roads. The central portion is the undeveloped region south of Montalvo Arboretum. Slopes in the area are predominantly greater than 30 percent with numerous pockets and stretches of 15 to 30 percent. Two of these pockets are moun- tain peaks. On the eastern side, near the Saratoga City Limits, much of the area's slope is less than 15 percent and 15 to 30 percent. There is also an area less than 15 percent south of Stuart Camp; however, this is a mountain top. Erosion hazards in the entire area are quite severe. Faults cross in both northwest to southeast and northeast to southwest directions and the thrust fault affects the area adjacent to the City. Only the southern part of the western section of Area T is free of faults. Electrical service is available along Bohlman Road to the southernmost border of the Sphere. A private water company serves the northern Bohlman Road area. Although no services exist in the central part of Area T, all services are present in the Urban Service Area south of Quito Road. Fire hazards are present in two remote areas and one near Stuart Camp. Fire service decreases as one progresses southward in Area T. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 11, 1987 (Continued) Staff also requests authorization for Allied Engineering Company to proceed with engineering design work at a cost not to exceed $9,150. Funds are available in the current budget for design of the project; construction costs will be allocated in the next fiscal year budget. Staff recommendation is approved. Supervisor Susanne Wilson, alternate for Rod Diridon, takes her seat at 6:25 p.m., during the following discussion. Mr. Gissler reports on the status of the request for sewer service to The Cats Restaurant and the Lake Canyon community of Lexington Basin. The projects are considered concurrently because they would both require extension of a trunk sewer line from Los Gatos. Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Ogilvie, owners of The Cats and approximately 80 acres south of the Town of Los Gatos, requested the District to consider providing sewer service to their restaurant. At Board's direction, staff referred the question to the Town of Los Gatos for their comments. At the same time the District was contacted by residents in the Lake Canyon community of the Lexington Basin about the possibility of obtaining sewer service to their properties. Both areas would require annexation to the District before sewer service could be provided. The Town considered both requests and took a position of opposition to extension of sewer service to the areas. In a letter to Mr. Gissler, Linda Wallace, Director of Environmental Health for the County, transmits the Health Department's position of support for providing public sewers to serve the Lake Canyon community because of the problems of water quality, and advises that the County's position is consistent with that of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mr. Gissler recommends continuing action on the item until April 8, at which time the property owners in Lake Canyon are expected to present a formal petition for annexation. During discussion, the following points are made and directions given: a) The County General Plan of 1987 must not be violated; b) Petitioners should be aware that extension of sewer service will not mean that subdivision will be allowed to take place; c) County Sanitation District No. 4 is a purveyor of sewer services and relies on the general jurisdictions to regulate growth; d) This is an opportunity to help the residents of Lake Canyon solve their problem, but in solving the problem a solution should be reached that is not growth- inducing; e) The financial burden of extending sewer service should be borne by the property owners; f) Staff is directed to ask the County what the growth potential of the Ogilvie property is; g) Staff is directed to present alternatives to a trunk sewer extension; h) City councils are urged by Director Ventura to consider the issue of extension of 4 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 11, 1987 (Continued) sewer service beyond the urban service areas. Staff recommendation, to continue the item to April 8, 1987, is approved. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are presented for action in one motion: Approval of Payment of Bills and Ratification of Payroll Summary of February 22, 1987. Adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 87.3.11, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SETTING A TIME AND PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE DISTRICT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987 -88. The resolution sets April 8 as the hearing date for consideration of the budget. Adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 87.3.12, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SETTING A TIME AND PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.060 OF ITS ORDINANCE CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING SEWER SERVICE AND USE CHARGES AND PRESCRIBING NOTICE THEREOF. The resolution sets April 8 as the hearing date for consideration of changes in the District's sewer service charge rate. Although no increases are anticipated in the residential sewer service charge rate, some categories of commercial /industrial users may require rate changes. Approval of specifications and salary ranges for Engineering /Mapping Draftsperson, Construction Inspector II/ Senior Engineering Technician, and Construction Inspector III/ Principal Engineering Technician. Authorization to hire a temporary, part -time Engineering /Mapping Draftsperson. Authorization to appoint Robert Moehle, Senior Engineering Technician, to Construction Inspector III /Principal Engineering Technician classification, 5th step, $3,182 March 12, 1987. This is a provisional a poi per month, m f n e n tive appointment will be made upon examination. ntment; permanent 5 March 13, To: From: Subject: jm Attachments arry Ij Peacock 1987 City Council City Manager Annexation of Cats Restaurant and Lake Canyon and Montevina Cove areas of Lexington Basin 9,4 0727 cpo unal Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson Councilmember Anderson attended the Sanitation District #4 Board meeting as an alternate for Councilmember Clevenger on March 11, 1987. The issue of this possible annexation was discussed. Evidently Los Gatos opposes servicing this area because of the potential for "growth inducement." The County, on the other hand, supports annexation for public health reasons. Copies of staff reports from the District, Los Gatos and the County are attached. This matter will come back to the Board on April 8, 1987, for final decision as to whether to proceed with an annexation of this area or not. Because this issue can be debated at several levels of public policy consideration, staff would like some time to evaluate the implications of various courses of action for the Saratoga representative and report back to the Council at your April 1, 1987, meeting before Council instructs its representative in this matter. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: ■V e r COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 MEMORANDUM DATE March 6, 1987 TO Board of Directors FROM William A. Gissler,`M /Engineer, SUBJECT REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICES TO THE CATS RESTAURANT ....:DA ITEM NO. CC' BACKGROUND V Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvie, owners of The Cats Restaurant and approximately 80 acres south of the Town of Los Gatos off Highway 17, had, by letter of December 30, 1986, inquired about annexing to the District and extending a .public sewer to serve their restaurant. Copies of the letter and map are attached. 5 II-c6 At the January 14 meeting the District Board directed that the request be referred to the Town of Los Gatos for comments. The Town Council considered the matter at their meeting on March 2, along with some preliminary information on a possible 'other request for annexation from the residents of the Lake WCanyon subdivision in the Lexington Reservoir area. The Town's position is opposition to annexation of either The Cats Restaurant or the Lexington Reservoir area to the District for public sewers. A copy of the Town's notification letter and staff report are attached. CONSIDERATIONS It is logical at this time to consider the two annexation requests concurrently because of the common trunk sewer extension required for service. The Lake Canyon community within Lexington Basin does have a significant surface and groundwater quality problem because of septic system failures. A copy of the County Director of Environmental Health Services letter noting this problem is attached. The residents of the communities of Lake Canyon and Montevina Cove are currently circulating a petition for annexation to the District. They plan to present this at the April 8 Board meeting. RECOMMENDATION Continue Mr. and Mrs. Ogilvie's annexation request to the April 8 Board meeting at which time it is anticipated that an annexation petition will be presented by Lexington Basin residents of the Lake Canyon and Montevina Cove areas. CONCURRENT BOUNDARY OF TOWN OF 1OS GATOS AND SANITATION DJ STR1 CT 04 LEXINGTON RESERVOIR AREA SCALE: 1" =500° IIIIdN OF LGS._IISIOS CIIunril Agenda_Be2ori Council Agenda Date:_2L2LEZ_ Item No. DATE: February 26, 1987 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM DEBORAH SWARTFAGER, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: E ISIIIN OF S ERVICE TO THE_CGIS_RESTAURGNI 8UD_IBE_LEX.IZGIDN RECOMMENDATION: :.r...4: 1 T That the Council direct the Town's representative on the Sanitation District Board to convey the Town's opposition to annexation of either The Cats Restaurant or the Lexington Reservoir Area. EXHIBIT: 1. Letter (including attachments) from County Sanitation District No. 4, dated January 23, 1987 2. Memorandum (including attachments) from William A. Gissler to the Sanitation District 4 Board of Directors DISCUSSION: County Sanitation District No. 4-recently requested the Town's input regarding the extension of sewer service- to The Cats Restaurant and the Lexington Reservoir Area (See Exhibits L and S). Since the two requests involve the extension of sewer services. in. the same general direction, the requests have been combined for discussion purposes. PREPARED SY: LEE E. BOL t1AN1 ti/ Planning. Director :dg PLNOI:TC CATS cc:: Regular Distribution Reviewed by TOWN COUNCIL ACTION DIRECTED TO: ACTION OF COUNCIL: OCMMEPTS Page 3 The Town Council SUBJECT: ERIE EM_UE_EEWFR SEUICE -I IE...CBIE_8ESI811B NI- aQSdE_LEXItl1'iIDII EEfiE8S OIL EEELBX_CQUNIY_SANITATION C DISTRICT NO 4 February 26p 1987 There are numerous physical (e.g.. geologic, topographic, etc.) constraints that make the area undesirable for any future land use intensification. The extension of sewer' service to the area would significantly increase development pressures by completing the infrastructure necessary to support land use intensification. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town Council direct staff to prepare a response in opposition ta the extension of sewer services and that the health problems in the Lexington: Reservoir area be resolved by requiring improvements to failing septic systems_ Due to the numoer and severity of the impacts associated with the extension' of sewer service ta The Cats Restaurant and the Lexington,- Reservoir Area,. it is recommended that an. Environmental Impact Report be prepared if annexation to Sanitation District 4 is proposed. If, due to health reasons,- it is essential to extend sewer service, the service should be limited to serve only existing development and the Town be granted the authority to regulate all future connections. FISCAL IMPACT; The annexation of hillside residen.tiaL ace.as have significant fiscal impacts o:t Local agencies- The specific figures are beyond the scope of this report.. L County of Santa Clara California February 26, 1987 County'Sanitation District 4 Santa Clara County 100 E. Sunnyoaks Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 ATTN: Mr. William A. Gissler Dear Mr. Gissler: Pursuant to our earlier discussion on the subject of sewage disposal for the Lake Canyon Community within Lexington Basin, this letter will serve to assure you of the firm resolve on the part of this Department to see that this area is served by a public sewer system. In our view this is the only way to satisfactorily address the concern over surface and groundwater quality for the immediate area of Lake Canyon and for any downstream waters. Based on recent contact with representatives of the Lake Canyon community, it would appear that there is widespread interest within the community to annex to Sanitation District #4 in order to facilitate sewering of the area. Further, our position on this matter is consistent with that of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Please apprise me if we can be of further assistance. Very tru D L ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES LW: ar An Equal Opportunity Employe' Health Department 2220 Moorpark Avenue San Jose, California 95128 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /A5 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: 4/1/87 ORIGINATING DEPT.: planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL EP -87 -001, Kovacs, Appeal of Planning Commission decision limiting SUBJECT: the height of a front yard fence that encroaches into the public right -of -way to 3 ft. Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary: 1. On February 25, 1987, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request for an encroachment permit to allow a 4.5 ft. high wooden fence in the public right -of -way. 2. The Planning Commission took public testimony at the hearing and discussed the proposal. The Commission acknowledged that the applicant's fence was well designed but found that the height of the fence, its close proximity to the street and its relationship to a neighboring driveway presented a significant safety hazard. The Commission approved the encroachment permit only under the condition that the fence be reduced in height to 3 ft. 3. On March 6, 1987, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to limit the height of the fence. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote: Denied appeal 4 -0. N/A J 1. Staff Report to City Council 2. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 2/25/87 3. Appeal Letter 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/25/87 Analysis of Appeal 4 ?m00% REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Background The appellant, Joseph Kovacs, built a 4.5 ft. high wooden fence in the City's public right -of -way and then requested an encroachment permit be issued. On February 25, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the appellant's request. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the encroachment permit but conditioned the approval on Mr. Kovacs reducing the height of the fence to 3 ft. Specifically, although the Commission complimented Mr. Kovacs on the design of the fence they felt that the height of the fence, its close proximity to the street and its relationship to a neighboring driveway presented a significant safety hazard. In his appeal application, Mr. Kovacs has restated most of his comments made at the Planning Commission meeting but also has introduced a possible compromise that was not presented at the Planning Commission. Specifically, Mr. Kovacs has proposed removing "every other horizontal bar on the (fence) section closest to Mrs. Sherrill's driveway By doing this, Mr. Kovacs believes that Mrs. Sherrill's view when exiting her driveway would be "unobstructed" and therefore her concern regarding visibility would not be valid. 1 DATE: 3/27/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/1/87 SUBJECT: EP -87 -001, Kovacs appeal of condition of Planning Commission to limit fence in public right -of -way to 3 ft. In the past, it has been the Council's policy not to consider information that was not presented or introduced at the Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, this new design should not be considered in the appeal. The Planning Commission, in this case determined that the height of the fence as proposed and its location posed a significant safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians alike and voted unanimously to reduce the height of the fence as a solution. While, staff generally agrees with Mr. Kovac's statement that removing some of the horizontal bars would help reduce the safety hazard for persons existing the adjacent driveway in staff's opinion this solution would not solve the safety problem and should not be referred back to the Planning Commission for its consideration. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Y;Schuek Hsia t./ Planning Director YH /kc /rc REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Calkins DATE: February 25, 1987 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: EP -87 -001; 14280 Paul Ave. APPLICANT: Mr. Joseph Kovacs APN: 503 -27 -58 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of an encroachment permit to allow a 4.5 ft. high wooden fence in the public right -of -way. ISSUES: The applicant's fence encroaches into the public right -of -way more than any other fence constructed along Paul Ave., is taller than other fences and is solid in design where most of the other fences are open and allow you to see past them. Because of its height and design, the applicant's existing fence is incompatible with other fences along Paul Ave. and therefore, staff recommends reducing the height of the fence to 3 ft.so it will more closely conform with other fences in the area and also comply with the recently adopted fence regulations limiting the height of front yard fences to 3 ft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EP -87 -001 subject to the applicant reducing the height of the fence to 3 ft. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Application for Encroachment Permit 3. Exhibit A, Memo from City Engineer 4. Exhibit B, Right -of -way Diagram PROPOSAL /BACKGROUND STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests the Planning Commission approve a permit to allow an existing 4.5 ft. wooden fence to encroach into the public right -of -way. Under the current City Code, the Planning Commission has the authority to grant permits for all types of encroachments other than for driveways, utility connections and storm drain facilities. Although, the City Council has recently adopted an ordinance which consolidated encroachment permit authority under the responsibility of the City Engineer, this ordinace change did not become effective until February 20, 1987. Since this application was submitted prior to the above date, the permitting authority rests with the Planning Commission. Paul Ave. is an improved public right -of -way, with a 28 ft. wide paved surface and a 40 ft. total right -of -way width tExhibit 8]. To assist the Planning Commission in its deliberations, the following information on existing fences along Paul Ave. is provided: Approx. distance No. Fence Height from Top of Curb 1 4'6" 4' 2 6' 3' 3 3' 3' 4 4' 3 5 3'4" 2'6" 6 3' 4' 7 3'6 2'5 8 4' 1'10" 9 5 5 6 10 4' 5' 11 4' 4'3 12 4'8" 3'4" 13 3' 3' 14 3'9" 3' 15 6' 5' 16 3' 4'6" 17 3' 5' 18 2'9" 4' 19 2' 5'6" 20 3'5" 2'9" 21[applicant's 4'6" 1'9" fence] EP -87 -001, 14280 Paul Ave. According to the above, 19 of the 21 existing fences along Paul Ave. encroach into the City's right -of -way. However, the above figures demonstrate that the applicant's fence encroaches into the public right -of -way considerably more than any other fence along the street and is also one of the tallest. CONCLUSION /RE0OMMENOATION The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the issuance of the encroachment permit. He states that the existing fence creates no sight distance problem nor does it create parking or circulation hazards. The app licant's fence is atypical whcn compared with the other fences along Paul Ave. For example, the applicant's fence is solid in design and acts as a barrier rather than a decorative device; is taller than other fences along Paul Ave. and is closer to the street. In staff's opinion, the applicant's fence is incompatible with existing fences constructed along Paul Ave., however a reduction in height to 3 ft. would increase its compatibility with the other fences, be less obtrusive and would comply with the current height limitation for front yard fences. Therefore, staff recommends approval of EP -87 -001 subject to the applicant reducing the height of the fence to 3 ft. 1. BOND (CASH) (SURETY) is: the s•:m of INSPECTION FEE of RECEIPT t Nature 540 APPLICATION FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT The undersigned hereby applies to the City of Saratoga for an ENCROACHMENT Chapter 13 of the Saratoga City Code to do the following: PERMIT under the ternifWin Eices)j Ind Y„of l 4 8 0 ?Au L._ Name of Street or Other Public Property: and Location of Encroachment: For Emergency Repair Contact: I 1 f I' A 1 PHONE. NO.: WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE 1, The undersigned, certify that I am familiar with California Labor Code Section 3700 and 3800 covering Workman's Compensation Insurance and the certification of insurance or a consent to self- insure for Workman's Compensation Insurance as condition to the issuance of a permit by the City. I hereby certify as follows: [::]!I have filed with you, the certificate required by California Labor Code Section 3800 (1) or ('2) or (3) or, a In the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not engage or employ any person or entity in_any.manner so as to become subject to the Workman's Compensation Laws of California. ESTIMATED COST OF ENCROACHMENT: Until I notify the CITY to the contrary, in writing, my place of residence (or permanent business address) for all purposes of notice called for under Section 13.35 of the City Code shall be set forth below; NAME: 21-o5 OVA C c ADDRESS: 1� I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed at Saratoga, California, this ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (NON TRANSFERABLE) Permission is hereby granted to the above -named applicant to perform the work specified at the location in the above application, subject to the following conditions; COMPLETION NOTICE Tiis work has been inspected and found complete as of release This does net a cant ee o o er obligations under Articles Iv 6 13 of the Saratoga City Code V of Chapt. e Posted Paid DEPARTMENT OF COMUIUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 867 -3438 CITY OF SARATOGA (Attach o ske t c�- L ch as required $Y: APPLICATION NO. r7 DATE: 1 IA -7 INSURANCE CERTIFICATE On File Attached 0 Other 0 JH;iLI)198/ TELEPHONE NO. L. H IV) c V r;, E K, G Cam q l Sl b NUMBER: 17— This permit is good until revoked or expires in accord with its terms. Dated this day of 19 CITY OF SARATOGA, A Municipal Corporation ...jos i= 1 14 .-OVACe- 5r1L-Cs tiQRIZONTA1. 3A 22 4" LtSb I) i r t SO L I_ Nc i `"t--I LCc,A -ioN. ADD2a 1 4,2a o `PAW- AVE 5 AR,A Tb D FRDN1 L ARD "FC (1,4 .2 1 L y' 6" 8") F 0 to iri6 E N AtrrgAL. SLO Pr OF Fri MIIIIIMMIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIII 1,1 ti i ^..'?mV:.hl±! a .,:f::4 F. SS i 4t e' 1i ...jos i= 1 14 .-OVACe- 5r1L-Cs tiQRIZONTA1. 3A 22 4" LtSb I) i r t SO L I_ Nc i `"t--I LCc,A -ioN. ADD2a 1 4,2a o `PAW- AVE 5 AR,A Tb D FRDN1 L ARD "FC (1,4 .2 1 L y' 6" 8") F 0 to iri6 E N AtrrgAL. SLO Pr OF Fri omf F MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Department PLANNING DEPT., FROM: Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Kovacs /Paul Avenue Encroachment Permit Application S. Shook City Engineer 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SAIZATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867- :34:38 EXHIBIT A DATE: 1 -30 -87 This office has reviewed this application and has no objection to the issuance of the encroachment permit. Two areas of concern were specifically addressed i.e., 1) sight distance of drivers exiting driveway on adjacent property and 2) obstruc- tion of parking behind curb on property frontage with the following results: 1) No sight distance problem is created by this fence. 2) This office recently studied the on- street parking on Elva Avenue. We found that it was not a problem. Since Elva Avenue carries much more traffice of a through type, we conclude the parking on Paul Avenue will not be a problem either. 55 1. 40' 6 ree.4- 13 EXHIBIT ,B 7-1 City of Saratoga 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Res EP -87 -001 Dear Planning Commissioners 18 March 1987 This letter is to accompany our Appeal Application for the height of the fence. As it has been found on a sight visit to Paul Avenue by the City Engineering Staff and the Planning Commission members, almost all properties have a front yard fence on Paul Avenue and most of them hardly could be called decorative by any stretch of imagination. Their purpose is simple and obvious, to provide protection, and there are many reasons for it. But before I detail the reasons I would like to call your attention to another fact. If you visit other areas of Saratoga (.not ,Springer Tract) then you will indeed find fences that appear to be and are decorative if I may draw attention to better socio- economic areas. It is unfortunate that the prevailing circumstances on Paul Avenue do separate and isolate this area from the rest of the community, and there is a need for a front yard fence to be more protective and therefore somewhat higher than 3 feet. The renting of houses versus owner occupancy is very high on Paul Avenue and this creates a special set of problems because of the unscrupulous nature of some renters. There are drug problems associated with some rented houses and there is a high incidence of transient traffic to these places. The social ills of Paul Avenue are many, but to mention a few like vandalism, burglaries, break -ins, stealing anything of value from properties that can be seen from the street, and weekly parties (particularly from the north end) are common. So far, it appears both the City and the police were rather powerless and unable to control or to contain these activities. We have been burglarized twice. Vandals broke into the garage, then broke into our car. The need for a 4.6 foot height fence is necessary to keep our property protected. It seems to us that home owners have to provide thir own protection for their own properties. We were not the first to erect a front yard fence nor would we be the last. When moved here 1982 .most fence, existed at that time In fact, those 4 properties -which do not currently have "front °yard fences did have .fen.ces,.but were__ removed because of various deteriorating conditions.._ When -2- we built our fence in June 1986 there were six other home- owners that were either replacing or rebuilding their fences. It is quite obvious that instead of leaving their properties without front yard fences these people chose to replace them immediately, and all 4 feet or higher to protect their properties. Not one of them can be called decorative or typical. I don't believe that home owners should be forced to design and build pickett fences to satisfy my neighbor Ms. Sherrill's desires about a typical front yard fence, as she voiced them at the February 25th hearing. This should be the individual home- owner's choice, and to justify the need or its purpose as long as it conforms with the codes. However, current circumstances existing on Paul Avenue do call for special consideration and variances to these codes. Like many home owners, we too believe that higher than 3 foot front yard fences give better protection and deterance of crime under the prevailing conditions on Paul Avenue. Our fence was designed for safe "see= through ":_visibility, protection, privacy and aesthetics. We believe it serves all purposes well. Any person or persons, including children, are highly visible through the fence, and even Ms. Sherrill, her attorney, and the court appointed Master Judge Rhodes agreed to this fact after the fence was completed last June. In view of this, Ms. Sherrill's motives are questionable. Ms. Sherrill's attack on the see through visibility of the fence is thinly veiled revenge upon anything progressive that doesn't fit Ms. Sherrill's ideas of Paul Avenue of 25 years ago. It,._is: obvious that during that period of time the conditions on Paul Avenue progressively deteriorated. In other areas of the City the conditions improved while on the other end'of the spectrum this street became the dump of Saratoga. Over the past 3 -4 years younger home owners moved in with the idea to rehabilitate and improve the housing and environment on Paul Avenue. However, the City adhering and enforcing existing codes that hardly can be applied to Paul Avenue because of the R -10000 zoning and the prevailing conditions, makes this rehabilitation almost impossible. Therefore, before enforcing buiiding-.codes for front fence heijts, we ask the City to take into consideration the special circumstances that exist on Paul Avenue, and that those circumstances were what made many home owners build higher fences than allowed. However, we believe if the City and Ms. Sherrill want us to improve on the already excel -lent see through visibility of the fence for safety, this can be solved in a way of compromise that will satisfy both parties. We can remove every other horizontal bar on the section closest to Ms. Sherrill's driveway, thereby creating a 10" empty space between the remaining bars. Since the bars are only 1.5" thick in a flat position, this improvement would give Ms. Sherrill an almost unobstructed view of the street when drt'ing. out from her _driveway. This solution would retain ahefenceS protective and .aethetic value,at- is current height. Very truly yours, 0,-ye Joseph Kovacs 14280 Paul Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING MISCFLLANEOIJS; Page 11 13. EP -87 -001 Kovacs, request for an encroachment permit to allow a 4.5 ft. high wooden fence in the public right -of -way at 14280 Paul Ave. in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, February 25, 1987. Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit. Mr. Joseph Kovacs, Applicant, presented a series of photographs and sketches. He believed that it was incorrect that his fence encroached further into the public ,right -of -way than other fences along Paul Avenue. The fence on his property was designed to be both decorative and protective due to the special circumstances on Paul Ave. as well as the fact that he had been burglarized twice. Reduction of the height of the fence would completely destroy the middle, solid section. The applicant felt that the fence was compatible with the surrounding environment. He called attention to photographs showing the variety of fences in the area and noted the state of disrepair of many of the fences in the neighborhood. Mrs. Maria Kovacs, Applicant, noted that the fence was to protect and beautify their house and property. The fence was hand built and carefully designed; the middle section of the fence would compliment remodeling to be done on the house. She stated that clear visibility was available to adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Margaret Sherrill, 14290 Paul Ave., Saratoga, stated that the fence in question was of particular concern to her. She noted the ramifications of this fence: Fence was higher than represented since the right -of -way was increased in height in the last 9 -12 months; the fence was actually 5 1R ft. in height. Setting of a precedent for fence heights, design and encroachment of the public right -of -way. Difficulty in malting a safe exit from her driveway which was within one foot of the fence. Density of the fence as opposed to other fences in the area, which prohibited clear vision of small children and pedestrian traffic. Lack of plans connecting side fencing with the panel of fence already built. She stated that safety factors were her primary concern; Saratoga had always stood for the safety, well being and protection of its residents. She presented a photograph taken from her driveway and noted that the fence was unique in the combination of factors. Mr. Kovacs responded that the right -of -way had not been raised; he cited the Report of the City Engineer, January 30, 1987. He stated that the side yard fence had already been planned and would be compatible with the front yard fencing. Commissioner Harris noted that a fence at this height would block the view in exiting the adjacent driveway; Commissioner Siegfried noted the attractiveness of the fence but stated that he was not in favor of placement of a fence within 2 ft. of the street. He concurred with Staff recommendation. Commissioner Tucker concurred that the fence was attractive; she noted her concern regarding safety, especially for the children of the neighborhood.. She also favored requiring the applicant to lower the fence. The City Attorney noted that even if the Commission required the lowering of the height of the fence there was the question of granting an encroachment permit; he suggested a condition stating, "The Applicant shall sign the written form of the encroachment permit which the City will record." Commissioner Harris concurred with Mrs. Sherrill's statement that granting the request would set a precedent; she felt that fences over 3 ft. should not be allowed. Commissioner Pines favored a lowering of the fence; he concurred that there was a danger in exiting the adjacent driveway and that a precedent would be set by allowing this fence at its present height. SIEGFRIED /CALLANS MOVED APPROVAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH A LOWERING OF THE FENCE TO 3 FT. IN HEIGHT WITH A CONDITION STATING THAT "THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN A WRITTEN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WHICH THE CITY WILL RECORD." Passed 6-0. June 11, 1987 TO: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Kovacs 14280 Paul Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 By reason of your failure to satisfy the conditions for issuance of an encroachment permit to construct a fence within the public' right of way, such permit has never become effective, and the portion of your fence within the public right of way constitutes an unauthorized encroachment l and a public nuisance. It is the intention of the City to remove this portion of yeir fence on Monday, June 15, 1987, if you have not voluntarily taken such action by that time. In accordance with the provisions of the Saratoga City Code, you will be held responsible for payment of all removal costs. OMIT CDO L n i 13777 F.RUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REMOVE ENCROACHMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson c-) MEETING DATE: April 1, 1987 i t r�.r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Declaration of a Public Nuisance Existing at 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California, and Ordering Initiation of Noticed Nuisance Abatement Procedure. Recommended Motion: Adopt attached resolution declaring that public nuisances exist at 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California, and ordering initiation of a noticed nuisance abatement procedure pursuant to Article 3 -15 of the Saratoga City Code. Report Summary: On July 31, 1986, in response to a complaint by a neighbor, Community Service Officer David Lapic inspected the front yard of 13675 Quito Road. He observed two vehicles, a boat and trailer, a campershell, vehicle parts, materials, newspapers, trash, weeds and trimmings in the front yard of the property. (Please see attached Incident Report dated August 12, 1986, and attached Site Plan, correspondence and photographs.) On August 1, 1986, CSO Lapic mailed a letter to the property owner, David R. Smith, advising Smith of the violations existing on the property and requesting correction of those violations. On August 26, 1986, CSO Lapic re- inspected the property and found that all of the violations still existed. (Please see Incident Report dated 8/27/86 attached hereto.) On February 4, 1987, CSO Rebecca Roldan re-inspected the property and found that the violations still existed. (Please see Incident Report dated 2/4/87 attached hereto.) The City Attorney has initiated. two criminal complaints against David R. Smith for these code violations. The first complaint was filed October 22, 1986. The second complaint was filed February 27, 1987. However, the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department did not arrest Mr. Smith on either of these complaints until March 20, 1987. The court has not yet scheduled a date for Mr. Smith's arraignment on these criminal charges. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Resolution of The City of Saratoga Declaring That Public Nuisances Exist On That Parcel of Real Property Commonly Known as 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California, and Ordering Initiation of a Noticed Nuisance Abatement Procedure Pursuant to Article 3 -15 of the Saratoga City Code. Incident Report dated 8/12/86. Incident Report dated 8/27/86. Incident Report dated 2/4/87. Motion and Vote: 4J1; Adopted resolutiori 4 -0.. /4- o z„, 0 (PON rp4 4) I 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2416 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING THAT PUBLIC NUISANCES EXIST ON THAT PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 13675 QUITO ROAD, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA, AND ORDERING INITIATION OF A NOTICED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 -15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE WHEREAS, on July 31, 1986, an inspection of that certain parcel of real property commonly known as 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California (hereinafter "Subject Property was conducted by a City Staff member; and WHEREAS, said inspection confirmed that certain motor vehicles, boat, trailer, campershell, motor vehicle parts, waste paper, trash, weeds and trimmings were located on the subject property in violation of Section 15- 12.160 of the Saratoga City Code; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Assessor's roles identified David R. Smith as the owner of the subject property; and WHEREAS, by letter dated August 1, 1986, David R. Smith was advised of the conditions which constitute the code violations existing on the subject property, and was requested to correct said conditions; and WHEREAS, subsequent inspections by City Staff members have confirmed that none of the aforementioned conditions have been corrected; and WHEREAS, Section 3 -05.010(d) of the Saratoga City Code provides, in part, that any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of the City Code is deemed to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City in a summary action pursuant to Article 3 -15 of the City Code, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The conditions identified in the City Incident Reports dated August 12, 1986, August 27, 1986, and February 4, 1987, as existing on that parcel of real property commonly known as 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California, constitute violations of Sections 15- 12.160(a)(1), 15- 12.160(a)(2), 15- 12.160(a)(3), 15- 12.160(a)(4), and 15- 12.160(a)(6) of the Sarataoga City Code. 2. The aforementioned conditions constitute public nuisances pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 3-05.0 10.(d). 3. The City Manager shall cause said public nuisances to be abated pursuant to the Noticed Nuisance Abatement Procedure set forth in Article 3 -15 of the Saratoga City Code. Attest: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 1st day of April ,1987, by the following vote: AYES: Counci]members Anderson, Clevenger, Moyles, and Mayor Hlava NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Peterson +ty of aratoga SECTION: 5- 1 2 INCIDENT 1 cti REPORT R 0 25 z51795 cinE:vr en() e, 01 Saf IGINAL PLEMENT L TO CITY ATTORNEY FOLLOW-UP NEEDED -T >4 (S) SIJ;;;;IIR SUBJECT (V) ...VICTIM (W) _I (R/P) REPORTING PARTY I kg kb r f::. L q M AD fr [A he q 1' 1 .-7 s BUSINESS TELEPHONE f DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE i DtM/ DAT /TIM LI URR7 6 7._ 1530 DATE L11172gOiTED 15.30 Iirer' SAWITA i ENTRY BY LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 13 V75 GI( iz) /2ci REPORT FORMAT: I) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION 5) STATEMENTS 2) SUSPECT STATUS 61 FOLLOW-UP 3) NARRATIVE 7) CASE STATUS 4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SIAPPLENAG A E3G -32428 nt■1 2/1-1/ A-1 1530 -14-12s pv_ 1- ot,u) (,)-i ip 1 mspr-- 1 AT taL,r 75, c•_i(i (To RD A-1,t., v lo LA- o us OONIT M CA A-ii b r 14€ k l NO i M h((4-/TON C)F Atuq 7 r Corr PULI 7145 tqr7 2- Ilk (j@ s' 5( 7 5) prN I) r i-i- t9r73 mD6--5- P afzu_p ti- 2-G L-1-2-84- 1 BOA4' AldD. 10A- T Uc32 749 ST P--aaK. 06.4■Ab, CAniP t-t-e1_,L. \I-1-?A-t o.co it (2_&- to") i> 0 02A-s4 Is s 0..., PacT,S7V i2eCOirrnekiDA'T7 ON pe- L br2 ro mtr\JA. orpu3,-( N A-N L LC) 44112-6<krr FO a- V (OL A 01•_S 15 167o SA- 0106 1 (C00 1 le ("OMNI ITY SERVICE OFF CER ro. DATE,:TIME WRITTEN (408) 867-3438 0 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95 7 coos T Report \tlroer TYPE a INCIDENT' S7,6ion6E w�•., .S ETis:si ,E, c-/,' Original To City Attorney- rn I l r R rune ne l errnt X N ocm iwr' s Lie N rrber MESIOENCE Accuse CITY Rime e L Niltz 1 Driver's License r tone Residence Rcidress 8�s Rene co.'•: c• aver' s License i\ nW rare rime .Pals. P La e Resid" ue Address oArrDATErrm NE occuR� Try' ,y� �YOo Leitt J ta E Entry DATE/TIME 11EPONTED /�z oc Report 5ot1i(`e r(3//0,..4., 6USi£CT •T: .c 7 7 4 104/ "P GOB s/7 /�-P SS,N D/L NO. 9 CI TED 0 „0. RESS C /r J S d V frr f0;e cl s7S) SEX/RACE. f-e •-i HTMT: Ioz /ra «AiwEYEE "Al'} Assoc. Sner-iff's IR i'&nter Location Of Occurrence %3�7 s... C?c.�•>U ic,-.7 Forget aspect descriptim Narrative Statements aspect stags Physical Evidence Case Status I —c; V.2d /ie" ".q, //c i f O,U,Ju e725 /7 D /C1u-i I/LJ 549 IiO-,l /f 7 ?!J 7S �e..KI7c 7( C Y //J77ON f e/ �N� 72,67'E u. iV o /tiff /CA 7 ,-.0 1 1 /'.,2/ �oit.J �.cJN•P c-FFd4 y Ta lo' C Y. I l e 7, 9,0„ x.- v 1 7'-' /(Xc �S n (Iv F R F c /fG -I 5,7 Ave... Dar 95C'70 SA SERVICE OFFICER INCIf)FNT REPUK1 cooE Sar. Ord:' 15- 12.160(a) _rt tlntier TYPE of Storage within front setback Original X To City Attorney- X nil Ra. r. 9cnlFnpnt •(�me (V City- of Saratoga oos Driver's License Nntoer t•t�d�e• RESIDENCE ADOREJiak Wit. t •e t r: CITY w- rr,:✓+....y r.n...r:.' +r ..;y, :i• 13777 F va e Ave a ruit 1 Saratoga 95070'`` p L ui. Ph ri 867- 3438��' iver'a Licerse bi ter l*xre Ptcne' r Residence Address r ..rr• ::,...,:....1'.',..,:.Z..., ais. Phone c o..? t cm 701700 _1.i E 3 +Driver's License N J r b e r 1 xne r T,ol sidg,ce Address _&s. Rt Phase Wr/oATE/T1YE-0CCURRED TUESDAY'.8I f 2/86 1415 hrs.' Data Entry DA TE/TIME REPORTED .7/31/86.1600 hrs Report Se, neighbor SUISPECT /AARE&TEE rY; SMITH; David Robert ooa 8/27/43 SSM RIL Iq. 5 (11311RR CITED Ill No. PO Box. 9564'•. San Jose 95157' M/W ..r 602 220 ►I►MVE,IF�. 3 RN /HZL 1,;; �yy. Assoc.• Sieriff's IR turber• aocaticn .06,0oci rre e. r. t. r ��scraPtim Iterative Sta�terrents tx r -t 13'g75- 75 ROAD a SlePect. statr 9 ysiral Evideice_ Case..Status �Sl'1�PFC�' TATU:: riefirn":` Not° in'. custody;'. Not cited Complaint• sought- for the Saratoga 0rdianance•. violations below:.::: 15`= •12.160(x)(1)''(2 counts Storage of motor in required front setback for longer than five days. 15- 12.160(a)(2): Storage of (boat) trailer in required front setback •for•longer than five days•. 15- 12.160(a)(3): Storage of boat in required front setback for longer than five days. 15- 12.160(a)(4):- Storage of vehicle parts in required front setback for longer than five days. 7-05 7- 05 More than one weeks accumulation of trash on premise. '""r Each of these sections are infractions NARRATIVE: On 7/31/86, in response to a complaint by a neighbor, I inspected the front yard of 13675 QUITO Road. I observed two vehicles, a boat and trailer, a camper shell, vehicle parts; materials, newspapers and trash in the required portion of the front yard. (See SCENE DESCRIPTION). No one' was home at that time. I then ret#pned to City Hall and 1 /l /S n nv =R /�rD ///e j Lity oz baratoga 13777 Eruitvale Ave.. *stoga, CA 95010 :ITOGA COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICEI INr Ir�FNT CiFPf1RT P/ I IMP T`, pn determined through the county assessor rolls that (S)SMITH is the owner of this property. :I'••a1so determined that the Quito Road right -of -way extendes 20 feet from the west curb of Quito Road onto SMITH's property and that the front yard setback is 2_5 Feet. On 8/1/86: :.I 'returned to the property and obtained four Polaroid photos showing some of the items that' appeared to be being stored within the setback. (See PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.) Ajso on_ 1 '8/1/86 I prepared and mailed that attached letter to SMITH. The letter advised of the complaint and apparent violations, advised of the violations of law, and reouested that' he property into compliance or make application for a temporary storage permit-- by-8/11/86.- On 8/12/86; at 1330 hrs I contacted the Planning Department and found that SMITH had !not-contacted department, and had -not made any application for a temporary storage::—.L.,.. .permit. Ati °hrs (8/12/86) I conducted another inspection of the front yard of 13675.:;:; Quito: I found no indication of any change. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: CASE STATUS: To City Attorney for criminal complaint. -i R /CSO. Marked for ID and retained with original report. rEPORT shell*. In the eastern portion of the circular driveway is a large boat on a trailer. Behind the boat and trailer is an accumulation of apparent trash, vehicle tires and other materials. In'the portion of the front yard between the circular driveway and Quito Road are high weeds, newspapers, dried and other trash. There are tall, drying weeds throughout the front yard. (SEE SKETCH) Four Poloriod photos showing conditions in the front yard. Taken 8/1/86 1635 hrs b 740.10 SCENE DESCRIPTIO e :Fl: ::13675 Quito•Road •a single storage detached family dwell'inq a,-. neighborhooii'.ofw.��.`�: ••similar--. dwe11iniis,:- ione&R -1 -10, 000. The residence•• is the second residence south of Asp;ci 4:.. Drfve. on th wes side' of Quito Road: '�Ther a driveway on the south: side•-of the' r 21 OropertY "leaainq' from Quito Road' to the oaraae There i also a• c i rcular driveway tfiat :1' •"starts "at` Quito Road near the north' side of the property and connects to the' other driveway".::'; '0ri• .south side of` the' south driveway there VW is a 1972 stationwaaon (blue); bearing Californi License (expiration 3/83): Behind the VW is a 1971 Dodge Pick -up (orange) bearing California license 2C54284 (expiration 12/84). Both of these vehicles are registered to There "is a deflated boat and other materials in front of (west of) the pick -up. Also in this driveway, west of the circular driveway, is a metal storaoe rack and a camoer 13675 QUITO ROAD Pr (4 2[sy1W l4 34r /7735'4f 2186 1415hrs •(not to scale ieoad f Pa 1 cktuir S(0 414h r,G1l4 aF David R. Smith P.O. Box. 9564 San Jose, CA 95157 Dear Mr. Smith August 1, 1986 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 3438. Community Service Officer COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Maya David Moyles Donald Peterson In response to a recent complaint I conducted an inspection of the front of your residence at 1675 Quito Road on August 1, 1986, Several violations of City ordinances were observed. Saratoga Municipal ordinance section 15- 12.160 (copy enclosed) prohibits the storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, parts, construction materials or trash within the required front yard of your residence for longer than five days. The 'required front yard' portion of your residence extends approximately forty -five (45) feet from the west pavement edge of Quito Road. There appears to be at least seven current violations at this time.. Section 15- 12.160 is an infraction, punishable by fine not to-exceed $.100.00 for the first conviction within one year; $200.00 for the second conviction within one year, and $500.00 for subsequent convictions. Section 3- 05.010 provides that each day in which a violation continues constitutes a separ- ate offense. To avoid citations, public nuisance abatement, and /or other legal remedy by the City, you must bring your property into compliance with 15- 12.160 by NOT LATER THAN 5:00 pm on MONDAY AUGUST. 11. 1986. To comply, it will be necessary to remove all trash from the property (see '1- 05.050 enclosed) and to make other storage arrangments ".for the other items described in section 15- 12.160(a). If you will be unable to fully comply by 8/11/86, section 15- 12.160(c) authorizes the Planning Director to issue a tem- porary storage permit that would allow you up to 30 additional days. There is a $25.00 application fee, and the application must include what specific actions will be taken to bring the property .into compliance. If the Planning department has re- ceived a compleated application for a temporary storage permit from you by noon on 8/11/86, no further action will be taken by the City for violations of this section until the expiration or denial of the permit. If you.have any,questions or need additional information on what is,required' for compliance,' please contact the Plan ping depar at City Hall== (867 -3438 ex :32) It has also been brought my attention that both open :building permits for 13675 Quito Road (for the re -roof and 'for the garage addition) have expired.. New building permits are required before engaging in any work relative to either project. (The variance for the garage remains in effect until June 27,•1987.) If you need additional information concerning building permits please contact the building department at 867 4600. enc Thank you for your cooperation and anticipated compliance. Sincerely cc: City Attorney (S. Baird) Planning Dept. (K. Caldwell) Building Dept. (S. Harper) DAVID LAPIC Community Service Officer li AS005- M006. HARM SELNGSOQ AND HY(A1500K *THOMAS GEOFFREY R ANQ LYDIA F•' 18600 ASPESI DR SARATOGA CA. .95070 PEEKS ROBERT k AND POCKES)J13A 18542 ASPESI OR SARATOGA CA CIMLOV BORIS ACID RENATE 18526 1SPE I DR SARATOGA CA' 7. 4'• HORN GERRY•L'AND SANDRA T `18514`ASPESI alt JEAN SYLVIA N 830308 15 -044 389 25 -035 18608 LSPESI 0R ti RANO: IM PER PROP EXEMP SARATOGA CA' 95070 :7 20,-" WILLIAMS SHELLEY S `JR AND HAZELM 4 `4544090 5 -001 r 389• -25 -037 1073 SARATOGA AVE SUITE A IANO: IMPR�PERS PROP EXEMP SAN JOSE CA, 95129 .21,721' 30,252-• RANSOM HAROLD E AND HANCY C 18584 DR__ SARATOGA CA 95070 0 NEILL JANET A 18570 ASPESI DR SARATOGA CA PEMBERTON JON R TRUSTEE ET AL 18556 ASPESI DR SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA SMITH DAVID R PO BOX 9564 S A H J O S E C A 95070 'x:95070 95070 45157' r„ HART ELOON P SAND JOSEPHINE 11 13685` QUITO R0 SARATOGA CA 95070 HASSAN NUR M 'A)81 JOYCE F .'A_,_ .13687 SARATQGA CA, 95070". BENNION HOWARD B AND.JOAN B 13689 QUIYCE RO SARATOGA CA DOZIER 'DAVID C ANO ELIZABETH J 13701' QUITO RO r SARATOGA CA 95070 AMF LISTING i' 417037 r r ors 117, 0951:::•! O'V24)36 .PAGE .551. :•389 -25 034 /NPR PERS PROP EXEMP 160772 7,000 6804274 15001 389 -25 -038 L ANG 5 1 FIPT1 �E�11 PROP XENP 69.668 1081788 r 7,000 6213040C 001 3 89 25 039 LAND 71k 95070 21 721:` .41,626 7,000 :0449334 18=Q4 -txHD 1HPR :'"PEiiS P10P EKEHO""1 4 ?112•200;'• '123,700..;' 6238606 15=001 LAND 389 -25 -044 f�ROP 7.7 EXEMP-77 7,000 a. 3 6469131` "15 001 i 3$9•.25•845 s lanO'y iHPR' PROP EXEMP 7.000 i r ,J 5728736` 15- 001``_'`' 389 -25 •046 j :••CAF1D rI PTC PROP "EXEt1P i3ib9R `s 1 Oi.415 18263 9 i 15 L, F i, i 389 -25 -047 >>F L7�N0 -r INF�17 PERSpitOp EXEMP 95070 t1�721'• 57,892 70000' !1 389 -25 -048 71HPR7..7PERS 7PROP.• `EXEMP 87�89b 7,000 8227172 15 -001 3 89 0 LA4O �"�Y .P PRO 95070 102,000 10200 :7 E$ P 7 ••'2415233 1¢ -b0 vs i ':'.:':89"'25.^041. fIAt. eiEk5 PRbP X2HP :E17721. 5 '3 7,305. 7.000 e 3181927 '15 -001' 389 -25 •042 X THPR PERB PROP EXEFYP' EX 72X' 394'0 t: 7.00Q (2015.5 C.C.P. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Clara 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the SARATOGA NEWS 10950 N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, California, County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Saratoga, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, under the date of February 7, 1964, Case Number 328148 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: all in the year 19... I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino, California, this ArA4 19 g 7 Signature NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE This space is k's Filing Stamp NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that on April 1, 1987, the City Council of Saratoga de- clared a public nuisance to exist on the property de- scribed as: 13675 Quito Road, Sara- toga, California The condition(s) constitu- ting such public nuisance and the action(s) to be taken for abatement thereof are as fol- lows: Condition; Corrective Ac- tion PRO 1) Storage of a 19711N OF Dodge pick -up truck, CA Li- cense No. 2C54284 in front yard; Remove or store in conformity with City Code. 2) Storage of a 1972 Volkswagen automobile, CA License No. 1373SGS in front yard; Remove or store in con ‘2,4, formity with City Code. 3) Storage of a boat in front yard; Remove or store in conformity with City Code. 4) Storage of a boat trail- er in front yard; Remove or store in conformity with City Code. 5) Storage of assorted motor vehicle parts (includ- ing, but not limited to, a camper shell and storage rack) in the front yard; Remove or store in conformi- ty with City Code. 6) Storage of trash, pa- per, and trimmings in front yard; Remove or store in con- formity with City Code. 'Upon "failure' to abate such public nuisance through the corrective actions herein, the nuisance will be abated by the City of Saratoga and all costs of abatement will be assesed against the property on which the nuisance exists and will constitute a special assessment upon and against such property until paid, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. A copy of the declaration of nuisance by the City Council is on file in the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk. Any property owner ob- jecting to the proposed abatement by the City of Saratoga is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Sara toga to be held on May 6, 1987, commencing at 7 p.m., at the Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due consid- eration. Dated this 9th day of April, 1987. /s/ Grace E. Cory City Clerk City of Saratoga Pub.: 4-15-87 109-SG g cDO NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE Mailed 4/13/87 Certified #P 249 350 071 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -34,38 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 1, 1987, the City Council of Saratoga declared a public nuisance to exist on the property described as: 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California The condition(s) constituting such public nuisance and the action(s) to be taken for abatement thereof are as follows: Condition 1) Storage of a 1971 Dodge pick -up truck, CA License No. 2C54284 in front yard. 2) Storage of a 1972 Volkswagon automobile, CA License No. 1373SGS in front yard. 3) Storage of a boat in front yard. 4) Storage of a boat trailer in front yard. 5) Storage of assorted motor vehicle parts (including, but not limited to, a camper shell and storage rack) in the front yard. 6) Storage of trash, paper, and trimmings in front yard. Corrective Action Remove or store in conformity with City Code. ,t 1, Upon failure to abate such public nuisance through the corrective actions described herein, the nuisance will be abated by the City of Saratoga and all costs of abatement will be assessed against the property on which the nuisance exists and will constitute a special assessment upon and against such property until paid, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. A copy of the declaration of nuisance by the City Council is on file in the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk. NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE PAGE TWO Any property owner objecting to the proposed abatement by the City of Saratoga is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to be held on May 6, 1987, commencing at 7 p.m., at the Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. Dated this "7 day of 1987. f` City Clerk City of Saratoga UMW SARATOZ& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOCA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 E RTI RE-smic te eta %its thanbe,119423 0 ,L ia l f orweiu m 0 it *83 efus POSTACE DUE aio id Smith 9564 ose, California 9515 ..5tretpev,Ar. 1 38- i/t116 DATE CLAIM CHECK NO. 431911 CI HOLD 1ST NOTICE 2ND NOTICE RETURN CLAIM CHECK NO. 82 78 75 DATE 0 HOLD F'dM 2NDrg Detach from PS Oct. 1980 R704214‘ Fo rm 3849-A SENDER: Complete items 1 Put your address in the "RETURN card from being returned to you. delivered to and the date of delivery. and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. TO" space oft the rasters. side. Fallout to do this willotovintt .this The return receipt fee will provide you the name of th ®person For additional fees the following services are available. Consult requested. 2. R estrlcted'Dellwry. postmaster for fees and check box(es) for additional service(s) date, and addressee's address. 1. Show to whom delivered, 3. Article Addressed to: 1� 5/v/ v !7 4. Article Number p 2 9 3so o"1 Type of Service: R-Cortified Re Insured COD Express Mail Always obtain signature of addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. Signature Addressee X 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and fee paid) 6. Signature Agent X 7. Date of Delivery PS Form 3811, Feb. 1986 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT May 7, 1987 Mr. David Smith 13675 Quito Road Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Smith: This is your official notice that the Saratoga. City Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1987, voted to authorize the City Manager to abate the nuisance at your address. Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the City Manager. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Cler cc: City Manager UMW cDO 0 'IV o g3 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS: 13777 RUITVALE AVENUE 04146 7-3438 867 -3438 i p499 397 784 �O ih y uos LL 1 1• FO7iw,, rr. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 90110 b 16�xid 4 r e '413" Ecw Davi• co'` P.O. s•x 9564 San ose CA 95157 jO ON Re r aJ r &d 0E-C./Vein, tWiP t 7 MAY CLAIM CHECK N0. ;9 912 vim 0 HOLD DATE F T O bTllcE 2N0 NOTICE 5- 0 RETURN 3 2 IOW fr°1 38441/4 Oa 1980 ,��:'"+'�__�:M 'r.'•i*':'7�!7.%3.^a° r�_ /_..ar wp- 0,,�, „„�':/P•xM'S" PS Form 381 Feb. 198 s are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. side. Failure to do this will prevent this you the name of the person following services are available. Consult requested. 2. J Restricted Delivery. SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when Put your address in the "RETURN TO" space on the reverse card from being returned to you. The return receipt fee will provide delivered to and the date of delivveeryry.. For.additional fees the postmaster for fees and check box (es) for additional servicels) 1. Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 3. Article Addressed to: David Smith 4. Article Number P 499 397 784 Type of Service: Registered Insured Certified COD Express Mail Always obtain signature of addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. Signature Addressee X 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and fee paid) 6. Signature Agent X 7. Date of Delivery nemaccrIr OCTIIRN RECEIPT PS Form 381 Feb. 198 May 7, 1987 Mr. David Smith 13675 Quito Road Saratoga, California 95 Dear Mr. Smith: This is your official no that the Saratoga. City. Counci at its meeting of May 6, 1987, voted to authorize the City Manager to abate the nuisance at your address. Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the City Manager. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Cler cc: City Manager OT ©0 0 IV C0DO 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson DATE CLAIM CHECK 3 I 9 9 0 HOLD 1ST NOTICE 2N0 NOTICE R ET URN J U U o© AVENUE CAL 5 O 13777 FRUITVA (408) 887 -3438 pgtacked from�lG P�~L.! vr� PS Fort 3649 -A n OCf.1880 W ee 1 David Smith Quito Rd. California 95070 sta te co eteta IEiti $14 7 CLAIM CHECK NO. t3O 0 HOLD DATE NOT 161D NOTICE RETURN D� tached from Form 9 3849-A May 7, 1987 Mr. David Smith 13675 Quito Road Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Smith: This is your official notice that the Saratoga. City Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1987, voted to authorize the City Manager to abate the nuisance at your address. Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the City Manager. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Cler cc: City Manager OgUW ©2 1 U 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE Rebecca R. Roldan hereby declares under penalty of perjury as follows: That on the /5 day of April, 1987, she caused two copies of the attached notice to be conspicuously posted on the property described as 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California, in accordance with Saratoga Municipal Code Section 3- 15.030. Dated at Saratoga, California, this day of May, 1987. Rebecca R. Roldan NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE Condition 1) Storage of a 1971 Dodge pick -up truck, CA License No. 2C54284 in front yard. 2) Storage of a 1972 Volkswagon automobile, CA License No. 1373SGS in front yard. 3) Storage of a boat in front yard. 4) Storage of a boat trailer in front yard. 5) Storage of assorted motor vehicle parts (including, but not limited to, a camper shell and storage rack) in the front yard. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 1, 1987, the City Council of Saratoga declared a public nuisance to exist on the property described as: 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California The condition(s) constituting such public nuisance and the action(s) to be taken for abatement thereof are as follows: Corrective Action Remove or store in conformity with City Code. TT 11 n Tt It It TT Tt rt Tt 6) Storage of trash, paper, and trimmings in front yard. Upon failure to abate such public nuisance through the corrective actions described herein, the nuisance will be abated by the City of Saratoga and all costs of abatement will be assessed against the property on which the nuisance exists and will constitute a special assessment upon and against such property until paid, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. A copy of the declaration of nuisance by the City Council is on file in the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk. NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE PAGE TWO Any property owner objecting to the proposed abatement by the City of Saratoga is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to be held on May 6, 1987, commencing at 7 p.m., at the Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. Dated this 14 day of 1987. ity Manger City of Saratoga E Name Street Address City State Zip L_ TITLE ORDER NO RECORDING REQUESTED 8Y. AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY P.O. Box 6200 Northridge, California 91328 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE BENEFICIARY LOAN NO 0- 387923 -8 jab TRUSTEE'S SALE NO. 212141EQU NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST IMPORTANT NOTICE IF YOUR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEHIND IN YOUR PAYMENTS, IT MAY BE SOLD WITHOUT ANY COURT ACTION, and you may have the legal right to bring your account in good standing by paying ail of your past due payments plus permitted costs and expenses within the time permitted by law for reinstatement of your account, which is normally five business days prior to the date set for the sale of your property. No sale date may be set until three months from the date this Notice of Default may be recorded (which date of recordation appears on this notice). This amount is $3,447.72 as of May 12, 1987 (Date), and will increase until your account becomes current. You may not have to pay the entire unpaid portion of your account, even though full payment was demanded, but you must pay the amount stated above. However, you and your beneficiary or mortgagee may mutually agree in writing prior to the time the notice of sale is posted (which may not be earlier than the end of the three -month period stated above) to, among other things, (1) provide additional time in which to cure the default by transfer of the property or otherwise; or (2) establish a schedule of payments in order to cure your default; or both (1) and (2). Following the expiration of the time period referred to in the first paragraph of this notice, unless the obligation being foreclosed upon or a separate written agreement between you and your creditor permits a longer period, you have only the legal right to stop the sale of your property by paying the entire amount demanded by your creditor. To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason, contact: Great Western Savings, A Federal Savings and Loan Association PO Box 190'0 Northridge Ca (Name 91328 beneficiary or mortgagee) (818)7012191 (Mailing Address) (Telephone No.) if you have any questions, you should contact a lawyer or the Government agen- cy which may have insured your loan. Notwithstanding the fact that your property is in foreclosure, you may offer your property for sale, provided the sale is concluded prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure. Remember, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTIO NOTICE IS HE GIVEN: J David R. Smith, Unmarried Man as Trustor, recorded on Ma as Instrument No 8 4 0 614 0 in Book /Reel J3 4 3 Page /Image 78 2 of Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, has occured in that payment has not been made of: THE FEBRUARY 15, 1987 INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND IN'T'EREST AND ALL SUBSEQUENT INSTALLMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST; ALSO, LATE CHARGES ON SAID INSTALLMENTS. PPZ.PEI TY TPJ E i t DELINQUENCY WHICH TAXES, TOGETHER WITH COSTS AND PENALTIES REMAIN UNPAID. AI __AMOIJNTS_DUE OR THAT MAY BECOME STJSSF JE7f1'r Y .7.M, IF ANY, FOR TAXES, HAZARD INSURANCE, PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES, HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS TRUSTEE S FEES, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS ARISING FROM OR ASSOCIATED WITH BENEFICIARY'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT, PRESERVE, OR ACQUIRE ITS SECURITY. That by reason thereof, the undersigned does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be be sold to satisfy all the obligations secured by said Deed of Trust. The undersigned has executed and delivered to CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, the duly appointed Trustee under said Deed of Trust, a written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale of said trust property to satisfy said obligations and has deposited with said Trustee such Deed of Trust and all instruments and documents evidencing such obligations. In this instrument, wherever the context so requires, the singular number includes the plural, and vice versa. Tho DATED: 8137 IR10i88 Great West ash; of the :County Recorder. a the f etth billow, N sent you Inasmuoh: as an exami natton ..4A tltp late to the trust property. *howe you reply Intereet I!I the Trustee`s Sala Proceadings. CALIFORNIA RECE NVEYANCE COMPANY tRUBTEE' reach of, and default in, the obligations secured by that certain Deed of Trust executed by es rsi,T s, A Federal Savings and Loan Association, „igl more, Vice President Phil s -os•v :nt Secretary ril 24,1987 PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD May 19, 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION RE: PEOPLE V. DAVID R. SMITH ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS PERTAINING TO ILLEGAL STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND MATERIALS IN FRONT YARD J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915-1979) A pre -trial conference was held on May 15, 1987, in the criminal action against David Robert Smith. At that hearing, Mr. Smith agreed to voluntarily clean up and correct the code violations that are the subject of that criminal complaint, namely, the Buick, Dodge and Volkswagon motor vehicles, the boat and boat trailer, the assorted vehicle parts, and the weeds, trimmings and trash located in the front yard of his property at 13675 Quito Road, Saratoga, California. The weeds, trimmings and trash are to be cleaned up over the Memorial Day weekend. I have confirmed with Green Valley Disposal Company that an 18 cubic yard disposal bin has been ordered for delivery to the property on May 22, 1987. Efforts will also begin immediately to remove the motor vehicles, and they will all be removed by June 1, 1987. Finally, the boat and trailer will be removed from the property by June 15, 1987. If the violations are not corrected by those dates, the case is scheduled for a non -jury trial on June 19, 1987. Based on the aforementioned compliance schedule established in this pending criminal action, it is recommended that the City take no independent action to summarily abate the code violations existing on Mr. Smith's property. There are two reasons for such restraint. First, any such action would run contrary to the voluntary compliance schedule established in the pending criminal court action. Second, voluntary compliance by Mr. Smith eliminates any need for the City to enter onto Mr. Smith's land or take possession and control of Mr. Smith's personal property. By refraining from those actions, the City will eliminate any exposure for possible claims by Mr. Smith regarding any damages that might arise from City actions on his property or the City's handling and storage of Mr. Smith's personal property taken from his land. Saratoga City Council Page Two May 19, 1987 Very truly yo rs .9 3e" Steven G. Baird Deputy City Attorney S GB /sh cc: Harry Peacock City Manager Based on the voluntary compliance schedule, the City should be seeing progressive improvement on the property. If compliance is not achieved as per this schedule, the criminal court trial will be held on June 19, 1987, and the requested sentencing will include a fine and a court order to clean up the violations. MT o2 S A�OC�Lsts 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 Na SUcii ire a ATTEAteW mom tOUTE NUMBER 1 I. ir INITIALS 01 Dave Smith 13675 Quito Rd. Saratoga, California 95070 L 11 p 5 /7 L 1t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4/1/87 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: None Attachments: Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM c CITY MGR. APPROVAL AZO 87 -001, Amendment to the Second Unit Ordinance legalizing existing second units Report Summary: 1. On February 4, 1987, the Council referred the attached ordinance to the Planning Commission for its consideration. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and unanimously recommended denial. 3. On March 24, 1987, the Planning Commission and City Council discussed the amendment and reached no concensus. The item is before the Council tonight for its consideration. Fiscal Impacts: Because there are no punitive fees, the City could lose several thousand dollars in revenue under the proposed fee schedule as opposed to the existing one. 1. Memo to the City Council from Planning Director 2. Planning Commission minutes 2/25/87 3. Committee -of- the -Whole minutes 3/24/87 4. City Attorney memo of 1/28/87 5. Negative Declaration 4/1: Introduced ordinance 3 -1 (Clevenger opposed, Pet absent). 4/15: Adopted ordinance 3-2 (Anderson, Clevenger opposed) REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: On February 4, 1987, the City Council referred the attached ordinance to the Planning Commission for consideration. On February 25, 1987 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended denial of the proposed amendment. The Commission did not want to relax the standards of the current code, but insure safety of the second unit by enforcing the standards. They also noted that a "grace period" to legalize existing units was previously established with the original ordinance without success and felt that owners of unsafe units wold not take advantage of any further leniency. At the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on March 24, 1987, the Planning Commission and City Council discussed the second unit ordinance but did not reach a consensus that changes to the City Code was necessary. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the decision of the Planning Commission, conduct the public hearing and make a determination to deny the amendment, introduce the ordinance or continue the item for further study. Y Hsia P a ning Director YH /kc /dsc O 0 AZO -87 -001, Amendment to the Second Unit Ordinance legalizing existing second units L 1 DATE: 3/27/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/1/87 11. AZO- 86-001 City of Saratoga,_ consideration of an ordinance amending Article 15 -56 of the City Code to modify the provisions concerning legalization of certain existing second units. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. The City Attorney reviewed the status of the amendment to the Second Unit Ordinance._____ The Public Hearing was opened at 10:47 P.M. There were no speakers. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Pe a /,,6157 SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:48 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Pines noted a concern that encouraging property owners to legitimize illegal units when, in fact, they will fear the expense required or know that these units cannot be brought up to Code; a reduction of fees will not change the problem. The City Attorney stated that the main inducement was establishment of a different standard for the issuance of a use permit, namely, if the unit complies with the housing code, meets fire and safety codes, it would qualify for a use permit and not be required to meet the standards applied to second units. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, the City Attorney defined the criteria for a legally built unit; he added that the Ordinance placed the burden of proof on the applicant, which could be difficult to prove. Commissioner Tucker stated for the record her concern that the City could be responsible if a Use Permit was acknowledged when standards may not have been met; the City Attorney responded that in order to obtain the Use Permit the structure would have to be brought up to Code. He noted that the relevant issue was whether structures comply with the Code at this time or could be brought into compliance through modification of the structure. Upon review of the proposed Ordinance, Commissioner Tucker felt that requirements were being relaxed; allowing lesser standards on existing structures that may have been illegally used as second units or as rentals was not the answer. The Commission should do the upmost to maintain safe building standards for all residents of the community. To relax these Codes to the benefit of those who have been illegally providing potentially unsafe housing was not only unfair, but unsafe. Citizens who remodel their homes are required to meet current codes; residents desiring second units should also be required to meet these standards. The Commission has an opportunity to provide safe, desirable housing and at the same time do away with unsafe or undesirable housing. This could possibly be done with cooperation of the realtors; she noted the full disclosure law. A realtor, listing a house with a second unit, could check with the City to insure that a Use Permit had been granted; if not, the City could investigate and give the owner the opportunity to bring the structure up to Code or dismantle it. She was not in favor of providing potentially dangerous, nor substandard housing to any citizens; certainly seniors are not second rate citizens and deserve better. The City Attorney commented that the City was not modifying the housing Code nor the technical Codes listed in Chapter 16; the structure had to comply with these standards as they currently exist. What will not be applied to existing units are the standards that are designed specifically for second units as contained in the zoning ordinance; however, Section 15- 56.030 of the City Code, owner occupancy requirement and the age requirement are still applicable. He concurred with Commissioner Tucker that the special standards developed by the City for second unit ordinances were being relaxed; however, the City was not relaxing standards of the housing code, fire code or any building codes that would be applied. Commissioner Pines noted that those with unsafe units already knew that and thus would not come in; Chairwoman Burger concurred. Commissioner Tucker noted that the required findings were also being reduced in number and changed in content. TUCKER/HARRIS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF AZO- 86-002 FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED. Passed 6-0. 12. AZO- 86-002 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance amending Sections 15- 80.020 and 15- 80.080 of the City Code pertaining to radio and television antennas. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. The City Attorney noted that individuals who wished to speak on this issue were no longer present; he asked that this Item be Continued to the March 25, 1987, Meeting. MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, March 24, 1987 PIACE: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Committee of the Whole /Adjourned Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 6:14 p.m. Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Peterson and Mayor Hlava were present; Councilmember Moyles was absent. Planning Commissioners Burger, Guch, Pines, Siegfried and Tucker were present; Commissioners Callans and Harris were absent. Staff members present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Toppel, Planning Director Hsia, Associate Planner Young. Second Unit Ordinance Consensus was not reached between the Council and Commission that changes to the treatment of pre existing second units need to be made. Several Commissioners felt that enforcement should be stepped up, but no consensus was reached on that matter either. Commissioners did not agree that reducing fees and relaxing zoning standards would make non compliers come in to get permits, but some of the members of the Council did. Council will further deliberate on this matter at an upcoming public hearing. Design Review Reform The staff report and the draft ordinance were discussed in some eta with the following conclusions: 1. The Site Review Committee should be abolished. 2. There needs to be a clear definition of what is meant by double counting. 3. New proposed height limits are satisfactory. 4. The concept of the slope penalty is acceptable, but may need technical adjustments. 5. Lot size versus home size floor area ratio allowed for R- 1- 12,500, R -1- 15,000 and R -1- 20,000 need to be reduced slightly as was done in the R -1- 10,000 which was reduced from 3,500 sq. ft. to 3,200 sq. ft. 6. Upper limit cap on house size in R -1 zones acceptable. 7. Proposed yard setbacks acceptable. 8. Setbacks of second story additions on existing units needs further study as to whether they should be standards or only guidelines. 9. Scope of design review staff to research last six months' activity and compare impact of various proposals for commission versus staff review and compare outcomes under new standards. 10. The subject of simplification of variance findings to be more reflective of State law wording was discussed and will be examined. Use of Committee of the Whole Meetings Opinions varied on whether these fwTW be used to review projects before there had been a public bearing on the Tr .,17 ...........7 0,.01- 4.. ......+n (*ACPQ._ mic.ht lea ntivia,h1P PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD TO: Saratoga City Council and Planning Commission FROM: City Attorney RE: Legalization of Existing Second Units DATE: January 28, 1987 ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (4151 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -19 IC L. M. FARASYN, (1915-1979)) Notwithstanding the adoption of various amendments to the second unit ordinance which liberalized the standards applicable to existing second units, these amendments have not served the intended purpose of encouraging property owners to legitimate such units by obtaining a use permit. This process would enable the City to make a determination as to whether the existing second unit is fit for human occupancy. The City staff has therefore recommended, and the Council has conceptually approved, a further simplification of the standards and procedures for legalization of existing second units that were lawfully constructed under a building permit and in accordance with the development regulations in force at the time of construction. In place of the numerous restrictions and standards now contained in Section 15- 56.030 of the City Code, the basic consideration would be whether the unit provides safe and sanitary housing in terms of compliance with the Building, Health and Fire Codes. To reduce the time and expense of the approval process, the Council conceptually approved the proposal for an administrative hearing to be conducted by the Planning Director, with notice thereof given only to the owners of immediately adjacert properties. The decision by the Planning Director could then be appealed directly to the City Council. The staff proposal does not involve a grandfathering of all existing second units, but rather a change of emphasis from zoning regulation to health and safety considerations. The simplification of standards and procedures on the one hand would be accompanied by increased enforcement on the other to insure the discontinuance of any second unit which is found to be unfit for human occupancy. The staff proposal is now contained in a proposed ordinance amending various sections in Article 15 -56 of the City Code. However, because it is necessary for the Commission and Council to understand how these amendments have been integrated into the existing provisions of Article 15 -56, the entire Article has been printed as it would appear after adoption of the amendments. I would suggest that you focus your attention upon this document instead of the ordinance itself. 1 have included some handwritten notations to indicate where changes have been made. c The major features of the proposed ordinance are as follows: 1. Section 15- 56.030 of the existing Code, pertaining to restrictions and standards, represents a combination of both development standards (lot size, slope, unit size, etc.) and occupancy restrictions (owner occupancy, age and number of occupants). Although we are changing the physical standards for lawfully constructed existing second units, the occupancy restrictions would still apply to these units. Consequently, the two subjects have now been separated in the revised Article. The prohibition against more than one second unit on any one site is now set forth as a new Section 15- 56.025 and the occupancy restrictions have been moved and consolidated into Section 15- 56.040. The development standards now listed in Section 15- 56.030 of the revised Article will now apply only to a proposed second unit which is not yet constructed or a second unit illegally established after August 18, 1984 (which is deemed to be a "new" unit). 2. Section 15- 56.060, concerning the findings required for issuance of a use permit, would no longer apply to legalization of lawfully constructed existing second units. Instead, a separate and abbreviated set of findings is now contained in Section 15-56.110, paragraph (g). -3. Section 15- 56.100 has been revised to reflect the separation of development standards and occupancy restrictions and the separate findings for existing second units as contained in paragraph (g) of Section 15- 56.110. 4. Section 15- 56.110 has been totally redrafted. Paragraph (a) incorporates the statement of purpose as contained in the Memorandum from the City Manager to the City Council dated December 2, 1986. Paragraph (b) preserves the cut off date as now contained in the present City Code of August 18, 1984, and limits the application of this Section to lawfully constructed units. Paragraph (c) simplifies, to some extent, the documentation required to be submitted with the application. Paragraph (d) provides for a reduced application fee during a limited period of time (approximately 18 months from the anticipated effective date of the amendment), with the normal fee to be charged thereafter. With respect to procedure, the application would be handled as an administrative proceeding conducted by the Planning Director. Notice of the application would be given only to the adjacent property owners as opposed to everyone owning property within a radius of 500 feet, as required under the present Code. If no request for an administrative hearing is made, the Planning Director may act upon the application without conducting such hearing. The existing second unit must still comply with the standards set forth in paragraph (f) of Section 15- 56.110. All of these standards are now contained in the present Code but the difference is that the Planning Director would not be required to deal with the other development standards listed in Section 15- 56.030. The objective of the new ordinance is reflected in the findings required for legalization of existing second units, which are limited to three basic considerations health and safety, compatibility and privacy impact. The Planning Director will have authority to impose conditions of approval when necessary or appropriate to mitigate any adverse impacts from the existing second unit. Paragraph (f) of Section 15- 56.110 addresses those units established prior to August 18, 1984, which do not qualify for legalization under this Section because they were not lawfully constructed pursuant to a building permit (if required) or in 0130 accordance with the development regulations in force at the time of construction. These units will continue to be treated in the same manner as provided in the existing Code, with the Planning Commission having the authority to modify certain standards applicable to new second units if all of the findings can be made, provided the existing second unit complies with the alternative standards set forth in Paragraph (f) of Section 15- 56.110. However, a variance would now be required for any non conformity with the current zoning regulations (such as height set -back or impervious cover). Because Article 15 -56 has now become rather complicated, the following chart may serve to illustrate the different approaches which have been taken with respect to different categories of second units: Category of second unit Newly constructed Established after 8/18/84 Lawfully constructed before 8/18/84 Illegally constructed before 8/18/84 Development standards Normal standards No Planning Commission in §15- 56.030 Normal standards No Planning Commission in §15- 56.030 Housing, health fire codes Alternative standards in §15- 56.110(f) Normal standards in §15- 56.030 -3- Modification of standards Approving Authority N/A Planning Director Power to Planning Commission modify; alternative standards in §15- 56.110(f); variance required for zoning regs. 0131 ARTICLE 15 -56 SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES Sections: 15- 56.010 Statement of findings 15- 56.020 Use permit required 15- 56.025 One second unit per site 15- 56.030 Development standards 15- 56.040 A Occupancy restrictions 15- 56.050 Inspections 15- 56.060 Findings required for issuance of use permit 15- 56.070 Limitation on number of use permits 15- 56.080 Duration of use permit; use permit to run with land; certification of compliance 15- 56.090 Recordation of use permit 15- 56.100 Revocation of use permit 15- 56.110 Legalization of existing second units 15- 56.120 Illegal second units s s s S15- 56.010 Statement of findings The City recognizes that some of its existing housing resources could provide a cost effective method to deal with housing needs. However, there are environmental and service constraints the City faces which limit the use of methods such as adding second dwelling units. In particular, such units generally are not appropriate on hillside lots since these lots usually have environmental constraints on development. The use of second dwelling units is also limited by urban service capacity, public safety standards, traffic conditions, fire hazards, privacy impacts and compatibility with neighboring uses and structures. The limitation and control of second units is therefore required in order to avoid excessive density and development of single family residential sites and to preserve and enhance aesthetic qualities and property values, while being responsive to the housing needs of the community. The following Article incorporates these limitations. S15- 56.020 Use permit required A second unit may be created or occupied only if a use permit has been granted for such second unit pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 -55 and this Article. S15-56.025 One second unit per site Only one second unit shall be permitted on any one site. S15- 56.030 Development standards Except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 56.110. each second unit shall comply with all of the following development standards before a use permit may be granted: 0132 1� CO t 6 (a) Lot size. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, the net site 1 J area of the lot upon which the second unit is located shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot, provided, however, if the lot is located within the R -1- 10,000 district, the minimum net site �1 area of such lot shall be at least 12,500 square feet. If the second unit is detached from the main dwelling, the lot upon which the second unit is located must be at least 1.6 times the minimum net site area prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. 4° S ko k (b) Slope. No second unit may be located upon a hillside lot. (c) Unit size. The second unit shall not exceed eight hundred square feet of living space, not including the garage. (d) Building codes. The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (e) Zoning regulations. The second unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). No variances shall be granted for any new second unit to be constructed. (f) Parking. A minimum of one off street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second unit in addition to the off street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (g) Sewer. The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. (h) Access. The second unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (i) Common entrance. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second unit and the main dwelling must be served by a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (j) Other conditions. The second unit shall comply with such other conditions ur standards which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. S15 -56.040 Occupancy restrictions (a) Either the existing main dwelling or the second unit shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the main dwelling or the second unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization. (b) Either the second unit or the existing main dwelling shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of a person sixty years of age or older or a person who is physically handicapped. -2- a (c) The second unit may not be occupied by more than two people as L `permanent living quarters. (d) The Planning Commission shall have authority to waive or modify the owner occupancy restriction set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section, or the age restriction set forth in Paragraph (b) of this Section. or both of such restrictions, if the Commission determines that, by reason of special circumstances in a particular case, the application of such restrictions will result in extreme hardship upon the owner or occupant of the property. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems 'necessary or appropriate in order to mitigate any actual or potential adverse impacts from the granting of a waiver or modification hereunder. (e) This Section shall apply to either a new or existing second unit for which a use permit is granted pursuant to this Article. S15-56.050 Inspections (a) Where the application is for legalization of an existing second unit or approval of a proposed unit to be attached to the main dwelling, prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any construction or alteration work is completed. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the applicant. (b) Each existing second unit and a main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liability with respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the issuance of a second unit use permit constitute a representation or warranty by the City to the owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes. S15- 56.060 Findings required for issuance of use permit Subject to the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 15- 56.070 and except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 56.110, the Planning Commission may grant an application for a second unit use permit as applied for or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 55.070 of this Chapter and all of the following additional findings: -3- 0134 (a) The proposed second unit complies with the development standards described in Section 15- 56.030. (b) The proposed second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. (c) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. (d) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping. (e) The proposed second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion or overload existing public facilities or utilities. §15 56.070 Limitation on number of use permits (a) Not more than twenty use permits for second units may be granted during any single calendar year and not more than five of such use permits may be granted during any single calendar year for second units located within the R -1- 10,000 district. The City Council shall periodically review the impacts of second units for which use permits are granted under this Article. Such review shall be conducted annually or at such other interval of time as may be specified by the Council. At each periodic review, the Council shall determine the limitation, if any, on the number of use permits for second units to be granted until the next scheduled review. The numerical limitation may be increased, decreased or retained by the City Council, based upon its review of the impacts caused by the creation of new second units and legalization of existing second units. (b) During any period of time in which a limitation on the number of use permits for second units is imposed, all applications for such use permits shall be date stamped and consecutively numbered when received and permits shall be granted in the order of receipt. The Planning Director, or his representative, may decline to receive any application which is not accompanied by payment of the application fee and all information and documents described in Section 15- 55.040 of this Chapter. If a use permit is granted by the Planning Commission and the matter is thereafter appealed to the City Council, the use permit shall still be included within the numerical limitation unless and until the granting thereof is reversed by the City Council on appeal. If the application for such use permit is denied by the Planning Commission, such application shall not be included within the numerical limitation notwithstanding any appeal to the City Council; provided, however, in the event a use permit is granted by the City Council on appeal, such use permit shall have priority over applications granted subsequent to the date on which the City Council renders its decision. §15- 56.080 Duration of use permit; use permit to run with land; certification of compliance (a) A second unit use permit may be granted for a specified period of time, with or without the right to apply for extensions, or may be allowed to continue indefinitely for so long as the holder of such permit complies with the applicable restrictions and standards contained in this Article and the conditions of the use -4 0135 permit. Such use permit shall run with the land and the conditions thereof shall be 'finding upon all successive owners of the property on which the second unit is lc ^_ated for so long as the use permit remains in effect. ;b) At each five year interval from the date a second unit use permit is granted the holder of such permit shall certify to the Planning Director, on such form as i.e may prescribe. that the holder has complied and continues to comply with all of t5e applicable restrictions and standards of this Article and all conditions as set forth the use permit. The Planning Director may request the holder to furnish such inairmation and documents as the Director may deem necessary in order to verify the truth or accuracy of any statements contained in the certification. S15- 56.090 Recordatia: of use permit The original second unit permit shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. All of the resc: ^tions and conditions applicable to such use permit shall be set forth therein, togeL 2r with the requirement for certification of compliance as provided in Subsection 15- ;Y7.080(b). §15- 56.100 Revocation of use permit In addition to the grounds for revocation of a use permit as set forth in Section 15- 55.110 of this Chapter the Planning Commission may :evoke any use permit for a second unit upon a finding that: (a) The second unit has failed to comply with any of the applicable development standards contained in Section 15- 56.030; or (b) The holder of the use permit has violated any of the applicable occupancy restrictions contained in Section 15- 56.040: or 121 The holder of the use permit has violated any of the conditions set forth therein; or The holder of the use permit has failed to provide a certification of compliance in accordance with Subsection 15- 56.080(b); or lej The owner of the property has failed to establish the second unit within a reasonable time after the granting of the use permit; or f The second unit has been eliminated through alteration of the structure in which such unit was contained; or (g,2 Any of the findings required under Paragraphs (b) or (e) of Section 15 56.060 or Paragraph (g) of Section 15 56.110 can no longer be made. §15- 56.110 Legalization of existing second units (a) Purpose of Section. It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary housing conditions. Second units currently exist which -5 0136 were created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimation of such units under the law, the owners of property on which second units are located should be encouraged to legalize such units provided the units are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second units are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the City has the responsibility to either insure they are made both safe and sanitary or their use for human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second units that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b) Scope of Section. This Section shall apply only to second units established prior to August 18, 1984 within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherwise was lawfully constructed, and which complied with any applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second unit established from and after August 18, 1984, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. (c) Contents of Application. Application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe. In lieu of the items described in Section 15- 55.040 of this Chapter, the application shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A vicinity map showing the location of the site. (2) An accurate scale drawing showing the location of all structures, trees, landscaping and off street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and the Fire Marshall, as required under Section 15- 56.050 of this Article. (4) A preliminary title report covering the site, or other evidence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. The name and age of the occupants of the second unit, if any, together with a copy of any written lease or rental agreement between the owner and such occupants. (6) A list of the names and addresses of all persons owning property immediately adjacent to the site, as shown by the latest available assessment roll of the County or as otherwise known to the applicant. (5) (7) If the site is a hillside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the Planning Director: (i) A topographic map of the site showing contours at intervals of not more than five feet; and /or (ii) A geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. (8) If the second unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site. 0137 N)I2) (d) Processing Fee. A processing fee shall be paid to the City at the time of filing the application for use permit. If the application is voluntarily filed by the property owner prior to December 31, 1988, the fee shall be fifty percent of the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. If the application is filed in response to a written notice from the City to do so, or is filed at any time after January 1, 1989, the fee shall be the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. (e) Procedure. Upon the filing of an application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit, the following procedure shall be followed: (1) The Planning Director shall send a written notice of the application to each of the adjacent property owners shown on the list furnished by the applicant. The notice shall advise such property owners that a written protest or request for an administrative hearing, or both, may be filed with the Planning Director within ten days from the date of the notice. (2) If any written protests are filed by adjacent property owners within the time prescribed in the notice but no request for hearing is made, the Planning Director shall consider such protests in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall render his decision thereon without conducting an administrative hearing. (3) (f) Standards. Existing second units shall comply with the following standards: (1) (2) (3) If a request for an administrative hearing is received within the time prescribed in the notice, the Planning Director shall fix a time and place for the conduct of such hearing and shall give written notice thereof to the applicant and the person or persons requesting the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Director shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall furnish a copy of his decision to the applicant and the person or persons who requested the hearing. The decision by the Planning Director may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter. Where the second unit is located upon a hillside lot, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the second unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. Provided that not less than three off street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the -7- 0138 parking space for the second unit shall be screened from view from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site may be utilized as a parking space for the second unit. (4) Where the second unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the second unit, and the main dwelling s if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary sewer whenever the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the \ei installation cost. (5) The requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person sixty years of age or older or by a person who is physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant in lawful possesion of the premises as of August 18, 1984, and such tenancy may be continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. (6) The second unit shall comply with such other standards which. in the judgment of the Planning Director, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent properties. (g) Findings. The Planning Director may grant the application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Planning Director makes all of the following findings: (1) The second unit complies with the provisions of the Uniform Housing Code and applicable provisions of the health and fire codes. (2) The second unit is compatible with the exterior appearance and nature of the existing main dwelling on the site. (3) The second unit does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to the residents of adjacent properties. (h) Disqualified existing units. Any second unit established prior to August 18, 1984 which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not having been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article, except as follows: (1) The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify the standards set forth in Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Section 15- 56.030, provided the Commission is able to make all of the other findings required under Section 15- 56.060 for the existing second unit. (2) The existing second unit shall comply with the standards set forth in Paragraph (f) of this Section. 0139 1 (9 4 2 .4\4S 0 (3) The existing second unit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. (i) Burden of proof. Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second unit or the occupancy thereof depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. (j) Numerical limit. Use permits for legalization of existing second units shall not be subject to or included within the numerical limitation prescribed 'in Section 15- 56.070. S15- 56.120 Illegal second units The establishment or continuance of a second unit without a use permit is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance. Any violation of this Article shall be subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. -9- 0110 SECTION 1: follows: ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 15 -56 OF THE CITY CODE TO MODIFY THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING LEGALIZATION OF EXISTING SECOND UNITS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: A new Section 15- 56.025 is added to Article 15 -56, to read as "S15 -56.025 One second unit per site Only one second unit shall be permitted on any one site." SECTION 2: Section 15- 56.030 in Article 15 -56 is amended to read as follows: "S15- 56.030 Development standards Except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 56.110, each second unit shall comply with all of the following development standards before a use permit may be granted: (a) Lot size. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, the net site area of the lot upon which the second unit is located shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot; provided, however, if the lot is located within the R -1- 10,000 district, the minimum net site area of such lot shall be at least 12,500 square feet. If the second unit is detached from the main dwelling, the lot upon which the second unit is located must be at least 1.6 times the minimum net site area prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. (b) Slope. No second unit may be located upon a hillside lot. (c) Unit size. The second unit shall not exceed eight hundred square feet of living space, not including the garage. (d) Building codes. The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (e) Zoning regulations. The second unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). No variances shall be granted for any new second unit to be constructed. (f) Parking. A minimum of one off street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second unit in addition to the off street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. 0141 (g) Sewer. The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. (h) Access. The second unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (i) Common entrance. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second unit and the main dwelling must be served by a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (j) Other conditions. The second unit shall comply with such other conditions or standards which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood." SECTION 3: Section 15- 56.040 in Article 15 -56 is amended to read as follows: "S15 -56.040 Occupancy restrictions (a) Either the existing main dwelling or the second unit shall be occupied as the brincipal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the main dwelling or the second unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization. (b) Either the second unit or the existing main dwelling shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of a person sixty years of age or older or a person who is physically handicapped. (c) The second unit may not be occupied by more than two people as permanent living quarters. (d) The Planning Commission shall have authority to waive or modify the owner occupancy restriction set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section, or the age restriction set forth in Paragraph (b) of this Section, or both of such restrictions, if the Commission determines that, by reason of special circumstances in a particular case, the application of such restrictions will result in extreme hardship upon the owner or occupant of the property. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary or appropriate in order to mitigate any actual or potential adverse impacts from the granting of a waiver or modification hereunder. (e) This Section shall apply to either a new or existing second unit for which a use permit is granted pursuant to this Article." SECTION 4: Section 15- 56.060 in Article 15 -56 is amended to read as follows: "S15- 56.060 Findings required for issuance of use permit Subject to the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 15- 56.070 and except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 56.110, the Planning Commission may grant an -2- c1 k2 application for a second unit use permit as applied for or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 55.070 of this Chapter and all of the following additional findings: (a) The proposed second unit complies with the development standards described in Section 15- 56.030. (b) The proposed second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. (c) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. (d) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping. (e) The proposed second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion or overload existing public facilities or utilities." SECTION 5: Section 15- 56.100 in Article 15 -56 is amended to read as follows: "S15 -56.100 Revocation of use permit In addition to the grounds for revocation of a use permit as set forth in Section 15- 55.110 of this Chapter, the Planning Commission may revoke any use permit for a second unit upon a finding that: (a) The second unit has failed to comply with any of the applicable development standards contained in Section 15- 56.030; or (b) The holder of the use permit has violated any of the applicable occupancy restrictions contained in Section 15- 56.040; or (c) The holder of the use permit has violated any of the conditions set forth therein; or (d) The holder of the use permit has failed to provide a certification of compliance in accordance with Subsection 15- 56.080(b); or (e) The owner of the property has failed to establish the second unit within a reasonable time after the granting of the use permit; or (f) The second unit has been eliminated through alteration of the structure in which such unit was contained; or (g) Any of the findings required under Paragraphs (b) or (e) of Section 15- 56.060 or Paragraph (g) of Section 15- 56.110 can no longer be made." SECTION 6: Section 15- 56.110 in Article 15 -56 is amended to read as follows: 0143 "S15 -56.110 Legalization of existing second units (a) Purpose of Section. It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary housing conditions. Second units currently exist which were created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimation of such units under the law, the owners of property on which second units are located should be encouraged to legalize such units provided the units are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second units are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the City has the responsibility to either insure they are made both safe and sanitary or their use for human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second units that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b) Scope of Section. This Section shall apply only to second units established prior to August 18, 1984 within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherwise was lawfully constructed, and which complied with any applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second unit established from and after August 18, 1984, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. (c) Contents of Application. Application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe. In lieu of the items described in Section 15- 55.040 of this Chapter, the application shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A vicinity map showing the location of the site. (2) An accurate scale drawing showing the location of all structures, trees, landscaping and off street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and the Fire Marshall, as required under Section 15- 56.050 of this Article. (4) A preliminary title report covering the site, or other evidence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. (5) The name and age of the occupants of the second unit, if any, together with a copy of any written lease or rental agreement between the owner and such occupants. (6) A list of the names and addresses of all persons owning property immediately adjacent to the site, as shown by the latest available assessment roll of the County or as otherwise known to the applicant. (7) If the site is a hillside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the Planning Director: (i) A topographic map of the site showing contours at intervals of not more than five feet; and /or (ii) A geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. -4- 0144 (d) Processing Fee. A processing fee shall be paid to the City at the time of filing the application for use permit. If the application is voluntarily filed by the property owner prior to December 31, 1988, the fee shall be fifty percent of the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. If the application is filed in response to a written notice from the City to do so, or is filed at any time after January 1, 1989, the fee shall be the amount then charged as the normal second unit use permit application fee. (e) Procedure. Upon the filing of an application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit, the following procedure shall be followed: (8) If the second unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site. (1) The Planning Director shall send a written notice of the application to each of the adjacent property owners shown on the list furnished by the applicant. The notice shall advise such property owners that a written protest or request for an administrative hearing, or both, may be filed with the Planning Director within ten days from the date of the notice. (2) If any written protests are filed by adjacent property owners within the time prescribed in the notice but no request for hearing is made, the Planning Director shall consider such protests in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall render his decision thereon without conducting an administrative hearing. (3) If a request for an administrative hearing is received within the time prescribed in the notice, the Planning Director shall fix a time and place for the conduct of such hearing and shall give written notice thereof to the applicant and the person or persons requesting the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Director shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the application and shall furnish a copy of his decision to the applicant and the person or persons who requested the hearing. The decision by the Planning Director may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter. (f) Standards. Existing second units shall comply with the following standards: (1) Where the second unit is located upon a hillside lot, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that the second unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. -5 0145 (3) Provided that not less than three off street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the parking space for the second unit shall be screened from view from the street if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site may be utilized as a parking space for the second unit. (4) Where the second unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the second unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary sewer whenever the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the installation cost. (5) The requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person sixty years of age or older or by a person who is physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant in lawful possesion of the premises as of August 18, 1984, and such tenancy may be continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. (6) The second unit shall comply with such other standards which, in the judgment of the Planning Director, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent properties. (g) Findings. The Planning Director may grant the application for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit as applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Planning Director makes all of the following findings: (1) The second unit complies with the provisions of the Uniform Housing Code and applicable provisions of the health and fire codes. (2) The second unit is compatible with the exterior appearance and nature of the existing main dwelling on the site. (3) The second unit does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to the residents of adjacent properties. (h) Disqualified existing units. Any second unit established prior to August 18, 1984 which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not having been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article, except as follows: (1) The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify the standards set forth in Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Section 15- 56.030,, provided the Commission is able to make all of the other findings required under Section 15- 56.060 for the existing second unit. -6 0146 (2) The existing second unit shall comply with the standards set forth in Paragraph (f) of this Section. (3) The existing second unit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. (i) Burden of proof. Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second unit or the occupancy thereof depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. (j) Numerical limit. Use permits for legalization of existing second units shall not be subject to or included within the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 15- 56.070." SECTION 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 0147 EIA -4 Saratoga PROJECT DESCRIPTION NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No: Azo-87 -001 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has deteriined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,; and.Resolu tion 653 of the City of Saratoga, that the following described- project will have no effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Amendment to the City Code to modify the provisions concerning legalization of certain existing second units. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Second residential units already exist in Saratoga which may not be safe and sanitary. The amendment to the code establishes guidelines for locating and legalizing these units. No additional urban services would be required. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of 19 Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER April 8, 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: Once again our citizens rights are being ignored. With the proposed ordinance for upgrading illegal structures to second units, the City Council is ignoring the victims while blessing and providing a profit to violators of the law. To add insult to injury, they are suggesting half of the application fee be waived. This means Saratoga tax payers will foot the remainder of the bill. By changing and eliminating current legal requirements, which were intended to protect and preserve neighborhoods, the proposed ordinance would make victims of law abiding citizens. No longer would there be any concern about the impact these "sub- standard" structures have on the neighborhood. The new ordinance would do away with the requirements regarding noise, parking, traffic and compatibility with the neighborhood. These units would become legal with approval of the Planning Director. Laws are made to protect citizens and their rights. However, it appears our City Council is changing the laws so that they don't have to enforce them. Who are they protecting? Why are they rewarding violators at the victims expense? Sincerely, plk-e-a,a ack Lucas 18696 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 April 7, 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: The Board of Directors on behalf of the Wildcat Creek Homeowners Association, would like to voice its opposition to the proposed new second unit ordinance. Lost is the true intent of Senate Bill 11534 which is to provide "new" housing for seniors. Our current city codes provide safeguards to homeowners and renters by requiring appropriate standards be met. Passage of this proposed ordinance will legalize "sub- standard" illegal structures. In other words, by reducing our requirements, we will now have cabanas, carports, granny flats and other such structures made into legitimate second units with the stroke of a pen. Structures built with permits (but not necessarily final approval) which later had a kitchen added without a permit, can become a "legal" second unit. This without meeting current second unit housing requirements with regard to setbacks, lot size, impact on neighborhood, etc. This new ordinance is like putting a bandaid on a festering wound. While the issue is being addressed, the problem is not being solved. Saratoga has a reputation for providing well constructed homes. Our citizens take pride in this. To legalize sub standard housing without regard to the neighborhood is not in tune with the wishes of Saratoga residents. Sincerely, Fred E. Ryalls Executive Secretary WILDCAT CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. eQ MEETING DATE: April 1, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 4 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM qT CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Investments Workshop California Municipal Treasurer's Assn. Recommended Motion: Approve Finance Director's attendance at an Investments Workshop in Costa Mesa on April 21, 1987, sponsored by the California Municipal Treasurer's Association with reasonable and necessary expenses Report Summary: Recent changes to state law on investments have further complicated investment decisions and reporting requirements. This one day workshop which is part of the CMTA annual seminar will provide training in this area. Cost for travel, lodging and workshop will be about $300. Funds are budgeted for this type of activity in the training budget. California Municipal Treasurers Association PRE SEMINAR WORKSHOP April 21, 1987 Westin South Coast Plaza Costa Mesa, California The Best Investment You Can Make For You and Your City Time: Tuesday, April 21, 1987 Fee: $40.00 if registered before March 18, 1987 $50.00 if not received by March 18, 1987 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. The theme for the workshop this year is Building for the Future. Tuesday morning workshop leader will be Harriett Steiner of the law firm of McDonough, Holland and Allen. Her review will focus on What a Treasurer should know where to find it what to do with it. This will be a "nuts and bolts" session where the presiding rule is There is no such thing as a dumb question! Be sure to bring your handbook!!! There are an awfully lot of obscure laws, as well as the more well -known laws, that govern what you do. It is to your benefit to be aware of where to find the pertinent section of the government code. In the past year, legislation has been passed that imposes more legal requirements upon your performance, has had a drastic effect on your ability to perform, and mandates new and better techniques to achieve that performance. Your Treasurer's Handbook should be kept current. This is the most comprehensive source of information, guidance and reference you have. The better you know how to use it, the more you depend on it, the quicker you update it, the better you'll be able to perform. The afternoon session will be an investment workshop. Workshop Leaders: Hank Stern of Lakewood, and Les Wells of Bank of America. Treasurers are faced with an ever increasing number of investment options. Hank and Les will cover investment terminology, calculation of effective yields, discussion of types of investments currently authorized and factors to consider in developing an investment strategy Don't miss this opportunity to learn as well as exchange information with your fellow treasurers. NAME Free Evening Tuesday. April 21. 1987 8:00 9:00 8:30 10:15 10:15 10:30 10:30 11:45 11:45 12:00 12:00 1:00 1:15 3:00 3:00 3:15 3:15 5:00 3:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 California Municipal Treasurers Association PRE SEMINAR WORKSHOP REGISTRATION FORM April 21, 1987 Monday, April 20, 1987 4:00 5:00 p.m. Registration 6:00 7:00 p.m. Get Acquainted Reception President's Suite Registration Technical Session Break Technical Session No Host Social Lunch Technical Session Break Technical Session Board Meeting Early Bird Reception Free Evening CMTA Board Dinner I. LIST INFORMATION FOR EACH REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING: 11TL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT Treasurer's Handbook Harriett Steiner of the Law firm of McDonough, Holland Allen. A review of the Treasurer's Handbook and legislations affecting California Treasurers. Investment Workshop to be conducted by Hank Stern of Lakewood and Les Wells of Bank of America, TELEPHONE NO. 1. 2. 3. COST NUMBER AMOUNT II. PRE SEMINAR WORKSHOP REGISTRATION FEE BEFORE 3/18/87 $40.00 X Fee includes workshop materials and Tuesday lunch REGISTRATION FEE AFTER 3/18/87 $50.00 X Total Remitted III. MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO "CMTA 1987 SEMINAR" IV. MAIL CHECK AND REGISTRATION FORM TO: ROBERT OMAN CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92628 -1200 PRE SEMINAR WORKSHOP RESERVATION DEADLINE: MARCH 18, 1987 HOTEL RESERVATION DEADLINE: APRIL 1, 1987 California Municipal Treasurers Association Do you have a Treasurer's Handbook? PRE SEMINAR WORKSHOP PROFILE SHEET NAME: TITLE: CITY: POPULATION: WHEN APPOINTED /ELECTED: PORTFOLIO SIZE: The Tuesday morning workshop will be a review of the handbook and legislative changes affecting Treasurers. The afternoon session will be on investments. Please rank the following topics in the order of importance to you (1 as most important, 4 as least important). This will allow our workshop leaders to allocate time accordingly. Terminology (discussion on language of investments) Types of investments (treasuries, agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, CD's, repo's) Calculations (compute discount value, effective yield, mark to market) Investment stratagies (tips for treasurers, economic factors, etc.) yes no Please be sure to bring your Treasurer's Handbook. We will have a limited number for sale at the conference site. Please complete and return this form for each paid registration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Zvi$ MEETING DATE: April 1, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Inspection Services SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 6526, BLACKWELL HOMES, PARKER RANCH Recommended Motion: Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject Tract Repoft Summary: The public improvements for the subject Tract have been satisfactorily completed and maintained for a one year period. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memo desribing bond 2. Resolution 36 -B Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 4 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4/C MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Tract 6526 Location: The one (1) year maintenance period for Tract 6526 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: Blackwell Homes Address: P.O. Box 817, Cambpell, CA. 95008 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3. Improvement Security: Type: Faithful Performance Amount: $895,000 Issuing Co: The American Insurance Co. c/o Alexar(lPr Alexander Address: P.O. Box 5700 1530 Meridiar AVPnh]P Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6338861 4. Miles of Public Street: .504 5. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Parker Ranch and Farr Ranch San Jose, CA. 95150 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 DATE: January 6, 1982 3 -13 -87 Robert S. Shook Recorded a', the request of, and to be returned to: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS PARKER RANCH 4 FARR RANCH RDS. It appearing that on or about March. 1982 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 the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No. 6526 recorded in Book 497 of Maps, at Page 1 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on March 5. 19 82 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: That certain Improvement Bond No. 6338861 dated J ne 11. 1979. and issued by Amerj,can Insurance Company The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the ls day of April 19 87 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: CITY CLERK MAYOR 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. f C 7 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 1, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Inspection Services SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SDR -1206, SPRINGBROOK LANE, SOUTHER Recommended Motion: Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject Building Site. Report Summary: The public improvements for the subject lots have been satisfactorily completed and mainted for a one year period. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Resolution 36 -B Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 4.-Q SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 4 ,44 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recorded at the request of, and to be returned to: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS Springbrook Ln. It appearing that on or about January, 1980 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 satisfacto completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: SDR Map of .T -r-aot No. 1206 recorded in Book 203 of Maps, at Page 2 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on November 26, 19 65 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: That certain Improvement Bond No. xxxxxx dated xxxxxxxx and issued by Imperial Bank, 2858 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the 1st day of April 19 87 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR