Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1992 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.2Z43 AGENDA ITEM: 8 MEETING DATE: November 18, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning1,) CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Request to amend the subject property's zoning designation from Commercial- Neighborhood (C -N) to Professional- Administrative (P -A) offices, and its associated General Plan designation from Commercial to Professional Administrative. The property is located at 18805 Cox Avenue (location /zoning map attached to staff report). Recommended Motion: Approve the Negative Declaration. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the zoning change and General Plan land use designation amendment. Zoning Change Summary: At the October 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners heard a request to rezone a parcel of land currently developed with a two -story office building. The request by the property owners to rezone the land from Commercial to Professional- Administrative was largely based on recent revisions to the Commercial zoning ordinance which required that medical tenants obtain conditional use permits to operate. Since the building has historically housed professional and medical office tenants, the property owners viewed this as an inappropriate burden. Staff's analysis concurred with the property owners' position based on the following land use criteria: The original development approved by the City in 1980 was always intended to house professional office type uses. In fact, the building itself would be ill- equipped to house retail commercial tenant space. The location of the office building provides an appropriate transitional land use between the Quito Village center to the south and the residentially zoned properties to the north and east. The amendments to the Commercial zoning ordinance in 1989, requiring conditional use permits for medical facilities, was seen as a means to promote retail commercial uses. However, these amendments were primarily directed towards encouraging pedestrian oriented retail and service uses within the Saratoga Village. An issue raised at the meeting by both the property manager of the adjacent office building and a representative of the local homeowners' association, was regarding the anticipated increase in parking demand if the building was rezoned for professional office use. Based on the City Code parking requirements, staff responded that parking demand for the various uses permitted in the two zoning districts was the same; one (1) parking space for each 200 feet of gross floor area. Whether the property was zoned Commercial or Professional- Administrative, the City's parking requirements and, ostensibly, on -site parking demand, would remain unaffected by the change. In the motion to recommend approval of the zoning change, the Planning Commission did request that the Planning Director mediate a meeting between the property owners and concerned area residents to resolve perceived site ingress and egress deficiencies. This meeting has since been held and did not result in any mutually agreeable solutions. Attached for City Council consideration is a more detailed staff report discussing the various land use and parking requirement issues. Amendment to General Plan Designation: The General Plan designation for this property will also need to be amended from Commercial to Professional Administrative in order to maintain zoning consistency with the General Plan. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Ordinance ZC -92 -004 and Resolution GPA -92 -001 2. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/14/92 3. Staff Report dated 10/14/92 4. Correspondence Motion and Vote: Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 14, 1992 Page 6 At 9:30 p.m., the Commission took a break. At 9:43 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. At this time, Commissioner Favero re-joined his fellow Commissioner at the dias. 2. GPA 92 Head, et al; 18805 Cox Ave., request to amend ZC 92 004 the subject property's General Plan designation from Commercial to Professional Administrative and it's associated zoning designation from Commercial- Neighborhood (C -N) to Professional and Administrative (P -A) offices. The general Plan and zoning amendments are requested to provide consistency between the City's land use designation for this property and the existing office building development. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 14, 1992 to the Planning Commission. He also noted that a packet of information had been received from Loma Stuart, Property Manager of the Quito Courtyard Offices, opposing the application based on the concern of lack of parking. Planner Walgren also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. There were also several procedural and legal questions answered by the City Attorney. At 10:00 p.m., Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. Stan Atwood, co -owner of the subject parcel, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that the building currently has medical and dental offices and it was recently revealed to him through the denial of a potential tenant's business license that the building's zoning did not permit medical offices. He stated that he felt the zoning change would not affect the parking and the proposed zoning would provide a good transitional use between the commercial and residential zones. Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, expressed concern with the potential of increased traffic, existing parking problems and illegal turns made by motorist leaving the parking lot. Ms. McGoldrick submitted a letter from Bob Shook, former Director of Community Development, to Mr. Sheldon of the Quito Center, outlining stipulations that certain property not be used for customer access facilities, medical clinics or financial institutions. She also stated that she had not received notification of the proposed zone change and inquired whether the Chairperson of the El Quito Park Homeowner's Association had been notified of the application. Planner Walgren pointed out the letter submitted by Ms. McGoldrick had been researched and determined by staff not to pertain to the subject building. The letter and it's outlined use restrictions pertained to Parcel B, Building B, the abutting complex just west of the subject site. Commissioner Favero inquired as to what percentage of the building is currently occupied by medical and dental offices. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 14, 1992 Page 7 Donald Head, applicant, stated that the building was currently fully occupied and that 50% of the offices are occupied by medical offices. He spoke in favor of the application and stated that it is his daily observation that there is plenty of parking. He explained that a majority of the traffic which comes to the building is generated by the Cal -Trans Office which is expected to be in the building another 5 years. Loma Stuart, 7250 Blue Hill Drive, San Jose, manager of the Aquito Courtyard Offices, concurred with the comments made by Kathy McGoldrick. She expressed concerns with regard to potential parking problems as a result of the change of zoning which would allow medical offices. In response to the Chairperson Caldwell's inquiry regarding staffs opinion as to whether traffic and parking demand would increase as a result of the zoning change, Planner Walgren explained that based on the City's standards the parking demand is deemed to be the same between the various uses permitted by the two zoning districts. Planning Director Curtis noted that the traffic and parking demands may also vary dependent upon the success of a particular business a more successful business may generate more traffic than an unsuccessful business of the identical nature. Commissioner Favero expressed concern regarding the potential traffic and parking impacts of the area should the adjacent building's vacant offices be occupied by medical and dental practices. Planner Walgren explained that the adjacent building currently has a deed restriction prohibiting medical and dental uses. Hannah Quain, Saratoga Park Circle, commented that the subject building is a two story building and is being compared to nearby one -story buildings with plenty of parking. She also stated that she felt very little of the traffic was generated by the Cal -Trans office and a majority of the traffic was for the other offices in the building. She also spoke of parking problems on nearby side streets. FAVERO/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Chairperson Caldwell expressed concern regarding the reported traffic problems. She explained that she also found the ingress /egress to the site to be especially difficult. Commissioner Asfour stated that he felt the building could not be used for commercial as it is currently zoned. He spoke in favor of rezoning the building as proposed and attempting to correct the traffic and ingress /egress situation. Commissioner Favero explained that he was having difficulty corning to a decision because of the concerns expressed by the neighbors regarding the existing traffic problems and the potential to add to the problems by approving the zone change. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 14, 1992 Page 8 He further explained that even though the neighbors had this concern there is no evidence supporting the theory that the zone change would cause an increase in the traffic problems. He expressed support for a practical solution that would alleviate the neighbors' concerns. Chairperson Caldwell inquired as the whether this application could trigger a design review of the site to try to correct the traffic problems and the egress /ingress design. Commissioner Forbes stated that this application for change of zoning designation would not only serve the potential tenant but also those medical offices which already occupy the building. He noted that as the other leases and business license come due this situation of incompatible uses in the current zoning district would re- occur. He stated he did not feel action could be taken on this application until some type of review to address the undesirable traffic situation had been conducted. Commissioner Asfour concurred with Commissioner Forbes' comment. ASFOUR/MORAN RE -OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:40 P.M. TO ALLOW THE APPUCANT TO SPEAK. PASSED 6-0. Don Head, applicant, urged the Commission to take action and expressed his willingness to make changes to the ingress /egress in order to rectify the traffic problems. MORAN/FAVERO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Moran noted that neither zone change application nor a use permit application pertain to traffic problems. She stated that she felt the traffic problems could be corrected through the design review process. Planner Walgren explained that a use permit for permitted uses in compliance with the zoning could not be denied based upon the parking/traffic predicament. Commissioner Favero suggested the Planning Director get together with some of the neighbors who reported traffic problems and the applicant and come up with a compromise which addresses the traffic problems and bring the plan back to the Commission. Planning Director Curtis stated that there was no formal way to address the traffic problems through the rezoning process, but the problem could be informally dealt with by looking at the design along with the neighbors and if a solution could be worked out, it could be assumed that the neighbors would not oppose future medical uses in the building and the only issue would be the proposed land use. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 14, 1992 Page 9 FORGES MOVED TO APPROVE GPA 92-001 AND ZC -92 -004 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ORGANIZE AND GET TOGETHER. WITH THE CONCERNED CITIZENS AND WORK OUT A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC SITUATION. Planning Director Curtis inquired as to whether the approval of GPA -92 -001 and ZC -92- 004 would be invalidated if a mutually acceptable solution could not be reached. Commissioner Forbes indicated that should the situation described by Planning Director Curtis arise, the Planning Director should be responsible for designing the solution. Commissioner Forbes also noted the options either continue the application to a future date for the purpose of allowing time for review of potential solutions to the traffic problems or denying the application until the problem could be resolve. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR SUGGESTED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPROVE GPA -92-001 AND ZC -92-004 AND, AS A SEPARATE DIRECTION, DIRECT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE CONCERNED CITIZENS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO WORK OUT A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC SITUATION. IF A RESOLUTION CANNOT BE WORKED OUT, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHALT. MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF A RESOLUTION. Commissioner Moran suggested that the item be continued for two weeks to allow time for the applicant to get together with the neighbors to try to come up with an acceptable solution to the problems. Conunissioner Forbes stated his opposition to continuing the item because he felt that the applicant and the existing and new tenants were in need of relief from this situation. City Attorney explained that the application before them was a request for a recommendation to the Council for approval of a zone change and a General Plan amendment and the traffic problems reported are design issues. Thus, the Planning Commission cannot condition the zone change and General Plan amendment approval on correction of the traffic problems. In reply to Chairperson Caldwell's question as to what process could be used to correct the traffic problem, Planning Director Curtis explained that there was not a way to make the property owner go back and rectify this problem. He stated that correction of the problem could only be achieved through the property owner's voluntary compliance. Conunissioner Favero stated that he could not support recommending approval of this item if the neighbors concerns were not addressed and a practical solution reached. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 14, 1992 Page 10 AT 10:57 P.M., FAVERO/MORAN MOVED TO RE -OPEN 1 PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDER TO HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE MOTION AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ASFOUR. PASSED 6-0. Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, spoke in favor of basing the approval of the application on a condition that the traffic problem be solved. She stated that without this condition, there is no encouragement to the property owner to address the existing problems. FAVERO/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:58 P.M. PASSED 6-0. The amendment made by Commissioner Asfour to Commissioner Forbes. motion (above) was accepted by Commissioner Forbes and the motion was restated as follows: COMMISSIONER FORBES MOVED TO: 1) RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA 92-001 AND ZC- 92-004; AND 2) DIRECT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE CONCERNED CITIZENS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO WORK OUT A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC SITUATION. IF A RESOLUTION CANNOT BE WORKED OUT, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHALL INTAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF A RESOLUTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMSSIONER ASFOUR. THE MOTION PASSED 40 (FORBES AND MORAN OPPOSED. 3. SD -92-007 Behel; 20241 Herriman Ave., request for V tentative map approval to subdivide a 22,910 sq. ft. parcel into two (2) single family residential building sites of 11,455 sq. ft. each. The variance request is to allow the parcels to be created with 82 ft. lot widths in an R- 1- 10,000 zone district which prescribes a minimum width of 85 feet. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 14, 1992. He also noted that Planning Conunission meeting minutes from April, June and July of 1981 when the tentative map was earlier approved, a letter of support from Mr. McLean, and conditions of approval from Mr. McLean's similar, previously approved subdivision had been distributed for the Commissions review. At 11:05 p.m, Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. Mr. Cymbal, Project Engineer, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that should the parcel be maintained as one parcel, it could potentially be developed with a large home which would be inconsistent with the surrounding homes. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 'Application No. /Location: GPA -92 -001 Applicant /Owner: Head, et al. Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: October 14, 1992 APN: 386 -14 -026 18805 Cox Avenue ZC -92 -004; 18805 Cox Avenue Director Approval: :r MU -PD 01111111111111 `t OM Mb 4 7 n -SWIM NA A 1 111 i „"H 171 r-rn r-r-, 1 ND K MH mull Kimono t4uiim Hamm File No. GPA -92 -001 ZC -92 -004; 18805 Cox Avenue CAGE HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 8/26/92 Application complete: 9/23/92 Notice published: 9/30/92 Mailing completed: 10/1/92 Posting completed: 9/24/92 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the subject property's General Plan designation from Commercial to Professional Adminis- trative and it's associated zoning designation from Commercial Neighborhood (C -N) to Professional- Administrative (P -A) offices. The General Plan and zoning amendments are requested to provide consistency between the City's land use designation for this property and the existing office building development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the attached staff report and recommend approval of the General Plan amendment, zone change and environmental Negative Declaration to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions GPA -92 -001 ZC -92 -004 3. Environmental Negative Declaration 4. Parcel Map, Exhibit "A" 5. Site Plan, Exhibit "B" File No. GPA -92 -001 ZC -92 -004; 18805 Cox Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS CURRENT DESIGNATION ZONING: Commercial- Neighborhood (C -N) GENERAL PLAN: Commercial Permitted Uses: Retail and Service Establishments Professional and Administrative Offices Financial Institutions Religious and Charitable Institutions Christmas Tree and Pumpkin Sales Lots Conditionally Permitted Uses: Restaurants and Markets Hotels and Motels Bed and Breakfast Establishments Institutional and Community Facilities Gasoline Service Stations (on certain arterial streets) Animal Establishments Multi Family Dwellings Medical Offices and Clinics PROPOSED DESIGNATION ZONING: Professional Administrative (P -A) Office GENERAL PLAN: Professional Administrative Permitted Uses: Professional, Administrative and Medical Offices Financial Institutions Christmas Tree Lots Conditionally Permitted Uses: Institutional and Community Facilities Police and Fire Station Religious and Charitable Institutions Nursing Homes Multi- Family Dwellings Bed and Breakfast Establishments File No. GPA -92 -001 ZC -92 -004; 18805 Cox Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION: Overview: In 1980, the Planning Commission approved a development to construct two independent office buildings on two newly created abutting parcels at the northwest corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada. Though the two parcels and structures were individually owned and developed, a common parking lot connected the two lots. A mutual access and parking agreement was then entered into pursuant to the original subdivision conditions of approval. A restriction was also recorded against Parcel B prohibiting medical and financial uses due to parking requirement constraints. No use restrictions were recorded against the subject parcel of this application, Parcel A. Today, retail, office, medical, etc. uses all require one (1) parking space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area. In the early 1980's, however, the City had varying off street parking requirements for different types of uses, for example: Professional- Administrative Offices Medical Offices and Clinics 1 space /400 sq. ft. of gross floor area 1 space /200 sq. ft. of gross floor area Based on the development's anticipated mix of uses, (office, medical, financial and retail) the combined parking requirements for both parcels was 116 spaces. Using today's parking require- ments, 176 spaces would be needed based on the total gross floor area of 35,381 sq. ft. for the two buildings (Parcel A 22,681 sq. ft., Parcel B 12,600 sq. ft.). In 1989, the City's commercial development ordinance was revised to further tailor the zoning regulations to the specific part of town, particularly with regard to the Saratoga Village. One of the results of the new ordinance was that certain uses, restaurants, medical clinics, etc., required conditional use permits. Prior to this ordinance amendment, a number of doctors and dentists had already set -up practices at the office complex. To the City's knowledge, these practices have been operating without incidence. With the amended zoning, however, public hearing use permit review is required to allow any new medical or dental tenants. General Plan Designation: The current commercial General Plan land use designation encompass- es both Parcels A and B and the Quito Village shopping center on the south side of Cox Avenue. The office complexes at both the southwest and southeast corners of Saratoga and Cox Avenues are File No. GPA -92 -001 6 ZC -92 -004; 18805 Cox Avenue designated professional offices. The remaining adjacent land uses are designated residential. The purpose of the commercial land use designation is to identify suitable land within the City where commercial development can best serve the community. Regardless of whether or not this particular property is designated commercial or professional office, however, the physical use of the office building will remain as a professional office facility; it was never intended to provide retail commercial space. The applicants are now requesting that the City's General Plan and zoning for this property be amended to provide consistency between the City's land use designation and the existing office building development Zoning Designation: The zoning for this property will also need to be amended from Commercial- Neighborhood to Professional Administrative in order to provide consistency with the General Plan amendment. Conclusion: The physical development on Parcel A will not change as a result of this proposed amendment. The two office buildings as constructed were designed specifically for professional office type uses and would be ill- equipped to house retail commercial tenant spaces. In addition, it would seem appropriate to designate this land use as professional office given its transitional location between the Quito Village center to the south and the single family zoning district to the north and east. Staff had contacted the property manager of the adjacent Parcel B office building to inquire whether they were interested in participating in this zoning amendment. Quite to the contrary, the individual voiced objections to the applicants' proposal based on the current short -fall of existing parking spaces. Staff informed the property manager that off street parking was not affected by this General Plan and zoning amendment; parking requirements are the same for professional office, medical and retail commercial uses. In fact, all of these uses are conditionally permitted under the current zoning designation for this parcel. Only in the event that one of the buildings were physically expanded would the City require additional off street parking. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the attached staff report and recommend approval of the General Plan amendment, zone change and environmen- tal Negative Declaration to the City Council. RES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. GPA -92 -001 ZC -92 -004 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City,of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to amend the subject property's General Plan designation from Commercial to Professional and it's associat- ed zoning designation from Commercial- Neighborhood (C -N) to Professional- Administrative (P -A) offices. The General Plan and zoning amendments are requested to provide consistency between the City's land use designation for this property and the existing office building development. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Stanford H. Atwood, W. Donald Head and David D. Hunt 14684 Pike Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendment will not change the type of uses currently permitted, only the review process they must go through. There- fore, the change in General Plan and zoning designation will have no significant effect on the environment or the surrounding land uses. Executed at Saratoga, California this `Z 4 day of (C:4 1992. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER a QAMCS &Octley.t4 766soc piwr up- q- 7S UP 505 V 531 A 691 MORELAND SCHOOL DIST. VP 355 t (A) SIR -1369 28 000 PC --4 R co SDR -12IZ SDR -1148 A Sip up-410 UP SDR- t435 A GSz A- wit 1 70 72:2 4.5.5 ##05 it P,M 416 M -5 R WO* /ssos e--- A ENUE P.M. 516 •M- 50 UP 1539 SDR -575 V 673 A -1011 Sb F472. EXHIBIT Ai SDR -1538 SDR �'Og UP -133 A 7z5 GPA- q1. -ooi M10 -14.-ooh 0 Q. MR( SUE P PuE Lc 1 ■=4 WW1 t. .4P14• r-T 1. 4 4 V .7 ••4 S• V lv ••■••■•••■■1. 0 diVO j A *tow PM MVO V PI ••••44.4 11.4 ti In. I .4 PM 4/P. V. 44. 84• 1111111111111111111111111 owl .440 we* 1 1 a S 11 e 444 1 11ily t 'At I' 3 1 P. 0. Box 7245 San Jose, California 95150 -7245 (408) 269 -8273 Att: Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, Ca. 95070 QUITO COURTYARD OFFICES Re: 18805/18809 Cox Avenue Zoning Change From C -N To P -A Dear Mr. Curtis: October 13, 1992 Joseph C, Sanfilippo General Counsel Delora J. Wiley, M.A., Ph.D. Real Estate Administrator Loma Stuart Property Manager I have been told that the owner of the parcel known as 18805 Cox Avenue, which is adjacent to 18809 Cox Avenue, which I man- age, has applied for a zoning change to have a less restrictive parking requirement. I understand that both of these properties are located in an "island" which is currently designated as a C -N district and that the requested zoning change is to "legitimize" the existing tenant mix at 18805 Cox Avenue. I would like to inform the Planning Commmission of the existing parking problem at 18809 Cox Avenue which I feel will be exacerbated by the proposed zoning change. Upon reviewing our files, I find that the parking problem has existed at least as far back as 1984 (see the attached copy of a letter to the Plan- ning Commission from the owner of 18805 Cox Avenue on October 22, 1984). Both of these parcels were originally one. Parcel A (18805) was developed first. As part of the agreement with the City in 1982 to divide and develop parcel B (18809), the then owner of both parcels agreed that they be designated C -N due to concerns related to the parking ratio (see the attached copy of the City of Saratoga Report To Planning Commission). The owner of both parcels also wrote a parking easement for the two parcels pursu- ant to City request. (The City required further clarification of this easement at the time of the actual construction of the Parcel B Building.) It might also be noted that the Parcel B building was originally supposed to be larger. However, the Planning Commission required a size reduction in 1985 in response to concern regarding the parking problem. The owners of the parcel B building have abided by the use restrictions in leasing only to those uses designated as C -N, to their own detriment since at least two tenants who were turned down at our building leased space next door. Our building is only 31 occupied, and we already have a parking problem. I am unaware of the present occupancy of the adjacent building. However, the proposed change in zoning would effectively allow the Parcel A building to completely absorb the additional parking spaces built by the Parcel B owners which are now a part of the shared parking easement. This zoning change would place an undue hardship upon us by allowing the heavy parking without even the neccessity of obtaining a conditional use permit. The owners of the Parcel B building respectfully request that, in addition to the present parking problem, future parking difficulties inherent in this zoning change be considered. While we would stand to increase our profits by leasing to professional medical uses, we feel that it would be unwise to change the zoning due to the very real parking problem which already exists. LDS /ZONE.QC Very truly yours, Loma Stuart Property Manager STANFORD H. ATWOOD, JR. THOMAS 0. HURST, INC. ROBERT KNOX KEVIN L. ANDERSON BRUCE HOWARD EPSTEIN T. PATRICK HANNON EDWIN A. FREY, JR. ROY R. AMERINE Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Gentlemen: ATWOOD, HURST KNOX ATTORNEYS AT LAW TWO NORTH SECOND STREET, SUITE 1350 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-1399 October 22, 1984 It has come to our attention that the Planning Commission is reviewing the design review to construct a two story, 15,000 square foot office building (Building B) on Cox Avenue. We are the owners of the adjacent building, which you label Building A. We should like to point out to the Planning Commission that, prior to the moving of Qubix which occupied 487 of our building, we had severe parking problems. The number one complaint of our tenants in Building A was the lack of available parking. As we read the proposal, the City of Saratoga staff has recommended a negative response by the Planning Commission for the proposed 15,000 square foot office building. We strongly endorse that recommendation and urge the Planning Commission to reject a building that (1) overwhelms the building site and (2). adds to the already over burdened parking situation. Very truly yours, 6iJceFi NFO D A 000, JR. W. DONALD HEAD Owners TELEPHONE (408) 287 -2411 PERMIT REVIF`!' Exhibit "A" coPy OMEW' 012 0 o Ce? REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *Amended 1/19/83 Amended 10/29/82 DATE: 1 0/1 /82 Commission Meeting: 10/13/82 SUBJECT: A -840 Quito /Saratoga Center, Cox Avenue and•Paseo Presada REQUEST: Design Review Approval to construct a two -story office building (Building "B" OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 81,700 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial ZONING: C -N SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial, El Quito Park, pre school and single family residential uses are adjacent to the site. SITE SLOPE: 3% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3% NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: None Noted PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: Building "B" has been granted building site approval (SDR- 1472), approval for a 2' height variance (V -539) and design review approval (A -725). With this application, the applicant is requesting to vary from the approved plans by enlarging the building footprint 1,556 sq. ft. and adding a second floor. In size, the building would be increased a total of 7,470 sq. ft. from the approved plan. No increase in height would result from this proposal and the design would not be significantly changed. GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal grading is required for this project. Report to Planning Co in A -840 Quito/Saratoga-tenter 10/1/82 Page 2 SETBACKS: Front: 12' Right: To Building "A" 89' Left: 88' Rear: 54' ORIGINAL: Front: 12' Right: To Building "A" 80' Left: 98' Rear: 54) HEIGHT: 22' to peak of roof SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 7,356 sq. ft. (Original: 5,800 sq. ft), 2nd Floor: 5,914 sq. ft. Total: 13,270 sq. ft. COLORS MATERIALS: Redwood siding, bronze anodized windows LANDSCAPING LIGHTING: The landscape plan indicates that the landscaping will be consistent with the approved plan and consistent with the existing landscaping for building "A The plan also complies with C -N zoning requirements. RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: Building "B" matches the design of Building "A" and is compatible with that building as well as adjacent structures. PARKING: In order to enlarge the building square footage of this g project, the applicant has redesignated the uses of both buildings "A B' business- admini- strative offices which requires a lesser parking ratio (1 space per 400 sq. ft.). The original proposal was to include uses which required parking at 1 space per 200 sq. ft. This revised proposal, therefore, requires 90 parking spaces. The site plan indicates that 105 spaces are provided, therefore, having 15 extra spaces that may be used for employee parking 'l l ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Staff has noted no adverse impacts as a result' of enlarging building "B" in terms of design or parking. No privacy impacts will result from the second story windows of building "B" as they are oriented toward El Quito Park to the rear, Challenger Pre School to the left and parking lot and Quito Shopping Center to the right and front. Staff has determined that the trip generation with this proposal will be less than what would have been generated with the original proposal, which included retail and customer service office uses. RECOMMENDATION: Approve A -840, as amended by the Site Plan submitted on 1/19/83 marked Exhibit "A subject to: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: A. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. B. Any modifications to the proposed site development plan or elevations shall require Community Development Department review and approval. 2. Only those uses which require a parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross sq. ft. shall be permitted on site. 3. Prior to approval of any signs for either building A or B, applicant shall apply for design review for a signage program. Report to Planning Commi. -'.,n A -840 Quito /Saratoga Center Approved: SL /dsc P.C. Agenda 10/13/82 Amended 10/29/82 Amended 1/19/83 Sharon Lester Planner 10/1/82 Page 3 4. The second access out to Cox Ave. shall be closed. 5. The owner shall enter into a written agreement with the City stipulating the property will not be used for customer access facilities of financial institutions or be converted into a medical center. Said agreements to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and recorded by the City. TELEPHONE (415) 948-1105 July 26, 1984 TI 714 Traffic Generation (Building B): General TE /1000 Office Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. AWDT So Pk.Hr. Pk.Hr. Proposed 16,000 14.9 238 15 36 Approved 13,270 14.9 J.98 15 30 Difference 2,730 40 6 CalTrans, District 4 Trip End Generation Research, 15th Progress Report Table 13 Commercial Office Building Parking: Total RE NATO G. MARTINEZ, C.E. /T.E. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING P.O. Sox 177 LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 940Z2 City of Saratoga Office Development N.W. Corner of Cox Avenue -Paseo Presada Modified Building B Support Data Building Floor Area Sq.Ft.) A 22,680 B. 16,000 38,680 Parking Spaces Provided 105 Parking Spaces Required at 1/400 sq.ft. 97 Excess Spaces 8 Sources of Information: Luis Pina, Architect Lucille Hise, City of Saratoga Planner Co py OFFICE. 140 MAII' STREET Los ALTOS. CA.iFORr.IA RGM ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 177 LOS ALTOS. C .ALIT ORNIA 94022 TELEPHONE (415) 948-1105 RGM ASSOCIATES ARTHUR M. SHELTON PROFESSIo?' T.-CORPORATION C 0 p 2S15 Mitchell Drive, Suite T P. 0. Box 4436 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (415)937 -0110 C IN RE: Application No. A -840 Appeal to City Council Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc. and Northwest Projects Corporation, Aptpellants ORIGINAL BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA CALIFORNIA OCT j i932 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF APPELLANTS' DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. A -840 FOR THE SECOND OF TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ON A BUILDING SITE AND PURSUANT TO A DESIGN PRE- VIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY. This appeal to the City Council is by the property owner of record, Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc., and by the developer and applicant, Northwest Projects Corporation. It is from a denial of Design Review Approval by the City Plan- ning Commission on Wednesday, October 13, 1982, and is made pursuant to City Ordinance No. NS3.51; Article 24 of City Ordinance NS3, including Sections 24.2 and 24.7 and Section 13.5 of City Ordinance NS -3. i Before setting forth the grounds for this appeal, appellants desire to call certain facts to the Council's attention. FACTS The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada. Since the time of its inclusion within the Saratoga City limits, it has been zoned as a Neighborhood Commercial District (C -N). At the time of appellants' acquisition of the property, in January, 1980, it was improved with an "ARCO" filling station making truck and auto repairs and a former church school complex used as a music school. On November 26, 1980, the City Planning Commission approved appellants' Tentative Map for the property (SDR -1472) and, at the same time, granted Design Review Approval (A -725) for two new buildings on the property. On March 4, 1981 the City Council granted Final Map Approval for this 1.903 acre.parcel, which was approved, as one (1) individual building site." (Resolution No. 1472 -02). Immedi- ately following this Final Map Approval, appellants commenced construction of the two building complex, after demolishing the existing commercial buildings. The larger of the two buildings is now complete and c -3- complies in every way with the approved Design Review criteria. This fixes the architectural design for the complex, since Para- graph 2 of subsection (b) of Section 7.15 of the City Zoning Regulations in the City Code states, "2. More than one building. Where there is more than one building or structure in a proposed development the architectural features and landscaping of all the buildings shall be harmonious. These features specifically include roofs, elevations, architectural style, surfacing materials and fenestration." (emphasis added) The following two plates demonstrate geographically that the second smaller building is essentially identical in design to the existing building, thus, complying with the mandatory design requirements imposed by the City. The second of the two buildings, like the first, is an office building. "Offices and office buildings" are a specified permitted use in C -N Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Section 7.2 City Code Zoning Regulations pp 249 -250). The second, smaller building, which is the subject of the design review, only varies from the larger building in that it is three feet lower in elevation; has an all- redwood, rather than stucco and redwood, exterior finish; is about 40 percent smaller; and contains 15 parking spaces more than the City Parking Ordin- ance requires (90 v. an allowed 105). S k t'+1 AIT y i M tZi 72/4f 3., 1.1 r t r '��k t �.��..rt •1�i -S L .ter.. at :.a.;• r bt 1 1 3 r 5 y The height of the building under review is the same as the 22 -foot height approved for this smaller building when design review approval was originally granted for the complex by the Planning Commission. The design complies with the site area, frontage, width, depth, coverage, front -rear -side yard set backs and all other requirements of Article 7 of the City Code governing C -N zoning. x As stated, the height is three feet less than its larger companion building and is less than the height of the building to the West, which houses the Challenger Pre School. The windows of the second floor are oriented North to El Quito Park, which is separated from the site by a previously- approved fence. To the East is the larger building in the complex and across the street to the South is the Quito Village Shopping Center, recently remodeled and up- graded by the appellants. The Planning Staff in its report dated October 1, 1982 recommended Design Review Approval for this Building "B" in the previously- approved complex stating, LANDSCAPING LIGHTING: The landscape plan indi- cates that the landscaping will be consistent with the approved plan and consistent with the existing landscaping for building "A The plan also com- plies with C -N zoning requirements. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Staff has noted no adverse impacts as a result of enlarging build- ing "B" in terms of design or parking." (emphasis added) "No privacy impacts will result from the second story windows of building "B" as they are oriented toward El Quito Park to the rear, Challenger Pre School to the left and parking lot and Quito Shopping Center to the right and front. Staff has determined that the trip generation with this proposal will be less than what would have been generated with the original proposal, which included retail and customer service office uses." The only reason that Building "B" was presented once again for design review is that it was originally pro- posed as a financial building of the same height, but in a single -story internal design that had high ceilings. Building "B as now presented, has a slightly larger footprint (1,556 sq. ft.) than its approved "financial" counterpart and has two interior floor levels rather than one. The scale of the build- ing is approximately the same as is the architectural treat- ment and is significantly smaller than required by the City's Zoning Regulations for this specifically permitted use. As shown by the October 5, 1982 report of the traffic engineering consultant submitted to the Planning Staff and Com- mission using the building for general offices rather than for a financial institution, as originally approved, will reduce maximum traffic generation to only one -third of the minimum projected for the financial institution (Appendix One attached hereto). GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 1. The Planning Commission exceeded its discre- tion in denying design review approval. This is so because: (a) Building "B" is a conforming permitted use under the C -N zoning; (b) Buildings "A" and "B" were both approved, as to design, by the City Planning Commission; (c) Building "A" was constructed in accordance with the approved design; (d) This set or fixed the design for the pro- ject since Section 7.15 covering design review in Com- mercial Districts states, by use of the word "shall in mandatory terms that where there is more than one build- ing in a development, "the architectural features and landscaping of all the buildings shall be harmonious. specifically including, roofs, elevations, archi- tectural style, surfacing materials and fenestration." (Section 7.15(b)2, quoted in full supra); (e) These provisions in the City Code must govern the Planning Commission as well as applicants; (f) Therefore, since Building "A" was con- structed to a City- approved design, by ordinance, Build- ing "B" is required to comply with this same design; C (g) It is evident by comparing Plate One and Plate Two (supra), that Building "B" meets the design criteria of Building "A (h) The Planning Commission, sitting in a Design Review capacity, was limited to a determination of whether the design presented for Building "B" conformed to that established by Building "A (i) It follows that, by turning down an essen- tially identical design, the Commission exceeded its limited discretion. 2. Appellants have a vested right to complete the two building complex because; (a) This is a single parcel development on a Final Map approved by the City; (b) Pursuant to the City's Design Review approval for a two building complex, the appellants razed the existing buildings and commenced construction of the complex; (c) Acting in reliance on the City approvals, appellants have spent several million dollars and have the complex over two thirds completed; (d) The use remains a conforming, specifically permitted use; the design having been previously approved -10- and fixed by the construction already in place. It follows that appellants have the vested right to complete the complex. 3. Denial of this Appeal would deprive appellants of this vested right. Such denial would be an invalid exercise of the City's police power under the constraints imposed on the City and the rights reserved to appellants in the Fifth Amend- ment to the United States Constitution and in Article I Section 19 of the California Constitution. 4. The Planning Commission did not permit appellants to be heard. Appellants Saratoga -based general manager was advised by the City Planning Staff that there was no need for appellants to appear at the Council Chambers prior to 9:00 P.M. on the date set for the Design Review Hearing, October 13, 1982, since appellants' matter was the last item on a lengthy agenda. Appellants' principals had flown South from Canada to attend the hearing. They arrived at the City Council Chambers at 8:45 P.M. The hearing on their item was already in progress. When members. of the Commission noted appellants' arrival, they interrupted the testimony to entertain a motion that the hear- ing be closed. The motion carried and appellants were not permitted to be heard at any time at the noticed public hearing. Counsel for appellants concedes that all items on the Planning 1 Ai Commission agenda were set at one time 7:30 P.M. However, since appellants were told by the City Planning Staff that they need not appear before 9:00 P.M. and appellants' did appear at 8:45 P.M., while the hearing on their item was in progress, they were denied their right to be heard by the vote to close the hearing as soon as their presence was noted. This was an unnecessary act, rude in the extreme and damaging to this nation's image in Canada. Procedural rights and fair play are as deeply imbedded in Canadian law as in our own. Fortunately, the City Council will have an opportunity to correct the harm done since, under Section 24.7(b) of NS3.51, they are entitled to a hearing de novo before the City Council. Counsel for appellants requested a copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission as they related to the Design Review hearing. He was advised that because certain members of the City Staff were on vacation, the minutes would not be typed up until the week following the week in which this Notice of Appeal was required to be filed. Accordingly, appellants reserve the right to amend and supplement this appeal prior to the hearing before he City Council. DATED: October 22, 1982 Respectfully Submitted, ARTHUR M. SHELTON PROFESSIONAL CpRPORATION I A. M. SHELTON; Attdrney for Appellants Quito- Saratoga Center, Inc. Northwest Projects Corp. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 22-4 MEETING DATE: November 18, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL beer SUBJECT: AZO -92 -005; Ordinance relating to erection and removal of political signs Recommended Motion: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: g D Introduce ordinance deleting time limit for erection of political signs. Report Summary: In May, 1992, the City Council suspended enforcement of Zoning Ordinance provisions that established time limits for erection of political signs prior to an election. The current ordinance states that signs cannot be erected more than 45 days prior to the election. Upon advice of the City Attorney that the time limit may not be supported if legally challenged, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance repealing the 45 -day time limit. On October 28th, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the attached ordinance which deletes the 45 -day time limit and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. No one appeared in opposition to or in favor of the proposed ordinance. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Minutes 3. Memo from City Attorney 4. Ordinance Motion and Vote: Printed on recycled paper. TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director DATE: October 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Temporary Political Signs Attached is a memorandum and proposed ordinance regarding time limits for erection and removal of temporary political signs. The current ordinance states that signs may not be erected more than 45 days prior to the election. The proposed ordinance does not set a time limit for erection of signs. Recommendation Based on previous discussions by the City Council and by the discussion contained in the City Attorney's memorandum, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt amendments to Section 15- 30.160(b) Attachment PLC /dsc OE= ©2 0 1r 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867- 3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: MEMORANDUM Karon Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 28, 1992 Page 9 The Commissioner moved on to the Item #5. 5. A-647.2 Planner Walgren presented the Report d October 28, 1992. Chairperson Caldwell opened MORAN/ 0. Azule Crossing; 12378 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd., request t. end the conditions of an existing sign program in order t. ow additional sign area for an individual tenant per pter 15 of the City Code. The program will only affect th eTour Building" which is one of the four (4) buildings i e site. The parcel size is approximately 2.6 acres and it i ated within the C -N zone district. lic hearing at 9:42 p.m. Warren Hyde, project tect, spoke in favor of the application and indicated his availability to que regarding the application. 5 -0. UR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:43 P.M. PASSED 5- RAN/ MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE A- 647.2. PASSED 5 -0. 7. AZO- 92-005 An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section 15- 30.160 (b) of the Code of the City of Saratoga, relating to time limit for erection and removal of temporary political signs (cont. from 10/14/92 public hearing due to the late hour). Planning Director Curtis presented the Report dated October 20, 1992, to the Commission and answered questions regarding the zoning ordinance amendment. At 9:45 p.m., Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak. FORBES/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. PASSED FORBES /ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PRESENTED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 15- 30.160(b). PASSED 5 -0. Michael R. Nave Steven R. Meyers Elizabeth H. Silver Michael S. Riback Clifford F. Campbell Michael F. Rodriquez Kathleen Faubion Frederick S. Etheridge Wendy A. Roberts David W. Skinner Steven T. Mattas Of counsel: Andrea J. Saltzman TO: Planning Commission Planning Director MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK SILVER A Professional Law Corporation Gateway Plaza 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, CA 94577 Telephone: (510) 351 -4300 Facsimile: (510) 351-4481 MEMORANDUM FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Temporary Political Signs Peninsula Office 1 Howard Avenue, Suite 250 E 1 V eti riangame, CA 94010 -1211 R E C G phone: (415) 348 -7130 Facsimile: (415) 342 -0886 SEP 14 1992 Sonoma County PLAPJNING DEPT. (707) 546 -3126 Reply to: San Leandro DATE: September 11, 1992 The City Council at its September 2, 1992 meeting directed this office to prepare an ordinance amending Section 15- 30.160 of the City Code repealing the 45 day durational time limit for the installation of political signs prior to an election. As you may recall, in May of this year the City Council suspended enforcement of this provision after receiving an opinion from this office that, if challenged, the durational time limit would likely be ruled unconstitutional by a court of law. The Council also directed that this matter be brought back to the Council in September for further discussion of a permanent solution. At the September 2, 1992 meeting I advised the Council that no "guarantee" could be given that a longer durational time limit would be upheld by a court. After receiving this advice and discussing the matter at some length, the Council directed that the attached ordinance be prepared. Since the Section in question is located in the City's Zoning Ordinance, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. TO: Planning Commission and Planning Director FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Temporary Political Signs DATE: September 11, 1992 PAGE: 2 This office recommends that the Commission conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Section 15- 30.160, and that upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission forward a recommendation regarding the proposal to the Council. MSR:dsp Attachment cc: City Council City Manager 273 \1EMO \SEPT92 \AMEm »QiT.MSR Michael S. R back City Attorney -2,dat,„ f San '11)ViA4 Mayor Karen Anderson City of Saratoga Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 UITQ COURTYARD OFFICES P. 0. Box 7245 Jose, California 95150 -7245 (408) 269-8273 November 23, 1992 Re: City Council Meeting Nov 18, 1992 General Plan Amendment 18805 Cox Avenue Dear Mayor Anderson: 0 199 P 11 c1) PPJ There are a few items which I respectfully request that you consider which pertain to the manner in which the City conducts its business. The first issue has to do with the manner in which items are handled by the Planning Commission. I was chastised at the City Council meeting for not having presented the more accurate his- tory of the two buildings (18805 and ours at 18809) at the Plan- ning Commission level. In fact, we did attempt to present information at the Plan- ning Commission meeting. Since my husband was himself unable to attend due to his leukemia, we sent our property manager. The Planning Commission gave her three minutes to speak. At the mere idea that we might oppose the matter, one of the owners of 18805 Cox apparently launched into a tyrade in front of the Planning Commission Members after the hearing was closed. The hearing was reopened specifically to allow this individual to tyrade and then reclosed. No discussion occured thereafter, and the matter was passed on to the City Council. We were then made aware that we had 15 days in which to appeal the decision. We decided that we should appeal since we did not believe that adequate information had been gathered by the City to make the best decision. We completed the paperwork for the appeal at the Planning Commission level; our property manager went to the City Offices on October 27th with check in hand and attempted to file the appeal. She was told that such an appeal would be a waste of time since the appeal would go before the City Council; she was also told that since it was already on the City Council schedule, there was no reason to appeal. She Joseph C. Sanfilippo General Counsel Delora J. Wiley, M.A., Ph.D Real Estate Administrator Loma Stuart Property Manager was not told that we would have 3 -5 minutes to speak. In fact, as I now see it, there was very good reason to appeal, namely, to have a forum to introduce the many things pertaining to the issue which were not allowed to be said at the City Council Meeting. I find it somewhat ironic that I was in the position of trying to represent the concerns of the neighborhood residents as well as our own. The fact of the matter remains that the City Council decision will indeed change the nature of the area over time because the parking is going to overflow, and drivers are going to be circling in the area waiting for a parking place. To sum up, I feel that it should not have been my job to research the history of what the neighborhood residents had required as to the development of these buildings for the Plan nind Department; the Planning Department has at its disposal much more in the way of staff reports than I do. Secondly, I believe an error was made when we were told not to appeal the Planning Commission decision. Lastly, I feel that when it became obvious that the information being presented on November 18 was incom- plete, the matter should have been continued (as had already been requested once by the applicant in order for their attorney to speak for them at the November 18 meeting). Thank you for taking the time to consider the contents of this letter. DJW:be cc: Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker Very truly yours, S Delora J. W. Sanfilip Printed on recycled paper. M E M O R A N D U M ✓cy. eJ 7 t% o.�. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager it/ FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director DATE: December 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Response to letter from Delora J.W. Sanfilippo dated November 23, 1992 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker I thought it was appropriate for me to respond to some statements made in the letter regarding the public hearing process and the extent of the work performed by Planning Department staff regarding the recent General Plan Amendment /Zone Change approval at 18805 Cox Avenue. Appeal process Ms. Loma Stuart, property manager for 18809 Cox Avenue met briefly with me following the Planning Commission approval. She was prepared to file an appeal "with check in hand"). I explained that the Commission's decision was in fact .a recommendation and is automatically sent to the City Council for additional public hearing review. Therefore, it is unnecessary to file a formal appeal for the Council to hear her concerns. She seemed to be appreciative of the fact that she did not have to file a formal appeal and pay a fee to again present her case to the City Council. Background information Ms. Sanfilippo states that she should not have had to do historical research as to the development requirements of the buildings. Planning staff clearly pointed out at the Planning Commission hearing that medical offices had been prohibited for the Sanfilippo building, but no such restriction was recorded for the Head building. This clarification was made following a neighbor's incorrect statement that the zone change should not be approved since medical offices are not now permitted. Ms. Sanfilippo presented an interpretation at the City Council hearing that the "intent" was to restrict medical offices on both sites. In short, I feel that there was a difference of opinion as opposed to lack of staff research. Printed on recycled paper. USE ©2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council T/FROM: Planning Commission DATE: November 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance At the October 24th regular Planning Commission hearing, after detailed review at several worksessions, the final draft Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) for the City of Saratoga was considered (the official minutes from the meeting are attached for reference). The Commission directed staff to submit WELO to the City Council for review and adoption. The following is a brief overview and summary of the central components of the Ordinance. In September of 1990, the California State Legislature passed AB325, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (attached). The central component of the Act requires local governments to adopt -a water efficient landscape ordinance by January 1, 1993. Each water efficient landscape ordinance is required to address the following: methods for conserving water by use and groupings of plants methods and techniques for water conserving irrigation systems the use of reclaimed water education of water users the addressing of regional differences in water usage exemption of historic sites, where feasible use of economic incentives to promote water efficiency use of landscape maintenance practices which foster water conservation Pursuant to this legislation, the State Department of Water Resources developed and adopted a model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Subsequently, a modified version of the State Model was prepared and adopted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) which addressed specific climatic conditions of the Santa Clara Valley. Utilizing the format and technical content of these models, a draft Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance has been prepared for use within the City of Saratoga. As required by AB325, the City's WELO is applicable to all new and rehabilitated landscaping for public agency projects and to developer installed landscaping on vacant parcels for single and multi family projects. Exempted from the ordinances are homeowner provided landscaping on lots with existing single or multi family uses, cemeteries, City designated historic sites, ecological restoration projects and any project with a landscaped area of less than 2500 square feet. For non exempt projects the ordinance will require a "Landscape Documentation Package" which includes a Water Conservation Statement, a landscape and irrigation design plan, calculations to determine a maximum water allowance and estimated total water use to be submitted as part of a development application. All of the needed submittals are described in detail within the text of WELO. The "Landscape Documentation Package" would have to be prepared by a landscape architect, irrigation designer or other certified landscape professional. A certificate of substantial completion shall be delivered to the City after proper installation is verified by a licensed or certified landscape field surveyor. The documentation forms will be available at the City Planning Department. To assist in further clarifying the various aspects of WELO, the following questions and answers have been prepared: Q. Why does the City need a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance? A. The California State Assembly passed AB325 in the fall of 1990. The bill requires all local jurisdictions to adopt a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by January 1, 1993. Q. What is the purpose of the Ordinance? A. The State of California and the State Water Resources Board hopes that this ordinance will foster implementation of improved methods of water conservation and efficiency that will eventually be practiced by all local jurisdictions. Q. How will the WELO be implemented in the City of Saratoga? A. The WELO will be part of the City's zoning ordinance. The City Planning, Building and Community Service Departments will be responsible for enforcement. Q. Which project and /or individuals would be affected by WELO? A. All development projects in the City that require the issuance of a permit will be reviewed by City staff to determine if the WELO applies or if the project is exempt. Q. Would a homeowner replacing existing landscaping be subject to the ordinance? A. No. WELO exempts landscaping provided by the homeowner for existing single and multi family units. Developer installed landscaping on vacant parcels for new single and multi family projects or new or rehabilitated landscaping for public agency projects would be subject to the ordinance. Q. When will WELO be applied? A. The ordinance will be applied at the time of application for any development project within the City. Administrative projects will be evaluated by City Planning staff to determine which provisions of the ordinance apply and appropriate documentation, as required by WELO, will be required prior to permit issuance. Compliance with an approved landscape plan, including a water budget, will be verified prior to final inspection. How will the citizens of Saratoga know that these regulations exist and whether they apply to them? A. To ensure that every citizen of Saratoga is made aware of these regulations, City staff will draft and publish public service articles in the local newspaper. Additional articles will be run annually at the onset of each planting season. The cable access channel's bulletin board will be utilized to alert Saratoga citizens to the existence of the new ordinance and to offer assistance from the City Planning Department. The ordinance itself and a variety of background reference materials will be available at the City offices and from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Discretionary projects that are reviewed by the Planning Commission will be evaluated during the normal planning review process. If applicable, conditions will be placed on resolution for approvals that will ensure compliance with WELO. In these cases, staff anticipates that the existing standard xeriscape condition will be replaced by a standard WELO condition. The exact wording of the condition will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Again, condition compliance will be verified, as indicated in WELO, prior to final inspection. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council introduce the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the associated Negative Declaration at the November 18th public hearing and adopt the same at the December 2nd public hearing. Attachments: 1. Draft Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance 2. Negative Declaration 3. State of California Assembly Bill 325 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/28/92 welo ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE DRAFT I( WHEREAS, the limited supply of water in the region is subject to increasing demands, and; WHEREAS, the prosperity of the region depends on adequate supplies of water, and; WHEREAS, landscapes provide recreation areas, serve to clean the air and water, prevent erosion, offer fire protection and replace ecosystems displaced by development, and; WHEREAS, landscape design, installation and maintenance can and should be water efficient. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Article 15 -47 is hereby added to Chapter 15 the City Code as follows: Sections: ARTICLE 15 -47 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 15- 47.010 Purpose 15- 47.020 Definitions 15- 47.030 Provisions for New or Rehabilitated Landscapes 15- 47.040 Provisions for Existing Landscapes 15- 47.050 Effective Precipitation 15- 47.060 Reference Evapotranspiration S15- 47.010 Purposes of Article The purposes of this article are to promote the values and benefits of landscapes while recognizing the need to invest water and other resources as efficiently as possible; to establish a structure for designing, installing, and maintaining water efficient landscapes in new projects; and to establish provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention for established landscapes. 815- 47.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: A. Anti -drain valve or check valve: a valve located under a sprinkler head to hold water in the system so it minimizes drainage from the lower elevation sprinkler heads. B. Application rate: the depth of water applied to a given area, usually measured in inches per hour. C. Applied water: the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape. D. Automatic controller: a mechanical or solid state timer, capable of operating valves stations to set the days and length of time of a water application. E. Backflow prevention device: a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system. F. Conversion factor (0.62): a number that converts the maximum applied water allowance from acre inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year. The conversion factor is calculated as follows: (325,829 gallons /43,560 square feet /12 inches (0.62) 325,829 gallons 1 acre -foot 43,560 square feet 1 acre 12 inches 1 foot To convert gallons per year to 100 cubic feet per year, another common billing unit for water, divide gallons per year by 748. (748 gallons 100 cubic feet). G. Developer installed landscaping: non exempt landscaping proposed to be installed on a vacant parcel, which has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and /or the Planning Department during the appropriate application process. H. Ecological restoration project: a project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem. I. Effective precipitation or usable rainfall: the portion of total precipitation that is used by the plants. Precipitation is not a reliable source of water but can contribute to some degree toward the water needs of the landscape. For the purpose of this 2 document, "effective precipitation" is 25 percent of local annual mean precipitation. J. Emitter: drip irrigation fittings that deliver water slowly from the system to the soil. K. Established landscape: the point at which plants in the landscape have developed roots into the soil adjacent to the root ball. L. Establishment period: the first year after installing the plant in the landscape. M. Estimated Applied Water Use: the portion of the Estimated Total Water use that is derived from applied water. The Estimated Applied Water Use shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance. The Estimated Applied Water Use may be the sum of the water recommended through the irrigations schedule. N. Estimated Total Water Use: the annual total amount of water estimated to be needed to keep the plants in the landscaped area healthy. It is based upon such factors as the local evapotranspiration (ET) rate, the size of the landscape area, the types of plants, and the efficiency of the irrigation system. 0. ET adjustment factor: a factor of 0.8 that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape. A combined plant mix with a site -wide average of 0.5 is the basis of the plant factor portion of this calculation. The irrigation efficiency for purpose of the ET Adjustment Factor is 0.625. P. Evapotranspiration: the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil surfaces and transpired by plants during a specific time. Q. Flow rate: the rate at which water flows through pipes and valves (gallons per minute or cubic feet per second). R. Homeowner installed landscaping: exempt landscaping that is installed or contracted to be installed by the owner of a lot of record that is developed with a single or multi family residence. S. Hydrozone: a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are served by a valve or set of valves with the same schedule. A hydrozone may be irrigated or non irrigated. For example, a naturalized area planted with native vegetation that will not need supplemental irrigation once established, is a non irrigated hydrozone. 3 T. Infiltration rate: the rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit of time (inches per hour). U. Irrigation efficiency: the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system characteristics and management practices. The minimum irrigation efficiency for purposes of this ordinance is 0.625. Greater irrigation efficiency can be expected from well designed and maintained systems. V. Landscape irrigation audit: a process to perform site inspection, evaluate irrigation systems, and develop efficient irrigation schedules. W. Landscaped area: the entire parcel less the building footprint, driveways, non irrigated portions of the parking lots, hardscape such as decks and patios, and other nonporous areas. Areas dedicated to edible plants such as orchards or vegetable gardens or left in an undisturbed, natural state, are not included. X. Lateral line: the water delivery pipeline that supplies water from the water source to the valve or outlet. Y. Local mean precipitation: the Department of Water Resources 20 -year historical rainfall data. Z. Main line: the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the valve or outlet. AA. Maximum Applied Water Allowance: for design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscape area. It is based upon the area's reference evapotranspiration, the ET adjustment factor, and the size of the landscape area. The Estimated Applied Water Use shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance. BB. Mulch: any material such as leaves, bark, straw, or other materials left loose and applied to the soil surface to reduce evaporation. CC. Operating pressure: the pressure at which a system of sprinklers is designed to operate, usually indicated at base of sprinkler. DD. Overspray: the water which is delivered beyond the landscape area, wetting pavements, walks, structures, or other non landscaped areas. EE. Plant factor: a factor that when multiplied by reference evapotranspiration, estimates the amount of water used by plants. For purposes of this ordinance, the average plant factor of low 4 water -using plants ranges from 0 to 0.3, for average water -using plants the range is 0.4 to 0.6, and for high water -using plants the range is 0.7 to 1.0. FF. Rain sensing device: a system which automatically shuts off the irrigation system when it rains. GG. Record drawing or as- built: a set of reproducible drawings which show significant changes in the work made during construction and which are usually based on drawings marked up in the field and other data furnished by the contractor. HH. Recreational area: areas of active play or recreation such as sports fields, school yards, picnic grounds, or other areas with intense foot traffic. II. Recycled water, reclaimed water, or treated sewage effluent water: treated or recycled wastewater of a quality suitable for non potable uses such as landscape irrigation; not intended for human consumption. JJ. Reference evapotranspiration or ETo: a standard measurement of environmental parameter which affect the water use of plants. ETo is given in inches per day, month or year, and is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of 4- to 7 -inch tall, cool season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is the Maximum Applied Water Allowance so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated. KK. Rehabilitated landscape: any re- landscaping project. LL. Runoff: water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows from the area. For example, runoff may result from water that is applied to too great a rate (application rate exceeds infiltration rate) or when there is severe slope. MM. Soil moisture sensing device: a device that measures the amount of water in the soil. NN. Soil texture: the classification of soil based on the percentage of sand, silt, and clay in the soil. 00. Sprinkler head: a device which sprays water through a nozzle. PP. Static water pressure: the pipeline or municipal water supply pressure when water is not flowing. QQ. Station: an area served by one valve or by a set of valves that operate simultaneously. 5 RR. Turf: a surface layer of earth containing mowed grass with its root. Annual bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, perennial rye grass, red fescue, and tall fescue are cool- season grasses. Bermuda grass, Kikuyugrass, Seashore paspalum, St. Augustine grass, and Buffalo grass are warm season grasses. SS. Valve: a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system. TT. Water conservation concept statement: a one -page checklist and a narrative summary of the project. 815 47.030 Provisions for New or Rehabilitated Landscapes I. Applicability A. Except as provided in subsection C, below, this section shall apply to: 1. All new and rehabilitated landscaping for public agency projects that require a permit; and 2. Developer installed landscaping in new single family and multi family projects. B. Projects subject to this section shall conform to the provisions of Article 15 -47. C. This section shall not apply to: 1. Homeowner installed landscaping in existing single- family and multi- family projects; 2. Cemeteries; 3. City designated historical sites; 4. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; or 5. Any project with a landscaped area less than 2,500 square feet. II. Landscape documentation package A. A copy of the landscape documentation package conforming to this Section shall be submitted to the City. No permit shall be issued until the City Planning Department reviews and approves the landscape documentation package. B. A copy of the approved landscape documentation package shall be provided to the property owner along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner. C. Each landscape documentation package shall include the following elements as further defined in this article: 1. Water Conservation Concept Statement 2. Calculation of the Maximum Applied Water Allowance 3. Calculation of the Estimated Applied Water Use 4. Calculation of the Estimated Total Water Use 5. Landscape Design Plan 6. Irrigation Design Plan 7. Irrigation Schedule 8. Maintenance Schedule 9. Landscape Irrigation Audit Schedule 10. Grading Design Plan 11. Soil Analysis 12. Certificate of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation of the project). D. If effective precipitation is included in the calculation of the Estimated Total Water Use, then an Effective Precipitation Disclosure Statement, pursuant to Section 15- 47.050, from the landscape professional and the property owner shall be submitted with the Landscape Documentation Package. III. Elements of Landscape Documentation Package A. Water Conservation Concept Statement Each landscape documentation package shall include a Water Conservation Concept Statement. It serves as a checklist to verify that the elements of the landscape documentation package have been completed and has a narrative summary of the project. B. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance 1. A project's Maximum Applied Water Allowance shall be calculated using the following formula: MAWA (ETo) (0.8) (LA) (0.62) where: MAWA Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year) ETo Reference Evapotranspiration (inches per year) 0.8 ET Adjustment Factor LA Landscaped Area in square feet 0.62 Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot) 7 2. Portions of landscaped areas in public and private projects such as parks, playgrounds, sports fields, golf courses, common areas or school yards where turf provides a playing surface or serves other recreational purposes may require water in addition to the,Maximum Applied Water Allowance. A statement shall be included with the landscape design plan, designating areas to be used for such purposes and specifying any needed amount of additional water above the Maximum Applied Water Allowance. C. Estimated Applied Water Use 1. The Estimated Applied Water Use shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance. 2. A calculation of the Estimated Applied Water Use shall be submitted with the Landscape Documentation Package. It may be calculated by summing the amount of water recommended in the irrigation schedule. D. Estimated Total Water Use 1. A calculation of the Estimated Total Water Use shall be submitted with the Landscape Documentation Package. The Estimated Total Water Use shall be calculated by summing the amount of water expected from effective precipitation (not to exceed 25 percent of the local annual mean precipitation) or by calculating from the following formula: The Estimated Total Water Use for the entire landscaped area equals the sum of the Estimated Water Use of all hydrozones in that landscaped area. EWU hydrozone) (ETo)(PF)(HA)(0.62) (IE) EWU Reference Evapotranspiration (inches per year) ETo Reference Evapotranspiration (inches per year) PF Plant factor HA Hydrozone area in square feet 0.62 Conversion factor (to gallons per square foot) IE Irrigation efficiency E. Landscape Design Plan A landscape design plan meeting the following requirements shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package. 8 1. Plant Section and Grouping a. Any plants may be used in the landscape, providing the Estimated Applied Water Use recommended does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance and that the plants meet the specifications set forth (B, C and D). b. Plants having similar water use shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones. c. Plants shall be selected appropriately based upon their adaptability to the climatic, geologic, and topographical conditions of the site. Protection and preservation of native species and natural areas is encouraged wherever it is consistent with the other provisions of this Article. d. Fire prevention needs shall be addressed in areas that are fire prone. Information about fire prone areas and appropriate landscaping for fire safety is available from the City and the local fire districts. 2. Water Features a. Recirculating water shall be used for decorative water features. b. Pool and spa covers are encouraged. 3. Landscape Design Plan Specifications The landscape design plan shall be drawn at a scale that accurately and clearly identifies: a. Designation of hydrozones. b. Landscape materials, trees, shrubs, ground cover, turf, and other vegetation. Planting symbols shall be clearly drawn and plants labeled by botanical name, common name, container size, spacing, and quantities of each group of plants indicated. c. Property lines and street names. d. Streets, driveways, walkways, and other paved areas. e. Pools, ponds, water features, fences, and retaining walls. 9 f. Existing and proposed buildings and structures including elevations if applicable. g. Natural features including but not limited to rock outcroppings, existing trees, shrubs that will remain. h. Tree staking, plant installation, soil preparation details, and any other applicable planting and installation details. i. A calculation of the total landscaped area. j. Designation of recreational areas. F. Irrigation Design Plan An irrigation design plan meeting the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the Landscape Documentation Package. 1. Irrigation Design Criteria a. Runoff and Overspray. Soil types and infiltration rate shall be considered when designing irrigation systems. All irrigation systems shall be designed to minimize runoff, low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non irrigated areas, walks, roadways, or structures. Proper irrigation equipment and schedules, including features such as repeat cycles, shall be used to closely match application rates to infiltration rates; therefore, minimizing runoff. Special attention shall be given to minimize runoff on slopes and to avoid overspray in planting areas with a width less than 10 feet and in median strips less than 8 feet wide. b. Irrigation Efficiency. For the purpose of determining the Maximum Applied Water Allowance, irrigation efficiency is assumed to be 0.625. Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained, and managed to meet or exceed 0.625 efficiency. c. Equipment: Water meters. Separate landscape water meters shall be installed for all non exempt projects. Controllers. Automatic control systems shall be required for all irrigation systems and must be 10 2. Recycled Water able to accommodate all aspects of the landscape design. Valves. Plants which require different amounts of water shall be irrigated by separate valves. If one valve is used for a given area, only plants with similar water use shall be used in that area. Anti -drain (check) valves shall be installed in strategic points to minimize or prevent low -head drainage. Sprinkler heads. Heads and emitters shall have consistent application rates within each control valve circuit. Sprinkler heads shall be selected for proper area coverage, application rate, operating pressure, adjustment capability, and ease of maintenance. Rain Sensing Override Devices. override devices are recommended on systems. Soil Moisture Sensing Devices. It that soil moisture sensing devices where appropriate. 3. Irrigation Design Plan Specifications 11 Rain sensing all irrigation is recommended be considered a. The installation of recycled water irrigation systems (dual distribution systems) shall be required to allow for the current and future use of recycled water, unless a written exemption has been granted as described in the following section (b). b. Irrigation systems shall make use of recycled water unless a written exemption has been granted by the local water agency, stating that recycled water meeting all health standards is not available and will not be available in the foreseeable future. c. The recycled water irrigation systems shall be designed and operated in accordance with all local and state codes. Irrigation systems shall be designed to be consistent with hydrozones. The irrigation design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets. It should be separate from, but use the same format as, the landscape design plan. The scale shall be the same as that used for the landscape design plan. The irrigation design plan shall accurately and clearly identify: a. Location and size of separate water meters for the landscape. b. Location, type, and size of all components of the irrigation system, including automatic controllers, main and lateral lines, valves, sprinkler heads, moisture sensing devices, rain switches, quick couplers, and backflow prevention devices. c. Static water pressure at the point of connection to the public water supply. d. Flow rate (gallons per minute), application rate (inches per hour), and design operating pressure (psi) for each station. e. Recycled water irrigation systems. G. Irrigation Schedules Irrigation schedules meeting the following requirements shall be submitted as part of the Landscape Documentation Package. 1. An annual irrigation program with monthly irrigation schedules shall be required for the plant establishment period, for the established landscape, and for any temporarily irrigated areas. 2. The irrigation schedule shall: a. Include run time (in minutes per cycle), suggested number of cycles per day, and frequency of irrigation for each station; and b. Provide the amount of applied water (in hundred cubic feet, gallons, or in whatever billing units the local water supplier uses) recommended on a monthly and annual basis. 3. The total amount of water for the project shall include water designated in the Estimated Total Water Use calculation plus water needed for any water features which shall be considered as a high water using hydrozone. 12 H. Maintenance Schedules A regular maintenance schedule meeting the following requirements shall be submitted as part of the Landscape Documentation Package: I. Grading Design Plan Grading design plans meeting the requirements conditions shall be submitted as part of the Landscape Documentation Package: J. Soils 4. Recreational areas designated in the landscape design plan shall be highlighted and the irrigation schedule shall indicate if any additional water is needed above the Maximum Applied Water Allowance because of high plant factors (but not due to irrigation inefficiency). 5. Irrigation scheduling should incorporate the use of evapotranspiration data such as those from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) weather stations to apply the appropriate levels of water for different climates. 6. Landscape irrigation should be scheduled during non daylight hours to avoid irrigating during times of high wind or high temperature. 1. Landscape shall be maintained to ensure water efficiency. A regular maintenance schedule shall include but not be limited to checking, adjusting, and repairing irrigation equipment; resetting the automatic controller; aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning, and weeding all landscaped areas. 2. Whenever possible, repair of irrigation equipment shall be done with the originally specified materials or their equivalents. 1. A grading design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets. It should be separate from but use the same format as the landscape design plan. 2. The grading design plan shall indicate finished configurations and elevations of the landscaped area, including the height of graded slopes, drainage patterns, pad elevations, and finish grade. 1. A soil analysis meeting the following requirements shall be submitted as part of the Landscape Documentation Package: 13 2. A mulch of at least 3 inches shall be applied to all planting areas except turf. K. Certification 1. Upon completing the installation of the landscaping and the irrigation systems, an irrigation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor prior to the final field observation. 2. A licensed Landscape Architect, Irrigation Designer or Licensed or Certified Professional in a related field in Horticulture shall conduct a final field observation and shall provide a certificate of substantial completion to the City and to the applicant. The certificate shall specifically indicate that plants were installed as specified and that the irrigation system was installed as designed and approved. 3. Certification shall be accomplished by completing a Certificate of Substantial Completion and delivering it to the City and to the applicant. 4. Any deficiencies shall also be identified. The irrigation designer, landscape architect or other licensed or certified professional in Horticultural related field, shall conduct a final field observation to confirm the irrigation system was installed as designed and that an irrigation audit has been performed. The irrigation designer shall provide a certificate of substantial completion, identifying any deficiencies to the City and to the owner of record. IV. Public Education A. Publications The City shall provide information to owners of all new, single family homes regarding the design, installation, and maintenance of water efficient landscapes. B. Model Homes a. Determination of soil texture, indicating the percentage of organic matter. b. An approximate soil infiltration rate (either measured or derived from soil texture /infiltration rate tables). A range of infiltration rates should be noted where appropriate. 14 At least one model home that is landscaped in each project consisting of eight or more homes shall demonstrate via signs and information, the principles of water efficient landscape described in this Article. 1. Signs shall be used to identify the model as an example of water efficient landscape and featuring elements such as hydrozones, irrigation equipment, and others which contribute to the overall water efficient theme. 2. Information shall be provided about designing, installing, and maintaining water efficient landscapes. S15- 47.040 Water Waste Prevention The City of Saratoga shall prevent water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation by prohibiting runoff, low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, nonirrigated areas, walks, roadways, or structures. Penalties for violation of these prohibitions shall be established by the City. S15- 47.050 Effective Precipitation If effective precipitation is included in the calculation of the Estimated Total Water Use, an Effective Precipitation Disclosure Statement shall be completed, signed and submitted with the Landscape Documentation Package. No more than 25 percent of the local annual mean precipitation shall be considered effective precipitation in the calculation of the Estimated Total Water Use. 815- 47.060 Reference Evapotranspiration In Inches (Historical Data, Extrapolated from 12 -Month Normal Year ETo Maps and U.C. Publication 21426) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Auq Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann Santa Clara County San Jose 1.5 1.8 3.1 4.1 5.5 5.8 6.5 5.9 5.2 3.3 1.8 1.0 45.3 SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and 15 phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 of Saratoga held on the day of 1992, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk waterord Mayor 16 Assembly Bill No. 325 CHAPTER 1145 An act to add Article 10.8 (commencing with Section 65590) to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to water conservation. [Approved by Governor September 20, 1990. Filed with Secretary of State September 21, 1990.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST AB 325, Clute. Water conservation: landscaping ordinance. (1) Under existing law, local agencies are not required to adopt ordinances concerning landscape water conservation. This bill would require the Department of Water Resources by February 1, 1991, to appoint an advisory task force to work with the department in the drafting of a model water efficient landscape ordinance and to submit the recommended ordinance to the department by May 1, 1991. The bill would require the department by January 1, 1992, after holding a public hearing, based on recommendations of the task force, to adopt a model local water efficient landscape ordinance which each local agency, as defined, may adopt. The bill would provide that if any local agency has not adopted a water landscape ordinance or findings, based on specified factors, that no ordinance is necessary, by January 1, 1993, the model ordinance shall take effect and shall be enforced by that local agency and have the same force and effect as if adopted by that local agency. The bill would require each local agency, not later than January 31, 1993, to file with the department a copy of the water efficient landscape ordinance adopted, or the findings which state that no ordinance is necessary, thereby imposing a state mandated local program. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature on the status of these local ordinances by July 1, 1993. The bill would require the model ordinance to contain specified provisions and would specify related matters. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations and would declare legislative intent. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions _establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 8650 Ch. 1145 2 SECTION 1. Article 10.8 (commencing with Section 65590) is added to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read: Article 10.8. Water Conservation in Landscaping 65590. This article may be cited and shall be known as the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. 65591. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The waters of the state are of limited supply and are subject to ever increasing demands. (b) The continuation of California's economic prosperity is dependent on adequate supplies of water being available for future uses. (c) It is the policy of the state to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of this valuable resource. (d) Landscapes are essential to the quality of life in CAlifornia by providing areas for active and passive recreation and as an enhancement to the environment by cleaning air and water, preventing erosion, offering fire protection, and replacing ecosystems lost to development. (e) Landscape design, installation, and maintenance can and should be water efficient. 65591.5. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Water Resources prepare and promote the use of a model water efficient landscape ordinance which local agencies may adopt. (b) It• is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Water Resources adopt a model water efficient landscape ordinance based on recommendations from a task force representing the landscape, water, and building industries, local agencies, and others. (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the task force reach general agreement on those provisions which will be included in the model water efficient landscape ordinance. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the task force consider the most recent information on efficient landscape irrigation technologies and those elements of existing water efficient landscape ordinances which have proven successful in reducing water consumption. (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that the model water efficient landscape ordinance developed pursuant to this article promote the most efficient use of water in the landscape while respecting the economic, environmental, aesthetic, and lifestyle choices of individuals and property owners. 65592. Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions used in this section govern the construction of this article: (a) "Department" means the Department of Water Resources. 86 80 —3— Ch. 1145 (b) "Local agency" means any city, county, or city and county. (c) "Water efficient landscape ordinance" means an ordinance or resolution adopted by a local agency to address the efficient use of water in landscaping. 65593. Not later than February 1, 1991, the department shall appoint an advisory task force to work with department staff in the drafting of a model water efficient landscape ordinance. The task force shall consist of the following members: (a) One member selected from a list provided by the League of California Cities. (b) One member selected from a list provided by the County Supervisors Association of California. (c) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized professional association in California representing water agencies. (d) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized association in California representing commercial builders. (e) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized professional association in California representing residential builders. (f) One member representing a nonprofit environmental protection organization or a water conservation organization whose principal purpose includes promoting the efficient use of water or water conservation. (g) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized professional association in California representing the nursery industry. (h) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized professional association in California representing landscape contractors. (i) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized professional association in California representing landscape architects. (j) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized professional'association in California representing the manufacturers or designers of irrigation equipment. (k) One member representing the Green Industry Council of California. (1) One member selected from a list provided by a recognized association in California representing the growers or producers of turf grass. (m) One member selected by the Director of Water Resources. Membership of the task force shall, to the extent practicable, be representative of the state's cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity and gender balance. All meetings of the task force shall be subject to Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The Legislature declares that some individuals appointed as 86 100 Ch. 1145 4 members of the task force must be chosen as representatives of the industries and professions impacted by local water conservation ordinances, and that their representation of these industries and professions does serve the general public interest as they have unique information, expertise, and experience on the issue of water conservation and landscaping that should be taken into consideration by the department as it considers the development of model water conservation ordinances. Therefore, for purposes of persons who hold this office, the industries and professions which are represented on the task force constitute the public generally within the meaning of Section 87103 of the Government Code in those decisions impacting those specific industries and professions, unless the results of their actions taken as task force members have a material financial effect on those members distinguishable from their effect on other members of their respective industries and professions generally. The task force shall submit the recommended model local water efficient landscape ordinance to the department on or before May 1, 1991. The department shall adopt a model local water efficient landscape ordinance based on the recommendations of the task force. The task force shall cease to exist on the date the department adopts a model local water efficient landscape ordinance or January 1, 1992, whichever occurs first. 65594. (a) Not later than January 1, 1992, after holding a public hearing, the department, based on recommendations of the task force established pursuant to Section 65593, shall adopt a model local water efficient landscape ordinance which each local agency may adopt. (b) In developing the model ordinance, the task force shall recognize and promote the benefits of consistent local ordinances in areas having similar climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. (c) The department shall notify and deliver a copy of the model local water efficient landscape ordinance to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee shall have 60 days to review the model ordinance before it is formally adopted by the department. (d) Not later than January 31, 1992, the department shall distribute the adopted model ordinance to all local agencies and other interested parties. (e) The department shall promote the benefits of consistent local ordinances in areas having similar climatic, geological, or topographical areas. 65595. If by January 1, 1993, a local agency has not adopted a water efficient landscape ordinance or has not adopted findings based on climatic, geological, or topographical conditions, or water availability, which state that a water efficient landscape ordinance is unnecessary, the model water efficient landscape ordinance adopted 86 130 —5— Ch. 1145 by the department pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65594 shall take effect on January 1, 1993, and shall be enforced by the local agency and have the same force and effect as if adopted by the local agency. 65596. To the extent feasible, local agencies that adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance after the model water efficient landscape ordinance is adopted by the department, shall consider the provisions of the model. 65597. The proposed model ordinance shall contain, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Provisions for water conservation through the appropriate use and groupings of plants that are well adapted to particular sites and to particular climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The model ordinance shall not prohibit or require specific plant species, but it may include conditions for the use of plant species. However, the model shall not include conditions which have the effect of prohibiting or requiring specific plant species. (b) Provisions for the use of automatic irrigation systems and seasonal irrigation schedules, incorporating water conservation design and utilizing methods appropriate for specific terrains, soil types, wind conditions, temperatures, and other environmental factors, in order to ensure a high degree of water efficiency. (c) Provisions for grading and drainage to promote healthy plant growth and to prevent excessive erosion and runoff, and the use of mulches in shrub areas, garden beds, and landscaped areas where appropriate. (d) Provisions for the use of reclaimed water supplied through dual distribution systems, if feasible and cost effective, and subject to appropriate health standards. (e) Provisions to educate water users on the efficient use of water and the benefits of doing so. (f) Provisions addressing regional differences where necessary and feasible, including fire prevention needs. (g) Provisions to exempt landscaping which is part of a registered historical site, where feasible. (h) Provisions for the use of economic incentives to promote the efficient use of water, where feasible. (i) Provisions for landscape maintenance practices which foster long -term landscape water conservation. Landscape maintenance practices may include, but are not limited to, performing routine irrigation system repair and adjustments, scheduling irrigation based on CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System), conducting water audits, and prescribing the amount of water applied per landscaped acre. 65598. The proposed model ordinance shall exempt cemeteries from all provisions of the ordinance except those provisions adopted to conform with subdivisions (e), (h), and (i) of Section 65597. In adopting language specific to cemeteries, the task force shall 86 160 Ch. 1145 6 recognize their special landscape management needs. 65599. Not later than January 31,1993, each local agency shall file with the department a copy of the water efficient landscape ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 65595, or adopted before the effective date of this article, or the findings which state that a water efficient landscape ordinance is unnecessary. Not later than July 1, 1993, the department shall prepare and submit a report to the Legislature summarizing the status of water efficient landscape ordinances adopted by local agencies. 65600. Any actions or proceedings to attach, review, set aside, void, or annul the act, decision, or findings of a local agency on the ground of noncompliance with this article shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. 0 86 170 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 28, 1992 Page 7 Pastor Jewel stated that to his knowledge, the church could accommodate a change in hours, but he could not speak for the schedule of the nighttime supervisors Wallace Brown, program coordinator, stated that he thought modifications in the schedules of the on -site supervisors could be made to accommodate a change in the operating hours. CHAIRPERSON CALDWELL SUGGESTED THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO: 1) CHANGE THE OPERATING HOURS (IN CONDITION #4) TO 7:30 P.M TO 7:00 A.M. MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS AND 7:30 P.M. TO 8:00 A.M. SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND HOLIDAYS AND SPECIFY THE PROGRAM DATES OF NOVEMBER 28, 1992 THROUGH JANUARY 2, 1993; 2) INCLUDE IN THE USE PERMIT THE NAMES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THE PROGRAM/COMMUNITY LIAISONS; AND 3) CHANGE THE WORDING OF CONDITION #3 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE NIGHTTIME SUPERVISOR, BUT NO MORE THAN 15 GUEST RESIDING AT THE CHURCH. THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION INDICATED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. The Commission took a break at 8:57 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:12 p.m. CITY OF SARATOGA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Review of State Draft Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Negative Declaration (cont. from the 10/14/92 public hearing due to the late hour). Planner White presented the Report dated October 20, 1992 and answered questions regarding the ordinance. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:18 P.M. PASSED 5- 0. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE FINAL DRAFT OF WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PASSED 5 -0. Commissioner Moran noted that the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance should be periodically reviewed and updated. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 28, 1992 Page 8 Commissioner Forbes stated that it should be noted that the implementation of a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is mandated by the State of California. 4. DR -92 -031 Grace United Methodist Church; 19848 Prospect Rd., request for design review consideration to reconstruct the roof structure of the existing administration building, effectively raising the building's ridge height from 12 ft. to 24 ft. in height. Design review is necessary whenever a structure within a residential zone district exceeds 18 ft. in height pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 28, 1992, to the Planning Commission. He stated that letters had been received from Mr. Graham Mossten, David Roznar, Dennis Rust (submitted a petition signed by area residents), Dr. and Mrs. William Ford, Roger and Mary Peatsa, expressing concern regarding the raising of the roof and the current uses of the church. Planner Walgren explained that the proposed roof design would not increase the square footage of the church nor would it cause an intensification of the church's roof. He noted that the church's current use permit prohibit intensification of the building's use. Commissioner Caldwell inquired whether the new roof would alter the view of any residents. Planner Walgren indicated that, in staffs opinion no views would be altered. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. Jerry Carter, 19848 Prospect Road, Pastor of Grace United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that the roof proposed is for the administrative building and will be lower than other roofs on existing buildings which are on the same site. He also stated that the height of the proposed roof was not intended to create more space or intensify the use, but only to house the air handling equipment under. Harold Campbell, 15149 Luis Street, Poway, Project General Contractor, spoke in favor of the application and explained that structural constraints and the weight load was the determining factor for the roof height. He also answered questions from the Commission regarding the project. James Poole, 19861 Viewridge Drive, stated that the neighbors had not seen the plans and requested that the Commission allow time for the interested neighbors to study the plans. Chairperson Caldwell temporarily suspended the public hearing on the item in order to allow the applicant to present and explain the project to the neighbors also to allow the neighbors to view the plans. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-2-4 AGENDA ITEM 4- W MEETING DATE: November 18, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Motion Vote: Engineering SUBJECT: Resolution establishing 5 minute parking time limit area along Oak Street adjacent to Saratoga Elementary School. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Ordinance amending Section 9- 15.100(d) of the City Code deleting area as a designated passenger loading zone (White Zone). 2. Adopt MV resolution designating area as a 5 minute parking time limit area (Green Zone). Discussion: The Public Safety Commission has reevaluated the request from the Saratoga Elementary School to redesignate a portion of the parking on Oak Street in front of the school from a "white" passenger loading zone to a "green" 5 minute parking time limit area. You will recall the request was made to accommodate parents who need to go into the school for a short period of time to accompany their children to the classroom and /or to attend to other business in the school office. The Public Safety Commission continues to support the requested change and at their meeting earlier this week, voted unanimously to reaffirm their previous recommendation on this matter, that being that the City Council approve the request. Consequently, the necessary ordinance and resolution to implement the parking changes are attached for the Council to adopt. The ordinance, which the Council introduced and passed the first reading on October 21, eliminates the designation of the area as a "white" passenger loading zone. The MV resoltuion creates the "green" 5 minute parking time limit area. Fiscal Impacts: Several hundred dollars to repaint curb and change signs. Attachments: 1. Ordinance amending City Code. 2. MV Resolution with attachments. Printed on recycled paper. Overview: ;;L}`- UMW OO ff M E M O R A N D U M 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Staff DATE: November 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Tentative Map #92 006 Franklin; 13686 Quito Road Project Description: The applicant, Mr. Franklin, is appealing a Planning Commission denial of his tentative map application to create five separate parcels accessing Quito Road via a short cul -de -sac, out of two existing parcels. The two existing parcels total.132,006 square feet in gross site area and are located within an R- 1- 10,000 zone district. The Commission found that the tentative map was inconsistent with the City's General Plan and voted unanimously to deny the request. Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Karen Tucker On September 9, 1992, an application was presented to the Planning Commission requesting tentative map approval to create five separate parcels. Two of the parcels, however, did not comply with current City lot width and depth regulations due to the applicant's reluctance to modify the map in order to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Water. District's, and hence the City's, policy towards land dedication on major land divisions (5 or more parcels). Rather than apply for a variance or revise the map in order to bring all parcels into conformance with City regulations, the applicant chose to contest the Water District's policy. Therefore, the applicant, ultimately, requested tentative map approval on a map that did not conform to current zoning standards. The Planning Commission determined that they could not approve the tentative map since it would have resulted in the creation of two non conforming parcels. The Commission's fundamental concern was that the map would not be consistent with the Water District's and City's policy towards land dedication on major land divisions. Based on this concern, the Commission found that the subdivision would be inconsistent with City's General Plan and incompatible with the objectives, policies, and programs specified in the Plan. File No. SD -92 -006; 13686 Quito Road The Commission further stated that a revised map, reflecting the creation of four parcels instead of five, could have been submitted without the need for a variance or deviation from current policies. The applicant asserts that the Commission made an error in its decision noting that the subdivision is, in fact, consistent with the City's General Plan. In their letter dated September 23, 1992, the applicant has quoted policies from the City's General Plan which staff feels have been taken out of context and are not related to this issue. Basically, the applicant is implying that the Water District's intention is to channelize the creek thereby destroying its aesthetic values. This is simply not the case. The Water District will still need to obtain City Approval prior to channelization of any creek within the City limits. The applicant further asserts that a dedication in easement will be adequate for flood control purposes. In their letter dated July 23, 1992, the Water District has indicated that while a dedication of an easement will be acceptable, they would prefer land dedication in fee title. Staff feels that a dedication in fee title will be consistent with the Water District's policy towards land dedication in that a previous major subdivision approved on January 1, 1992 (Kerwin Ranch) was required to dedicate land to the Water District in fee title. In order to be consistent with current decisions, the City is requesting dedication in fee title. It is staff's opinion that the subject property is a difficult site to subdivide. In addition to the issue of dedication in fee title versus easement, the remainder of the property has similar development problems due to the presence of CalTrans, PG &E, storm drain, sanitary sewer and Southern Pacific Railroad rights -of -way located on the north side of the property. Further, the proposed access onto Quito Road may create a problem with the increased traffic associated with the Highway 85 construction. Given the constraints of the site, staff felt that a redesign of the subdivision which satisfy's current lot dimension requirements would be necessary. Recommended Motion Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the tentative map request. PAU Assistant anner ectfully submitted, File No. SD -92 -006; 13686 Quito Road Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution SD -91 -006 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/9/92 3. Staff Report dated 9/9/92 4. Appeal Letter 5. Site Plan, Exhibit "A" RESOLUTION NO. BD -91 -006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION Franklin; 13686 Quito Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval for five lots, all as particularly set forth in File No. SD -91 -006 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions of its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with the specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use are not compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 9/9/92 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated June, 1992 and is marked as Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby denied for the following reason: 1. The subdivision will result in nonconforming parcel configurations due to the fact that the map does not recognize the required Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control dedication. Section 1. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, Stat of California, this 9th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, FAVERO, FORBES, MORAN NOES: none ABSENT: CALDWELL File No. SD -91 -006; 13686 Quito Road Secretary, P1a ning Commission ATTEST: S`TT Ch irperson, P1a ning Commission Planning Commissio. Minutes Meeting of September 9, 1992 Page 2 Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren outlined the technical corrections to the packet. Planning Director Curtis addressed item 8 on the agenda. He noted that Commissioner Favero must abstain from this item, therefore there is no Quorum. He noted this item will be continued to September 23, 1992. Com. Favero noted he was from this discussion. Planning Director Curtis Dias, Assistant Planner. advised by the City Attorney to abstain introduced a new staff person, Lynette PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -92 -007 Duncan, 19501 Rue de Glen Una, request for design review approval to construct a new 5,654 sq. ft. one -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 51,818 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district. (cont. from 8/12/92 public hearing; application expires 1/23/93). 2. CITY OF SARATOGA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Review of State legislation AB325, State of California Model Ordinance, SCVWD "modified" ordinance (cont. to the 10/14/92 public hearing). FAVERO /FORBEB MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4 -0. (Caldwell absent) Vice Chair Bogosian hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SD -91 -006 informed the public of the process of the Franklin; 13686 Quito Road, request for tentative map approval to create five separate parcels accessing Quito Road via a short cul- de -sac, out of two existing parcels, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The two existing parcels total approximately 3.1 acres in gross site area and are located within an R- 1- 10,000 zone district (application expires on 9/20/92) Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated September 9, 1992 and answered questions of the Commission. He reviewed the reasons why staff recommend denial, as outlined in the staff report. Planning Commissio, "linutes Meeting of September 9, 1992 Page 3 Vice Chair Bogosian asked if City Law takes precedence over the Water District. City Attorney Faubion stated the first obligation of the Commission is to implement City Ordinances. She noted other districts will implement their own, but the Planning Commission should consider what they know about other ordinances. Vice Chair Bogosian opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Mr. Terry Szewczyk stated it is his understanding that the Planning Commission have the authority to deviate from dedication requirements requested of other agencies. Planning Director Curtis stated there is no ordinance which requires fee title. He noted the policy of the City and the Water District for major subdivisions is that the land be given fee title. He noted the request is consistent with that policy. Mr. Szewczyk continued his presentation. He stated this was originally filed as a 6 lot sub division. He noted he is requesting direction on the easement issue. Mr. Szewczyk stated the Water District is requesting roads on both sides of the channel and this will affect some existing trees. Mr. Szewczyk explained how other cities handle the Water District's requirement. He addressed the letter from the Water District dated July 23, 1992. Com. Favero questioned the dedication vs. the easement and suggested that staff look at alternatives. Mr. Szewczyk noted they did discuss alternatives with staff and the Water District and the Water District was not very responsive. Mr. Carl Franklin noted this property was put on hold because of Highway 85. He stated they are burdened by the easement and would like the dedication. FAVERO /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 4 -0. (Caldwell absent) In response to Com. Favero's question, Planner Walgren stated if the flood control require an easement and not a dedication, a variance would not be necessary. He stated if this application was denied, the applicant, as part of a new application, could consult the Water District further to discuss the possibility of altering their policy. Com. Moran noted the applicant has the option to come back with a 4 lot subdivision. FAVERO /FORGES MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION 8D -91 -006 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Com. Moran noted she would support staff recommendation. Planning Commission. Minutes Meeting of September 9, 1992 Page 4 Vice Chair Bogosian stated if this was approved non conforming lots would be created, therefore he would support staff recommendation. The above motion was carried 4 0 (Caldwell absent). The public hearing was opened. Mr. Szewczyk noted that the applicant would like to hold the appeal period for 60 days. Vice Chair Bogosian stated he should discuss this with staff. 4. DR 91 069 Hong; 21210 Chadwick Court, request for design review approval to construct a 4,911 sq. ft., two -story residence on a 51,227 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within an NHR zone district, on lot #5 of the Chadwick Place subdivision (application expires on 9/20/92). Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated September 9, 1992 and answered questions of the Commissioners. In response to Vice Chair Bogosian's question, Planner Walgren stated there is no condition in the resolution which requires an irrigation system. He noted it is the homeowners responsibility to maintain the landscaping. Com. Favero expressed concern about the life of the trees. Planning Director Curtis stated if the City requires the placement of vegetation it has to be maintained and if any dies it must be replaced. He noted the property owner will be in violation of the design review approval if the trees die from neglect. Vice Chair Bogosian opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Randy Jones explained the position of the home on the lot as well as the design and height of the structure. He stated they will put in an irrigation system if required. In response to Com. Moran's question, Mr. Jones stated the applicant would be willing to use darker colors for the home. FAVERO /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 4 -0 (Caldwell absent). In response to Vice Chair Bogosian's question, City Attorney Faubion stated a condition may be added to require an irrigation system. Com. Moran stated the goal is to keep the vegetation alive. She suggested reviewing the landscaping in two years without requiring the applicant to add an irrigation system at this time. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: SD -91 -006; 13686 Quito Road Applicant /Owner: Franklin Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: September 9, 1992 APN: 403 -24 -001 and 403 -24 -008 Director Approval: 47) (44.) C45) (44) (41) 1 64 6 7 1 63/ 1113U 111371 1635! �nf 2 z 22 21 401-71,403. File No. SD -91 -006; 13686 Quito Road CASE HISTORY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application filed: 10/18/91 Application complete: 12/20/91 Notice published: 8/26/92 Mailing completed: 8/27/92 Posting completed: 8/20/92 Request for tentative map approval to create five separate parcels accessing Quito Road via a short cul -de -sac, out of two existing parcels, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The two existing parcels total 132,006 square feet in gross site area and are located within the R -1- 10,000 zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application, without prejudice, by adopting Resolution SD- 91 -006. ATTACHMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution SD -91 -006 3. SCVWD Right -of -Way Request Letter dated 5/18/92 4. SCVWD Policy Letter dated 7/23/92 5. Tentative Map, Exhibit "A" File No. SD -91 -006; 13686 Quito Road ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M -10) PARCEL SIZE: Parcel A 1.38 acres Parcel B 1.65 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4% SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS: Proposal Code Requirements/ Allowance Parcel Size (net): Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 SITE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS: Lot 1 STAFF ANALYSIS 14,040 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 10,290 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 15,375 s.f. Proposal Lot 2 Lot 3 12,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 12,000 s.f. Lot 4 Lot 5 Site Frontage: 78 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. 85 ft. Site Width: 97 ft.* 105 ft. 89 ft. 152 ft. 101 ft. Site Depth: 154 ft. 93 ft.* 119 ft. 197 ft. 277 ft. Lot 1 Site Frontage: 60 ft. Site Width: 100 ft. Site Depth: 115 ft. Code Requirement /Allowance Lot 2 Lot 3 60 ft. 85 ft. 115 ft. 60 ft. 85 ft. 115 ft. Lot 4 Lot 5 60 ft. 85 ft. 115 ft. 60 ft. 100 ft. 115 ft. As measured per the required Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control dedication. File No. SD -91 -006; 13686 Quito Road PROJECT DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics: The property is located on the east side of Quito Road, south of the Highway 85 corridor, within an R -1- 10,000 zone district. The triangular shaped site is quite unique in that it is bordered by Wildcat Creek to the south and east, Highway 85, Southern Pacific Railroad, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and Pacific Gas Electric right -of -ways to the north and Quito Road to the west. Presently existing on site is a 1,262 square foot residence, a 880 square foot barn, a 484 square foot detached garage, and a 264 square foot guest house. All of the structures are relatively old (though none are on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory list), and all are proposed for demolition. The site is characterized by relatively level to gradual east sloping topography constituting an average site slope of 4 percent. The site is moderately wooded with oak trees, the majority of which are located along the banks of Wildcat Creek. Overview: Due to the location of Wildcat Creek in relation to the applicant's property, the SCVWD was sent a copy of the proposed tentative map for review. In a letter dated January 24, 1992, the SCVWD requested a 55 foot wide dedication for flood control purposes. This request resulted in significantly reducing the area of the proposed parcels. The applicant and SCVWD representatives subsequently held several meetings to discuss flood control alternatives in order to maintain the tentative map as submitted. In their attached letter dated May 18, 1992, the SCVWD revised their original request from 55 feet to 37 -40 feet of right -of -way dedication. Since it is the Water District's, and hence the City's, policy to accept dedication in fee title for major land divisions (5 or more parcels) and in easement for minor land divisions (4 or fewer parcels), staff informed the applicant that a land dedication in fee title would be required and a revised tentative map reflecting this change would need to be submitted for planning staff review. The applicant has contested this request stating his belief that the requested dedication should be in easement rather than fee title. Conclusion: The applicant is, ultimately, requesting tentative map approval on a map that does not conform to current zoning standards. In order to correctly process the application, a variance to deviate from the R -1- 10,000 site depth and width regulations would need to be File No. SD -91 -006; 13686 Quito Road submitted. However, the applicant has chosen to contest the Water District's policy rather than apply for a variance. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the tentative map as prepared. This application is constrained by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act which limits the time a public agency can use to review and act on an application. Because the City has had this application for a long period of time due to the applicant's desire to press the issue of flood control dedication, the application will either have to be approved or denied at this meeting; the City does not have the option of continuing this item to a future hearing date. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application, without prejudice, by adopting Resolution SD- 91 -006. July 23, 1992 Mr. Paul Kermoyan City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Kermoyan: Santo Clara Volley Woter District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1992 PLANNING DEPT. The District has reviewed the revised tentative map prepared by Nowack and Associates for the Lands of Franklin adjacent to Wildcat Creek. The area shown on the tentative map to be dedicated to the District is acceptable. For minor land divisions and one parcel single family developments the District's dedication policy states that dedication shall be in easement, unless otherwise agreed to by the owner, where the channel is unimproved and is to remain in its natural condition. The District has no scheduled plans to construct flood control improvements in this area of Wildcat Creek. In conjunction with the development of subdivisions, the District's past practice has been to ask for dedication of right of way in fee title. The dedication policy also states that in situations where the required dedication is in easement or fee for minor residential land divisions, the density should be computed on the basis of net area prior to deduction of flood control right of way provided that all parcels meet applicable land development regulations and the final allowed density is no greater than the density that would have been allowed prior to dedication. If in requesting dedication of fee title right of way, City ordinances do not allow for density based on net area prior to deduction for flood control right of way, the District will accept dedication of an easement. If City ordinances also require the deduction of the flood control right of way as an easement in determining the allowable density, the District would prefer dedication of right of way in fee title. In either case, fencing will not be permitted at the back of these lots adjacent to the creek. Any backyard fencing should be placed on the proposed right of way line. Fencing along the creek hinders our ability to access and maintain the creek. The proposed right of way will need to remain clear of structures and extensive landscaping. In general, the District prefers dedication of fee title right of way for flood control purposes; however, we will accept dedication of an easement. n recycled paper Mr. Paul Kermoyan Other comments made in our previous letters relative to West Pipeline, the rock wall, and the need for outfall details, and a hydraulic analysis based on site grading and building placement, still apply. Sincerely, Sue A. Tippets Project Engineer Design Coordination Division cc: Public Works Department City of Saratoga 2 July 23, 1992 Mr. Kevin Frederickson Nowack Associates, Inc. 2775 Park Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 May 18, 1992 Mr. Kevin Fredrickson Nowack Associates, Inc. 2775 Park Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 Dear Mr. Fredrickson: Sonia CloroVbley Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER RECEIVED MAY 2 0 1992 PUNNING DEPT. Upon further review of information in our files relative to this and adjacent projects, comments made in our letter dated January 24, 1992, relative to the Lands of Franklin are modified as follows. The District prepared a hydraulic analysis in conjunction with the development of the lots east of the creek, and a study was also done in conjunction with the construction of Highway 85 just north of this site. Information from these studies indicate that the site would be subject to flooding in the event of a 1% flood to an approximate elevation of 269.6 feet at the north end to an elevation of 270.2 feet at the south end of the site. The approximate limits of flooding as shown on the tentative map must be modified to indicate these limits of flooding. The basis of elevation used for the site topography must be compared with the District's topography used in the flood study. Federal flood insurance regulations require that the first floor of the proposed homes be constructed above the 1% water surface elevation. The District recommends that the first floor be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the 1% water surface elevation. In conjunction with the proposed placement of buildings within the floodplain and any proposed fill on site, a hydraulic analysis must be prepared by the developer to determine the impacts on flood levels and areas subject to flooding. As a condition of development, the District requests that the City of Saratoga require dedication of right of way for flood control purposes. Our previous letter dated January 17, 1986 relative to the development of this site indicated that the District would request at least 31 feet from the creek center line for flood control purposes. The determination of this right of way was based on the District's 1976 1" 100' scale topography and the right of way, in fact, varied from 31 feet to 45 feet from the creek center line. Mr. Kevin Fredrickson Sincerely, ORIGINAL: SIGNlll 1 The requested right of way as shown on the enclosed map extends from 38 to 45 feet from the creek center line or 37 to 40 feet from the property line. The right of way request has been modified from that indicated in our letter dated January 24, 1992, to consider adverse impacts to the proposed development yet still provide for flood control needs. This right of way will allow for future widening of the channel to convey the 1% flood flow of 1600 cfs plus an access road. Our maintenance access requirements call for a road on both sides of the channel. Other comments made in our letter dated January 24, 1992, regarding West Pipeline, the proposed outfall, and the existing retaining wall still apply. Sue A. Tippets Project Engineer Design Coordination Division Enclosure: Marked Plan cc: Mr. Paul Kermoyan Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 2 May 18, 1992 Mr. Carl Franklin 23850 Star Court Auburn, CA 95603 2775 Park Avenur Santa Clara, CA 50 (408) 243 -4066 FAX (408) 243 -4764 114i1pli Civil Engineers/Planners September 23, 1992 Job No. 91 -289 Honarable Mayor Karen Anderson and Councilmembers Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial File No. SD- 191 -006; 13686 Quito Road 5 lot subdivision Dear Mayor Anderson and Councilmembers: On behalf of the applicant, Carl Franklin, we are appealing the Planning Commission denial of the subject 5 lot subdivision application. Staff has determined that City policy requires fee title dedication to the SCVWD instead of a mere flood control easement for the area adjacent to Wildcat Creek. We contend that the commission has erred in their denial in that the following General Plan policies are not met due to dedication in lieu of easement: Flooding Saratoga citizens have expressed disapproval of any plans to channelize the natural watercourses, arguing that aesthetic values should take precedence over flood control. In response to this, the Flood Control District has suggested that adequate flood plains be established which would include less land on either side of the creek bed but would require some dike or levee construction paralleling its banks. Open Space (05.2.1) Because of their open space and aesthetic values, creeks shall be preserved as nearly as possible in their natural state, and consistent with the protection of adjacent properties. Furthermore the recent subdivision directly opposite Wildcat Creek was developed in 1985 with only an easement grant to the SCVWD. Imposition of the dedication on the subject subdivision will force a reduction in lot yield to 4 lots, thus constituting a minor subdivision which requires only an easement. Application of the stated policy results in an ironic underutilization of the land. The true test of the subdivision should be the adequacy of the building sites to be created in meeting the above noted General Plan goals. Honorable Mayor Karen Anderson Saratoga City Council Job No. 91 -289 September 23, 1992 Page Two of Two. The SCVWD is an advisory agency and has stated in their letter of July 23, 1992 that an easement will be adequate for their flood control operations. We request that the Council remand this application to the Planning Commission with clear direction to allow an easement for flood control purposes. We would gladly review the application in study session with the Commission. Suprisingly, there has been no neighborhood controversy associated with this simple subdivision. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this appeal and we look forward to discussing the matter at the November 4, 1992 council meeting. Sincerely, NOWACK ASSOCIATES, INC. I910/1, 4 Terence J. zewczyk Vice President TJS:sd cc: Carl Franklin (.30/2) 3 /f;" IP o 13.56 R: N 76 18'19"E 16.09 i_ EVAE 24', WIDE/,' 4 4 "f 12.96 L LOT 4 _4A 3IENt 411.6 CLAIMED ,,'o BY S.C.V.W.D. PER o, 5.65 SANTA aARA COUNTY RECORDS 1O. PSE 127.84 5' PSE 127.84 N. 74 22.48 N 5 "20'00'1a 5.10 °o V R: S 48 11.82 10' PSDE r MONTPERE WAY 76.91 10'. PSDE C) 127.00 95.00 N 9 19' 7.47 101.91 N 9 95.44 90.30 N 84 140.03 N 49 02'30 "E 106.76 0 6� c -0o .71° e t .t�. i2. o,. -sF LOT 6 CONSTRUCTION EASE6ENT DEDICATED TO S.C.V.W.D. 4 PER SANTA CLARA WATT 0 RECORDS N0. $567825 140.00 AIC 0 0 5 0 col 1 3 •o 0 N z 4 48 (110' WID; SE R EASEMENT PE 9791 OR, P 1'00 "E .10 4 5 98.84 N 62 46'00 "E 79.02 LANDSROF rA l'i.2 L(4�1 16.44 N 46 36'00 "E' 26 52'00 "E 69.47 N 49 02'30 "E 124.34 SEWER EASEMENT PER BK 2322 OR, PG 467 AND BK 8.281, OR, PG 480 q• N 39 46'00 "E 30.21 ^0 q. s r r 0 OV S 8. °40'00 "W 679.4 N 60 12'00 "W 60.00 ss '8:01 .10' PSE LOT 7 •0 2775 Park Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 243 -4066 FAX (408) 243 -4764 !Mk Nowack associates, Inc Civil Engineers/Planners November 13, 1992 Job No. 91 -289 Honorable Mayor Karen Anderson and Councilmembers Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial 5 Lot Subdivision File No. SD -91 -006 RECEIWE CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Mayor Anderson and Councilmembers: On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Carl Franklin, we are appealing the Planning Commission denial of the subject 5 lot subdivision application. This project is located at 13686 Quito Road and is adjacent to Wildcat Creek. The issue disputed with staff is whether the land along the creek should be dedicated in fee title to SCVWD or dedicated as a flood control easement to SCVWD with the lot owner retaining fee title. The staff has determined that city policy requires fee title dedication to SCVWD. We contend that the Planning Commission has erred in their denial of this project. We offer the following reasons in support of our position: 1. Several General Plan policies are not met due to dedication in lieu of easement: Flooding Saratoga citizens have expressed disapproval of any plans to channelize the natural watercourses, arguing that aesthetic values should take precedence over flood control. In response to this, the Flood Control District has suggested the adequate flood plains be established which would include Tess land on either side of the creek bed but would require some dike or levee construction paralleling its banks. Open Space (05.2.1) Because of their open space and aesthetic values, creeks shall be preserved as nearly as possible in their natural state, and consistent with the protection of adjacent properties. NOV 1 6 1992 Honorable Mayor Karen Anderson and Councilmembers Saratoga City Council Job No. 91 -289 Page Two of Three 2. There is no precedent for the City staff requiring fee title dedication vs. easement grant for major subdivisions approved in the City that are adjacent to creeks. The only exception to this is the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. Other recent major subdivisions without a fee title dedication requirement are listed below: TRACT 7763. Beauchamps: City approved a 55 lot subdivision on 7/16/86 in which a SCVWD easement was recorded along 9 Tots adjacent to Prospect Creek. TRACT 6528. The Parker Ranch: City approved a 75 lot subdivision on 4/21/82 in which a SCVWD easement was recorded along 14 lots adjacent to Prospect Creek. TRACT 6526. The Parker Ranch -Unit 2: City approved a 19 lot subdivision on 7/10/79 in which a SCVWD easement was recorded along 7 lots adjacent to Prospect Creek. 3. Within the proposed easement there are numerous healthy and mature oak, walnut, and sycamore trees including a 108" sycamore tree that has a branch spread of almost 100 feet. It seems likely that SCVWD would access the creek from the higher easterly creek bank with relatively clear access as opposed to the westerly bank in which these numerous trees are located. 4. The subdivision directly opposite Wildcat Creek was developed in 1985 with only an easement dedication to SCVWD. 5. The existing easement along the easterly side of Wildcat Creek would most likely be used for access to the creek by SCVWD if needed for flood control purposes. SCVWD has stated in a letter to the City of Saratoga dated July 23, 1992 that than easement on the proposed 5 lot subdivision will be adequate for their flood control operations (see enclosed). 6. Requiring a fee title dedication on this subdivision would force a reduction in lot yield to 4 lots thus constituting a minor subdivision which requires only an easement dedication per the stated staff "policy Honorable Mayor Karen Anderson and Councilmembers Saratoga City Council Job No. 91 -289 Page Three of Three This project meets all the requirements of the Planning Department in terms of lot dimensions, frontage, and layout. The approval of this subdivision should be based on the adequacy of the building sites and if the project compiles with the General Plan. We would like to request that the Council remand this application to the Planning Commission with clear direction to allow an easement for flood control purposes in consideration of the statements in this letter. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal and I look forward to discussing this matter with you at the November 18, 1992 Council Meeting. Sincerely, NOWACK ASSOCIATES, INC. Tere e J �yk ice �resi• 'z -nt TJS:sp cc: Carl Franklin (91 -289 Franklin/Council Appeal Ltr.) July 23, 1992 Mr. Paul Kermoyan City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Kermoyan: 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266 -0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -44 "q(-N Santa Clara Valley Water District O RECI J 1I 2 1992 NOACK ASSOC. The District has reviewed the revised tentative map prepared by Nowack and Associates for the Lands of Franklin adjacent to Wildcat Creek. The area shown on the tentative map to be dedicated to the District is acceptable. For minor land divisions and one parcel single- family developments the District's dedication policy states that dedication shall be in easement, unless otherwise agreed to by the owner, where the channel is unimproved and is to remain in its natural condition. The District has no scheduled plans to construct flood control improvements in this area of Wildcat Creek. In conjunction with the development of subdivisions, the District's past practice has been to ask for dedication of right of way in fee title. The dedication policy also states that in situations where the required dedication is in easement or fee for minor residential land divisions, the density should be computed on the basis of net area prior to deduction of flood control right of way provided that all parcels meet applicable land development regulations and the final allowed density is no greater than the density that would have been allowed prior to dedication. If in requesting dedication of fee title right of way, City ordinances do not allow for density based on net area prior to deduction for flood control right of way, the District will accept dedication of an easement. If City ordinances also require the deduction of the flood control right of way as an easement in determining the allowable density, the District would prefer dedication of right of way in fee title. In either case, fencing will not be permitted at the back of these lots adjacent to the creek. Any backyard fencing should be placed on the proposed right of way line. Fencing along the creek hinders our ability to access and maintain the creek. The proposed right of way will need to remain clear of structures and extensive landscaping. In general, the District prefers dedication of fee title right of way for flood control purposes; however, we will accept dedication of an easement. 4IP. 1 recycled paper Sincerely, Mr. Paul Kermoyan 2 Other comments made in our previous letters relative to West Pipeline, the rock wall, and the need for outfall details, and a hydraulic analysis based on site grading and building placement, still apply. Sue A. Tippets Project Engineer Design Coordination Division cc: Public Works Department City of Saratoga Mr. Kevin Frederickson Nowack Associates, Inc. 2775 Park Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 July 23, 1992 .e LIGHT AND AIR EASEMENT 9 1 J 8 0.892 ACRES 2. 1 OS 1 1837.64 /*k ZO q e a\ 2 Xd W M k 4 4 8 0 10'P.9E 1.449 ACRES a O b °1 4 28 03 92.38' 4 1.273/A ES 4 eti J 5 60' LIGHT AND AIR _E EASEMENT 1 10 3 2 E 0.488 ACRES 1 0.537 AC. 195?' o o z 01 L el 1935' ?3g 15 A .7 5 e R• 206.31. I 3 N �rb "0 V 1 I lu W h1 I yry0 P4 1 1 A f f m I la .i 1 W W 1 c 0.960 AC. i o V) o W ry c_ R=z a� 1 106.12' i -t. 9i' 27 34 T N 0 20 'W 9 289 2. 294.91 341.65' TIE IThCT 1163 1EALtCi1AM PS 0 r—/ 4.$ 126.79— '5a44 30 0 o L =a.4I 1 /M I 20 e1 /4 I 55 1.047 ACRES 1 3 ti /p4 D' 3 O /k, d SERVICE d SUPPLV CO. 1 /r,: ;OS irt 6 sit g '0V' i( l'1 00 00 4 Ll ..4:cd r yri•��� .i IV T� j t u Vlulk .•tA t V1 t JOtf a y' z pDv'Ep'1 co *co oCa .00 •Z. I .r _L N+4.7S17 7. NSut °gG.bO .a .1 24:1:1.90 di. p 1' .1 I oon. off t ss.u.K•• s•aa.e.a --rt'F5s7 770s Derp on G Tap"u16s'a: �.cs�l b' GS.' 54 sm. aO.t 7Z 1.4 GO .0Z .{O So' 7 7.2 01:Ys Ngdo Q l3Dnvd ovotc.•a N. v s►P l rlaQ n.tr.as ti• .r y a[t�n.fc 6o y s p'� :4.i, w _7i.LL.LL4 Z9 ZGS 3OC1 Zt,G15 cc gas yt y ootr+a o 3 soW oe oNd, 0 ,ti p''` ss �N.1 1 W a.. 3 °-N S I 30 1 ,1�O Np11� y N 3�� 0 yg01�'4 Sly '5,� �►0 �1 S 3µS olti 3 p v 00. 3 d 1311 8 '1 d S 06C‘ 3 30 491 l 3p 33 Ltlµi ip i0 3 3 1 d 1� d Z dY N 1 3 e 0 ,d 96 Z 1. »v j 4T .t 4 s S, t .1 40 i *A 9 H‘4‘ r... Es v 01• y.7' T� 6 %z •'O St r_ -700,7 e. ,L7 SA 2,idl1S/Q 2171an1 A Z7709 Qe. 00 V c Get .v y a y ti s \'G y Q1 S .0 0.4 ti t s r 9 4 a 4 44 Is .4. s. 44 v �J• "YI 4. s as 4 t 17• w •s to* VISTA ARROYO COURT• 19 /.02• ae. (.40104 18 1.030 as _r DETAIL I �•r 3.1 y. L 10'P.S.E 17 002 ac. 'M,aCf (052(. SCALE I 80 TRACT 6526 —THE PARKER RANCH SHEET Na THREE OF THREE BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 1,25 I3 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED 'AMENDED MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE FARR RANCH, ECT.', WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN BOOK L•' OF MAPS, AT PAGE 90, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, ALSO 8EI NG A PART OF SECTION 26 AND SECTION 35 T.7S. R.2 W. M.O.M. AND LYING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA CALIFORNIA. JENNINGS• Mc DERMOTT• HEISS INC. civil engineers land planners v t+. ACT oPO r N•.' Y/ 2 NOVEMBER 1978 s E (.DUI ac. a. Inv o Ct t4 y F p f sI L pi, 4 7 1 7 1 4 ,:4/14-4: _,o'nt 3 r 3 f .i 1.00e ao. v 1- 1 I io'ts[ SSE •tls" E' Or LINE SECTION 3b 1.013 a aC SEE DETAIL 2 •L L• 4 41• •0.0a' 7s o JI IIQCO •44, ZO PI E, •SE. 4 SSE l e The City Council of the City of Saratoga finds and determines as follows: A. Terms of office of the commissioners of the various City commissions vary widely as to their expiration dates. B. It is desirable, for purposes of efficient administration, to bring consistency to the expiration of commission terms. C. In order to cause terms to expire in an orderly manner it is necessary to lengthen or shorten certain terms on a one -time basis for each seat. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows: Section 1. The length of commission terms will be adjusted as each term expires in accordance with the attached Exhibit A. Section 2. Terms of office of members of the Finance Committee will be lengthened from three years to four years, as each term expires. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 of Saratoga held on the day of 1992, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk November 5, 1992 mnrs \273 \ord \Expdate.msr ORDINANCE NO. 92 Recitals MAYOR AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR CONSOLIDATION OF EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE FOR COMMISSIONERS OF VARIOUS CITY COMMISSIONS EXHIBIT B 12/92: 2 Finance Advisory seats expire; fill 2 short terms to 10/95. 1/93: 3 Planning seats expire; fill 3 short terms to 10/96. 2/93: 4 Lib. seats expire; fill 1 short term to 4/95, 3 long terms to 4/97. 4/93: 2 Heritage Preservation seats expire; fill 2 short terms to 4/96. 12/93: 2 Finance Advisory seats expire; fill 2 short terms to 10/97. 1/94: 4 Safety seats expire; fill 1 short term to 4/96, 3 long terms to 4/98. 4/94: 2 Heritage Preservation seats expire; fill 2 normal terms to 4/98. 8/94: 3 Parks seats expire; fill 3 short terms to 10/97. 12/94: 1 Finance Advisory seat expires, fill 1 short term to 10/95. 1/95: 2 Planning seats expire; fill 2 short terms to 10/98. 2/95: 3 Library seats expire; fill 3 long terms to 4/99. 4/95: 2 Heritage Preservation seats expire; fill 2 long terms to 4/98. 4/95: 1 Library seat expires; fill normally to 4/99. 10/95: 3 Finance Committee seats expire; fill normally to 10/99. 1/96: 2 Planning seats expire; fill 2 short terms to 10/98. 1/96: 3 Safety seats expire; fill 3 long terms to 4/00. 4/96: 1 Heritage Preservation seat expires; fill 4 short terms to 4/98. 4/96: 2 Heritage Preservation seats expire; fill normally to 4/2000. 4/96: 1 Safety seat expires; fill normally to 4/2000. 8/96: 4 Parks seats expire; fill 4 short terms to 10/99. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. A A S1 AGENDA ITEM 1 MEETING DATE: November 20, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROV ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation Subject: Agreement with Saratoga Union School District for Use of District Facilities to Replace the Redwood Middle School Cafeteria Floor. Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the Director of Recreation to execute the attached agreement on behalf of the City. 2. Adopt Resolution Number 91 -46.15 approving the transfer of $26,427 from the General Fund to help fund improvements for the Redwood Middle School cafeteria floor. Background: Earlier this year the City Council met with the Saratoga Union School District Board. One of the topics of discussion was the City's desire to expand its recreation programs and the lack of facilities to do so. It was agreed that perhaps some arrangement could be worked out between the City and the District for the benefit of both parties. Discussion: Recreation Department staff has met several times with District staff and Board members. The result of these meetings is a proposal for the City to share the cost of replacing the flooring in the Redwood Middle School cafeteria. The total cost of replacement will be $52,854 with the City paying half and the other half to be shared equally between the Redwood Middle School P.T.A., Student Council, and the Athletic Boosters Club. The Recreation Department implemented a youth basketball program in early 1992 and utilized this cafeteria for team practices. The floor is in extremely poor condition and staff has received many complaints from participants regarding the potential for accidents. All parties involved in this proposal would like to have the work completed during the Christmas holiday to be ready in January when school resumes and the Recreation Department begins the 1993 youth basketball program. Under the agreement between the City and School District the Recreation Department will be guaranteed a minimum 300 hours of use each year. This will enable us to expand our youth basketball program and add an adult basketball and volleyball drop -in program. A use rate of $15 per hour would apply until the $26,427 has been recovered in terms of time. At 300 hours per year the City would have facility usage for 5 6 years. Fiscal Impacts: $26,427 Attachments: 1. Agreement with Saratoga Union School District. 2. Resolution Number 91 -46.15 Motion Vote: