Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-1986 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA BILL NO. DATE: October 14, 1986 DEPT.: ENGINEERING CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DESIGNATION THE INTERSECTION OF DOUGLASS LANE AT SHADOW OAKS WAY AS A YIELD INTERSECTION Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Shouldn't exceed $100.00 for the installation of the Yield Sign and the painting of the legend and limit bar. Funds to come from the Safety Budget (3010 -3033) Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV- 2. Location Map Recommended Action: Council Action i ii The recently approved modification of Douglass Lane, Shadow Oaks Way at Saratoga Avenue requires that Douglass Lane Yield before entering Shadow Oaks Way. Approve Resolution No. MV- designating the intersection of Douglass Lane at Shadow Oaks Way as a Yield Intersection. 11/5: Adopted resolution. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM Erie CC A T /ON v7AP RESOG!/T /ON DES /GNAT /NG THE Oe e f vrw► 7/54, S/7rrN u aC*. INTERSECT /OH OF DOU6145S LANE AT ..5"1/#900W OAKS WAY A S A y/E GD INTERSECT /O/'/ SA TO GA E /•'w0 eefrC'eI fLvea rf 253' .toysfo 6'7 (SN,oaow O•ors Wy) r 'Aiorr9 1.4144 a W IO. evy oak C.O. 51 A x /9't v;A (iJae%o <eneisle ..C. 9e''• 42 'Oot Jn1fa// G 7e3wav w0Ate Alen9w a W'O xi siin (abP s,9 ,5 rrt AGENDA BILL NO. /153 CITY OF SARATOGA INITIAL DEPT. HD. DATE: October 7, 1986 C. ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT: City Attorney C. MGR. SUBJECT: Adoption of 1985 Uniform Codes Issue Summary Every three .years, a new edition of the Uniform Administrative Code, Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Housing Code and Dangerous Buildings Code is published and the same are adopted by the City with various modifications deemed appropriate for our own local circumstances. The proposed ordinance will constitute an adoption by the City of the 1985 editions of these Uniform Codes. The particular changes are described in the memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. In addition to the adoption of the Uniform Codes, the ordinance also makes some technical changes in the City's grading regulations and requirement for submission of geotechnic reports. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments (a) Memorandum from City Attorney (b) Proposed Ordinance Recommended Action Adoption of Ordinance Council Action: 10/15: Introduced ordinance. 11/5: Adopted ordinance. /O (-?K) PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD 5. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: City Attorney RE: Adoption of 1985 Uniform Codes DATE: October 5, 1986 J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915-1979) The proposed ordinance will constitute an adoption by the City of the 1985 editions of the Uniform Administrative Code, Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the National Electrical Code, the Uniform Housing Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Very few changes have been made as compared with the 1982 edition of these uniform codes previously adopted by the City. The ordinance is rather confusing to read since we are amending only those sections which have been changed and the situation is further complicated by the fact that each section of the ordinance is amending a section of the City Code which, in turn, is amending a section of a uniform code. I have therefore included some handwritten notations on the ordinance to identify the changes. These changes can briefly be desribed as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 1: Change of date only. SECTION 2: The Uniform Administrative Code provides for a Board of Appeals consisting of three persons to be appointed by the city council. This section is being amended to specify that the city engineer and the chief building inspector shall serve as members of the Board of Appeals. SECTION 3: Language has been deleted that would have required a schedule of evaluation rates (utilized for calculating building permit fees charged on the basis of construction costs) to be established by resolution of the city coucil. Such rates have always been established by the city engineer, acting in his capacity as building official. SECTION 4: Paragraph 6 in Section 308 (c) of the Uniform Administrative Code provides for the name of the building official to be placed on certificates of occupancy. This paragraph has been changed to require the name of the individual who made the final inspection, which reflects the actual practice of the city. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTION 5: Change of date only. SECTION 6: Change of date only. SECTION 7: Change of date only. SECTION 8: Change of date only. SECTION 9: This section previously contained lengthy provisions concerning permitted types of roofing materials for structures in the hazardous fire area. These materials would no longer be allowed under the 1985 Uniform Building Code and we are now requiring fire retardent roofs in all cases. SECTION 10: This amendment to the Uniform Building Code represents a significant change which is not apparent from a reading of the ordinance. Until now, the city has required an automatic sprinkler system to be installed in three car garages only where such garages are located in the hazardous fire area. Both Central Fire District and Saratoga Fire District are in agreement that an automatic sprinkler system should be .required in any three car garage, wherever located in the city. Under this amendment, the only remaining difference would be the requirement for the automatic sprinkler system to be connected with the early warning fire alarm system where the garage is located in a hazardous fire area, whereas no such connection would be necessary for garages located elsewhere. SECTION 11:' Change of section number only. SECTION 12: Change of date only. UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE SECTION 13: Change of date only. SECTION 14:1 Change of table number only. UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE SECTION 15: Change of date only. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE SECTION 16:, Change of date only. UNIFORM HOUSING CODE SECTION 17: Change of date only. UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS SECTION 18: Change of date only. SECTION 19: The last sentence has been added to section 202 to provide the city with addition enforcement remedies. This language is identical to a corresponding provision contained in the Uniform Building Code. SECTION 20: Change of section number only. SECTION 21: This provision is entirely new and represents an additional definition of a "dangerous building" namely, any building or structure which is not constructed within 24 months from the date the building permit is first issued, or such longer period of time as may be allowed by the building official. With the additional enforcement remedies added to Section 202 mentioned above, the city would have the right to commence legal action for abatement of the incomplete structure as a public nuisance. The city could also utilize the remedies contained within this uniform code itself, including demolition or removal of the structure. Obviously, the course of action followed by the city will depend entirely upon the circumstances, taking into consideration the percentage of completion and the value of the structure. This addition to the uniform code is specifically intended to cover the situation of construction dragging on for many years but never entirely abandoned for a sufficient period of time to cause an expiration of the building permit. AMENDMENT TO GRADING ORDINANCE SECTION 22: An additional sentence has been added to our existing grading ordinance to require that grading plans be prepared by a civil engineer, when required by the city engineer. GEOTECHNIC REPORTS SECTION 23: This section has been amended to make it clear that a geotechnic report may be required by the city engineer as well as the planning director. In actual practice, most of the requests for geotechnic studies do originate in the city engineer's office. The city will also be adopting the 1985 edition of the Uniform Fire Code and a proposed ordinance is now being reviewed by Central Fire District and Saratoga Fire District. This ordinance is scheduled for presentation to the Council at your next m eeting. HST:sc ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING AND MODIFYING THE 1985 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 16- 55.040(a) OF THE GRADING ORDINANCE CONCERNING GRADING PLANS AND AMENDING SECTION 16- 75.020 CONCERNING GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 16- 10.010 in Article 16 -10 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 10.010 Adoption of Uniform Administrative Code The 1985 Edition of the Uniform Administrative Code, as compiled and published by the International Conference of Building Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereby referred to and, except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Administrative Code applicable to the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Codes of the City." SECTION 2: Section 16- 10.025 is added to Article 16 -10, to read as follows: "S16- 10.025 Section 204 amended concerning Board of Appeals Section 204 of the Administrative Cods hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 204. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretations of the technical codes, there shall be and is hereby created a Board of Appeals consisting of the City Engineer, the Chief Building Inspector and one other member to be appointed by the City Council and shall hold office at its pleasure. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the City Manager." SECTION 3: Section 16- 10.030 in Article 16 -10 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 10.030 Section 303 amended concerning permits Rev. 10/15/86 -1- Section 303 of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 303 (a) Issuance. The application, plans, specifications, computations and other data, filed by an applicant for permit shall be reviewed by the building official. Such plans may be reviewed by other departments of this jurisdiction to verify compliance with any applicable laws under their jurisdiction. If the building official finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans, specifications and other data filed therewith conform to the requirements of this Code and the technical codes and other pertinent laws and ordinances, and that the fees specified in Section 304 have been paid, he shall issue a permit therefor to the applicant. When the building official issues the permit where plans are required, he shall endorse in writing or stamp the plans and specifications "Reviewed." Such reviewed plans and specifications shall not be changed, modified or altered without authorizations from the building official, and all work shall be done in accordance with the reviewed plans. The building official may issue a permit for the construction of part of a building, structure or building service equipment before the entire plans and specifications for the whole building, structure or building service equipment have been submitted or reviewed, provided adequate information and detailed statements have been filed complying with all pertinent requirements of the technical codes. The holder of such permit shall proceed at his own risk without assurance that the permit for the entire building, structure or building service will be granted. (b) Retention of Plans. One set of reviewed plans and specifications shall be returned to the applicant and shall be kept on the site of the building or work at all times during which the work authorized thereby is in progress. One set of reviewed plans, specifications and computations shall be retained by the building official until final approval of the work. (c) Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or the reviewing of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this Code or the technical codes, or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of these codes shall be valid. The issuance of a permit based upon plans, specifications and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans, Rev. 10/15/86 -2- specifications and other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereunder when in violation of these codes or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction. (d) Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within one hundred eighty days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of one hundred eighty days, or if the permittee fails or refuses to request an inspection pursuant to this Code within any period of one hundred eighty consecutive days after the work authorized by the permit is commenced. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work; and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one Y ear. The fee for issuance of such new permit shall be one -half of the full permit fee if the new permit is issued within one hundred eighty days after expiration of the Y Y p he prior permit or the full permit fee if the e new permit is issued more than one hundred eighty days after such expiration, based upon the fee schedule adopted by the City Council as of the time the new permit is issued; provided, however, upon written request by the applicant showing, to the satisfaction of the building official, that prior permit expired as a result of exceptional circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the applicant, the building official may waive the payment of a fee for issuance of the new permit. Where a permit has expired in accord with the foregoing, and the building, structure, or other work authorized by such permit has not been completed, if a new permit for such work is not obtained within thirty days thereafter, said building, structure, or work shall be conclusively presumed p ed to be abandoned and a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare, and subject to all of the provisions of Section 203 of Chapter 2 of this Code. Any holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within which he may commence work under that permit when he is unable to commence work within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons. The building official may extend the time for action by the permittee for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty days upon written request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken. No permit shall be extended more than once. Rev. 10/15/86 -3- SECTION 4: Section 16- 10.040 in Article 16 -10 is amended to read as follows: "S16 10.040 Section 304 amended concerning fees Section 304 of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (e) Suspension or Revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this Code and the technical codes whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of these codes." "Sec. 304 (a) Permit Fees. The amount of the fees to be paid for each permit shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. (b) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be "submitted by-Subsection (b) of Section 302, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Where plans are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review, an additional plan review fee shall be charged as established by resolution of the City Council. (c) Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is issued within one hundred eighty days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. —The_ building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty days upon request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. Rev. 10/15/86 -4- (d) Investigation Fees: Work Without a Permit. 1. Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. 2. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in the permit fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code or the technical codes nor from any penalty prescribed by law. (e) Fee Refunds. 1. The building official may authorize the refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. 2. The building official may authorize the refunding of not more than eighty percent of the permit fee paid when a permit issued in accordance with this Code is cancelled and no work has been done under such permit. No refund shall be made until the City has first collected all costs relating to the issuance of the permit and chargeable to the permit fee. 3. The building official may authorize the refunding of not more than eighty percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or cancelled before any plan review is done. The building official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application, on a form furnished by the City, by the original permittee not later than sixty days after the date of the fee payment." SECTION 5: Section 16- 10.065 is hereby added to Article 16 -10, to read as follows: "S16-10.065 Section 308(c) amended concerning issuance of certificates of occupancy Section 308(c) of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Certificate Issued. After final inspection when it is found that the building or structure complies with the Rev. 10/15/86 -5- provisions of the technical codes, the building official shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy which shall contain the following: 1. The building permit number. 2. The address of the building. 3. The name and address of the owner. 4. A description of that portion of the building for which the certificate is issued. 5. A statement that the described portion of the building complies with the requirements of this code and the technical codes for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the proposed occupancy is classified. 6. The name of the individual who made the final inspection as the representative of the building official." SECTION 6: Section 16- 15.010 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "S16 Adoption of Uniform Building Code The 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, including Appendix Chapters 1, 7, 11, 12, 23, 32, 35, 38, 49, 51, 53, 55 and 57 only, as compiled and published by the International Conference of Building Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Building Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereby referred to and, except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Building Code of the City." SECTION 7: Section 16- 15.070 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 15.070 Section 2516(b) amended concerning preparation of building site Section 2516(b) of the Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Preparation of Building Site. All stumps and roots shall be removed from the soil to a depth of at least 12 inches below the surface of the ground in the area to be occupied by the building. All wood forms which have been used in placing concrete, if within the ground or between foundation sills and the ground, shall be removed before a building is occupied or used for any Rev. 10/15/86 -6- purpose. Before completion loose or casual wood shall be removed from direct contact with the ground under the building. All underfloor grade or subgrade shall be graded to a central location and shall be provided with not less than a three inch conduit through the foundation to an accessible location. All underfloor grade or subgrade shall have not less than one percent incline to a permanent drainage outlet. It is the owner's responsibility to verify all grades. An approved ejector pump may be used as an alternate. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because of the expansive soils, high ground water levels, and high soils moisture retention levels existing in the City, thereby necessitating additional site drainage requirements." SECTION 8: Section 16- 15.080 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "S 16 15.080 Section 2516(c)(2) amended concerning underfloor clearance Section 2516(c)(2) of the Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Underfloor clearance. Unless otherwise approved by the building official, the minimum underfloor clearances between the bottom of the floor joists, and /or girders, shall not be less than 18 inches to exposed ground, in crawl spaces, excavated or unexcavated areas located within the periphery of the building foundations the floor assembly, including posts, girders, joists, and subfloor, or building footprint area. Accessible underfloor areas shall be provided with an 18 inch by 24 inch access crawl hole. Pipes, ducts, and other nonstructural construction shall not interfere with the accessibility to or within underfloor areas. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because the combination of the high summer time air temperatures which occur in the City, and the large square footage of the buildings and structures constructed in the City, necessitates the use of larger air conditioning ducting to be installed in the underfloor clearance area." SECTION 9: Section 16- 15.090 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "S16 Section 2905(g) added concerning reinforcement Section 2905(g) is hereby added to the Building Code, to read as follows: (g) Reinforcement. A minimum of two one -half inch bars of metal reinforcement placed continuous in foundations shall be required for Group R and M occupancies without engineering design. Rev. 10/15/86 -7- This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because of the expansive soils and seismic instability conditions existing in the City." SECTION 10: Section 16- 15.100 in Artic_e 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "S16 Section 3201(b) amended concerning fire retardancy Section 3201(b) of the Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Fire Retardancy. When Required. Roof coverings shall be fire retardant except in Types III, IV and V buildings, where it may be as follows: 1. Ordinary roof coverings may be used on buildings of Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies. 2. Ordinary roof coverings may be used on buildings of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies which are not more than two stories in height and have not more than 3,000 square feet of projected roof area and there is a minimum of 10 feet from the extremity of the roof to the property line on all sides except for street fronts. 3. Group A, Division 3; Group B, Divisions 1 and 2 and Group R, Division 1 Occupancies which are not more than two stories in height and have not more than 6,000 square feet of projected roof area and there is a minimum of 10 feet from the extremity of the roof tQ the property line or assumed property line on all sides except for street fronts may have Class C roof coverings which comply with U.B.C. Standard No. 32 -7 and Roofs of No. 1 cedar or redwood shakes and No. 1 shingles constructed in accordance with Section 3203(g) Special Purpose Roofs. Skylights shall be constructed as required in Chapter 34. Penthouses shall be constructed as required in Chapter 36. For use of plastics in roofs, see Chapter 52. For attics, access and area, see Section 3205. Fornoof drainage, see Section 3207. For solar energy collectors, located above or upon a roof, see Section 1714. The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, roof coverings on all buildings and structures hereafter erected or constructed in a designated hazardous fire area in the City, shall be fire retardant, or shall comply with the standards established for Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Re- roofing of existing buildings and structures in a hazardous fire area shall Rev. 10/15/86 -8- comply with this requirement, except that any re- roofing of less than ten percent of the total roof area of any building or structure shall be exempt. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because the response time of emergency equipment to calls for aid in the hazardous fire areas is impaired due to: (1) the non availability of access to some portions of the hazardous fire areas, (2) the existence of steep, narrow streets and roadways located in the hazardous fire areas, (3) the lack of connecting streets or roadways in the hazardous fire areas. Further, the presence of heavy vegetation in the hazardous fire areas increases the potential for the rapid spread of any fire which may start in those areas particularly during seasonal dry spells." SECTION 11: Section 16- 15.110 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 15.110 Section 3802(h) added to require automatic sprinklers for certain garages Section 3802(h) is hereby added to the Building Code, to read as follows: (h) An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in the garage and /or carport portion(s) of any new dwelling when said garage and /or carport has a capacity to accommodate three or more automobiles. Further, an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in the garage and /or carport portion(s) of any existing dwelling when such dwelling is altered, repaired, added to, or expanded so as to increase the floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of the amount of floor space under roof immediately prior to such alteration, repair, addition, or expansion when said garage and /or carport has a capacity to accommodate three or more automobiles. For the purposes of this paragraph, any alteration, repair, addition or expansion shall be considered as equalling or exceeding the above fifty percent limit where the work of construction or improvement is done at different time intervals requiring two or more building permits within a period of five years after completion of the first improvement, where although each is for a project encompassing an addition of less than fifty percent of increased floor space, but which when combined with other expansions during said five year period of time, increased the amount of floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of that amount which existed immediately prior to the commencement of the first of the several alterations, repairs, additions or expansions. Any automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to this subsection shall be installed in accordance with the standards contained in National Fire Protection Association Document 13D. Where the dwelling is located in a designated hazardous fire area, the automatic sprinkler system shall be equipped with water flow switches that have a built in retard Rev. 10/15/86 -9- assembly, which will send an alarm signal when activated to the digital alarm communicator transmitter or the fire alarm control panel as required by Chapter 16, Article 16 -60 of the Saratoga City Code. This amendment to the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition, is required because of the higher risk of explosion and greater intensity of fire in three car garages and because the response time of emergency equipment to calls for aid in the hazardous fire areas is impaired due to: (1) the non availability of access to some portions of the hazardous fire areas, (2) the existence of steep, narrow streets and roadways located in the hazardous fire areas, (3) the lack of connecting streets or roadways in the hazardous fire areas. Further, the presence of heavy vegetation in the hazardous fire areas increases the potential for the rapid spread of any fire which may start in those areas, particularly during seasonal dry spells." SECTION 12: Section 16- 15.120 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "516- 15.120 Deletion of general provisions in Section 110(b) of Appendix Chapter 1 Section 110(b) of Appendix Chapter 1 of the Building Code is hereby deleted." SECTION 13: Section 16- 15.130 in Article 16 -15 is amended to read as follows: "516- 15.130 Section 1202 of Appendix Chapter 12 amended concerning conflict between adopted codes Section 1202 of Appendix Chapter 12 of the Building Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 1202. Buildings regulated by this Chapter shall be designed and constructed to comply with the requirements of the One and Two Family Dwelling Code, 1985 Edition, promulgated jointly by the International Conference of Building Officials; the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., and the Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. Whenever a conflict exists between the provisions of the Building Code, and the One and Two Family Dwelling Code, the provisions of the Building Code, as adopted by the City, shall prevail." SECTION 14: Section 16- 25.010 in Article 16 -25 is amended to read as follows: "S16 Adoption of Uniform Plumbing Code The 1985 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, including all Appendices and IAPMO Installation Standards, as compiled and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Plumbing Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereby referred to and except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Plumbing Code of the City." SECTION 15: Section 16- 25.050 in Article 16 -25 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 25.050 Section 1105 amended concerning size of building sewers Section 1105 of the Plumbing Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1105 Size of Building Sewers. The minimum size of any building sewer shall be determined on the basis of the total number of fixture units drained by such sewer, in accordance with Table 11 -2. All horizontal drainage piping below the first floor, receiving the discharge of one or more water closets, shall be not less than four inches in diameter. This amendment is required because the large lots and setback requirements which exist in the City create the need for larger and longer gravity fed drainage pipes." SECTION 16: Section 16- 30.010 in Article 16 -30 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 30.010 Adoption of Uniform Mechanical Code The 1985 Edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code, including all Appendices, as compiled and published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Mechanical.: Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereby referred to and except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Mechanical Code of the City." SECTION 17: Section 16- 40.010 in Article 16 -40 is amended to read as follows: "S16- 40.010 Adoption of Uniform Housing Code The 1985 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, as compiled and published by the International Conference of Building Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereby referred to and, except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Housing Code of the City." Rev. 10/15/86 -11- SECTION 18: Section 16- 45.010 in Article 16 -45 is amended to read as follows: "S16-45.010 Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings The 1985 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as compiled and published by the International Conference of Building Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code," three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Engineer, is hereby referred to and, except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, the same as if fully set forth in this Article, and shall be the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code of the City. SECTION 19: Section 16- 45.025 is added to Article 16 -45, to read as follows: "S16- 45.025 Section 202 amended concerning abatement procedure Section 202 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 202. All buildings or portions thereof which are determined after inspection by the building official to be dangerous as defined in this code are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 401 of this code. As an alternative or in addition to such procedure, the building official or other employee or official or this jurisdiction may institute any other appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the public nuisance." SECTION 20: Section 16- 45.040 is added to Article 16 -45, to read as follows: "S 16- 45.040 Section 205 deleted Section 205 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code is hereby deleted." SECTION 21: Section 16- 45.050 is added to Article 16 -45, to read -as- follows: "S16-45.050 Section 302 amended to include failure to complete construction Section 302 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code is amended by adding Paragraph 19, to read as follows: Rev. 10/15/86 -12- 19. Whenever the construction of any building or structure is not fully completed within twenty -four months, or such longer period of time as may be allowed by the building official, from the date on which the building permit for such building or structure is first issued." SECTION 22: Subsection 16- 55.040(a) in Article 16 -55 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Two sets of grading plans and specifications. When required by the City Engineer, such plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer." SECTION 23: The first paragraph of Section 16- 75.020 in Article 16 -75 is amended to read as follows: "Whenever any Section of this Code, or any code adopted by this Chapter, or any other ordinance or regulation of the City requires the submission of a geology or soils report (hereinafter referred to as a geotechnical report) or whenever such report is otherwise required by the City Engineer or the Planning Director, the following provisions shall be applicable:" SECTION 24: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 25: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 10/15/86 -13- MAYOR AGENDA BILL NO. DATE:October 9, 1986 DEPT.: Community Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Authorization to File Liens for Delinquent Refuse Collection Bills Suumary The attached list contains the names of individuals owning property in Saratoga. The identified addresses have delinquent refuse collection bills. In each case, the delinquency._occured before June 1, 1986. Delinquent billings which occured after June 1, 1986 are not subject to the lien proceedings for collection per August 1986 Council action. The majority of the addresses listed are for the March May 1986 quarter. However, also included are other accounts which have delinquencies going back to the December 1984 February 1985 quarter. These accounts were pulled from previous lists sent to the Council because of difficulty in determining the identity and mailing addresses of the responsible property owners from the County's Accessor's Records Fiscal Impacts: The delinquent accounts and administrative charges collec- tively total. $11,535.34. If collection on all accounts occured, $5,415.34 would go to Green Valley and $6,120 would be retained by the City to help offset the City's costs of collection and re- cording the property liens. Exhibits /Attachments: Recommended Action: Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA List of delinquent refuse collection accounts. AGENDA ITEM Confirm the report of the Community Services Director 10/15/86 Property Owner Joseph Julie Granado Donald Si' Patricia Harris William Judith Teeple Virginia Gerth 3102 Wernett Road Pasco, WA 99301 T. J. Katherine Walker Trustee et al 2010 West Cliff Dr. Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Robert Jean Kavale Dennis Beverly Foland Dennis Beverly Foland Ronald Suzanne Sege Ronald Suzanne Sege Ronald Suzanne Sege George Margaret Rice Samuel Noreen Nissin Terrence Trudy Rose Dennis Augustine, Trustee Halfon Paula Hamaoui 20432 Tricia Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Donald Airoldi Gordon Fardal Service Address 18501 Allendale Ave. 19101 Allendale 14120 Alta Vista Ave. 12314 Arroyo de Arguello 12251 Atrium Circle 12775 Bach Ct. 19190 Bellwood Dr. 19190 Bellwood Dr. 11860 Brookglen Dr. 11860 Brookglen Dr. 11860 Brookglen Dr. 19038 Brookhaven Dr. 21080 Canyon View Dr. 14595 Carnelian Glen Ct. 14318 Chester Ave. 19245 DeHavilland Dr. 19412 DeHaviland Dr. 9 14423 Deer Canyon Dr. APN 389 26-012 389 31-006 397 -28 -024 366 -28 -012 386 -57 -005 386 -47 -003 386 -43 -010 386 -43 -010 378 -25 -029 378 -25 -029 378 -25 -029 378 -24 -049 503 -28 -066 397 -37 -010 397 -13 -049 389 -04 -018 389 -02 -019 503 -28 -115 Period 12/84- 2/85 3/86- 5/86 3/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 9/85 -11/85 12/85- 2/86 3/85- 5/85 9/85 -11/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 3/85- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 Page 1 Amount $210.50 96.94 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.82 70.30 102.57 71.82 96.94 54.46 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.34 58.74 10/15/86 Property Owner James Diane Hilton Nelson Medeye Keyes Nelson Medeye Keyes Nelson.& Medeye Keyes Claude Raiimnd Claude Raimond P. O. Boac 881 Mountain View, CA 94042 Ernest Irene Pestana 2225 Old Oakland Rd. San Jose, CA 95131 Fernando Hernandez Ronald Sandra Peterson Ronald Sandra Peterson William Shirley Walker 19601 Kilt Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Anthony Jane Dahlhauser 20274 Blauer Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Service Address 18645 Devon Ave. 18901 Devon Ave. 18901 Devon Ave. 18901 Devon Ave. 14101 Douglas Ave. 14101 Douglas Ave. 14551 El Puente Way 14098 Elvira St. 12771 Glen Arbor Ct. 12771 Glen Arbor Ct. 19743 Glen Brae Dr. 13221 Heath St. APN 389 -13 -050 389 -12 -013 389 -12 -013 389 12-013 397 -24 -028 397 -24 -028 397 -17 -036 503 22-094 393 -10 -027 393 -10 -027 393 -27 -005 389 -16 -042 Period 9/85 -11/85 12/84- 2/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 Page 2 Amount 71.82 70.30 71.82 71.82 70.41 71.82 71.82 71.82 59.49 71.82 71.82 71.82 10/15/86 Property. Owner Linda G. Schaper Linda G. Schaper Linda G. Schaper P. O. Box 2617 Saratoga, CA 95070 James Charlene Gears Richard Campbell, Trustee Richard Campbell, tustee 16140 Matilja Los Gatos, CA 95030 Stuart Beverly Fitzpatrick Wes Barbara Behel Wes Barbara Behel 2020 E. Indian School Rd. Phoenix, AR 85016 Norman Frier, et al. Norman Frier, et al. 2876 Lausanne Ct. San Jose, CA 95132 Gary Rodrigues, et al. Norman Pronger Ralph Carolyn Minton Mark Shireen Ebner Nary Gerard, et al. Clarin Brooks John Pauline Kelly 6133 Royal Ann Dr. San Jose, CA 95129 Service Address 14275 Hilltop Way 14275 Hilltop Way 14275 Hilltop Way 12776 Homes Dr. 12347 Julie Lane 12347 Julie Lane 20410 Kirkn ont Dr. 20231 LaPalcxna Ave. 20231 LaPaloma Ave. 20590 Leonard Rd. 20590 Leonard Rd. 14098 Lana Rio Dr. 20600 Lomita Ave. 14381 Maclay Ct. 20636 Marion Ave. 18725 Martha Ave. 18817 Martha Ave. 18269 McCoy Ave. APN 397 -03 -019 397-03-019. 397 -03 -019 386 47-026 366 -36 -002 366 -36 -002 386 30-001 397 -24 -009 397 -24 -009 503 -19 -084 503 -19 -084 397 -25 -048 517 -12 -032 397 -03 -034 503 -23 -040 389 -14 -047 389 -15 -046 403 -27 -003 Period 9/85-11/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 9/85 -11/85 3/86- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 6/85- 8/85 6/85- 8/85 3/86- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 3/86- 5/86 3/85- 5/85 Page 3 Amount 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.82 77.83 71.82 71.34 97.04 96.94 62.12 71.82 84.77 70.30 70.30 71.34 70.30 71.82 76.75 10/15/86 Property Owner Janet Danner, Trustee David Lynda EVjen David Lynda Ewjen Mary Van Peborgh James June Taraldson Todd Johnson 4626 Oka Rd. Los Gatos, c 95030 Robert Diana Booth Laverne Lundstr m 20200 Mendelsohn Saratoga, CA 95070 Nancy Shapiro Nancy Shapiro Nancy Shapiro Harriet Hyams Harriet Hyams C. A. Madeline Taughinbaugh 16600 Cypress Way Los Gatos, CA 95030 A. Ralph Gail A. Ralph Gail A. Ralph 276 Perch Aptos, CA 95003 David Sorenson Hazel Barges, Trustee et al. Wallace Renee Petersen Service Address 13250 McCulloch St. 13178 McDole Ave. 13178 McDole Ave. 18693 McFarland Ave. 12271 Mellcwood Dr. 20141 Mendelsohn Ln. 20240 Miljevith Dr. 14800 M3ntalvo Rd. 18491 Montpere Way 18491 MOntpere Way 18 491 Nbntpere Way 13518 Myren Dr. 13518 Myren Dr. 20627 Oak Creek Ln. 20639 Oak Creek Ln. 20639 Oak Creek Ln. 20639 Oak Creek Ln. 14493 Oak Street 14550 Oak St. 12674 Orella Ct. 9 APN 389 -18 -042 389 -15 -076 389 -15 -076 389 -14 -018 386 -08 -040 517 -20 -039 393 -04 -008 517 -20 -033 389 -26 -029 389 -26 -029 389 -26 -029 389 -29 -029 389 -29 -029 366 -36 -015 366 -36 -018 366 -36 -018 366 -36 -018 517 -09 -024 517 -10 -002 386 -49 -029 Period 3/85- 5/85 12/84- 2/85 6/85- 8/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 6/85- 8/85 3/86- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 12/84- 2/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 9/85 -11/85 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/84 2/85 6/85- 8/85 3/86- 5/86 6/85- 8/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 Page 4 Amount 94.20 70.30 74.71 67.93 71.82 85.45 71.82 68.91 135.95 71.82 71.82 61.21 71.82 71.82 162.21 70.30 71.82 70.30 71.82 71.79 10/15/86 Property Robert Estella Johnson Curbir Rita Gujral 1029 Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose, CA 95123 Joseph Gladys Horrillo Joseph Gladys Horrillo Joseph Gladys Horrillo Joseph Gladys Horrillo 1860 S. Bascom, #4 Campbell, CA 95008 Virgil Brenda Hall Cory's Place P. 0. Boa 2757 Saratoga, CA 95070 Stephen Delia Stephen Delia Stephen Delia Stephen Delia Stephen Delia 1132 Dean San Jose, CA 95125 Joseph Maria Kovacs K. T. Meitie Brandt Rilda Brostrom et al. Rilda Brostran et al. Rilda Brostran et al. Wade Brostran et al. Lester Ethel DeBar Tjwan Dhiam Tan 814 Humewick Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Service Address 15043 Oriole R3. 14011 Palanino Way 13280 Paramont Dr. 13280 Paranont Dr. 13280 Paramont Dr. 13280 Param ont Dr. 12590 Paseo Cerro 18613 Paseo Ledo 14226 Paul Ave. 14226 Paul Ave. 14226 Paul Ave. 14226 Paul Ave. 14226 Paul Ave. 14280 Paul Ave. 13988 Pierce Rd. 18427 Purdue Dr. 18427 Purdue Dr. 18427 Purdue Dr. 18427 Purdue: Dr. 12451 Quito Rd. 12639 Quito Rd. 9 APN 397 -11 -041 503 -68 -011 503 -19 -098 503 -19 -098 503 -19 -098 503 -19 -098 386-46 -004 389 -13 -020 503 -27 -063 503 -27 -063 503 -27 -063 503 -27 -063 503 -27 -063 503 -27 -058 503 -68 -023 403 -28 -060 403 -28 -060 403 -28 -060 403 -28 -060 386 -46 -018 386 -12 -069 Period 12/84- 2/85 3/86- 5/86 6/85- 8/85 9/85 -11/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 6/85- 8/85 3/86- 5/86 3/85- 5/85 6/85- 8/85 9/85 -11/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 6/85- 8/85 9/85 -11/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 Page 5 Amount 69.96 64.29 70.30 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.65 71.82 80.06 70.30 71.82 71.82 71.82 71.82 79.12 70.30 60.00 71.82 71.82 96.94 71.82 10/15/86 Page 6 Property Owner Service Address APN Period Amount William Nancy Fbgarty 12785 Quito Rd. 386 -13 -030 3/86- 5/86 71.82 19791 Mexribrook Saratoga, CA 95070 Felix Gael Felix Gael Felix Guel 2380 Yesler Ct. San Jose, CA 95131 Leroy Laura Davidson 13005.Quito Rd. 389 -13 -041 3/85- 5/85 97.23 13005 Quito Rd. 389 -13 -041 12/85- 2/86 71.34 13005 Quito Rd. 389 -13 -041 3/86- 5/86 71.82 David R. Smith 13675 Quito Rd. 389 -25 -044 3/85- 5/86 71.82 P. O. Box 9564 San Jose, CA 95157 Curtis Dudnick 13741 Quito Rd." 389 -26 -004 3/85- 5/85 89.49 2203 Cepriani Blvd. Belmont, CA 94002 Robert Nancy Phleg 14670 Quito Rd. 407 -14 -002 3/86- 5/86 73.23 12088 Centerville Rd. Chico, CA 95926 Anthony Virginia Sortino 13960 Raverw ood Dr. 403 -23 -001 3/86- 5/86 71.82 David Rachel Daggett 12851 Regan Ln. 393 -01 -015 3/86- 5/86 71.82 Rosaleen Spears 13366 Ronnie Way 389 -38 -014 12/84- 2/85 76.84 12340 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Douglas Betty Waldrop Douglas Betty Waldrop 12144 Chase Rd. Windermere, FL 32786 Mark Roberta Linsky 73 Bailey Rd. Andover, MA 01810 13033 Quito Rd. 389 -14 -035 3/86- 5/86 71.82 18663 San Palo Ct. 18663 San Palo Ct. V 386 -23 -052 12/85- 2/86 386 23-052 3/86- 5/86 71.82 71.82 12241 Saraglen Dr. 386 -26 -016 3/85- 5/85 65.92 10/15/86 Property Owner Margaret Ray Charles Shirley Keesling 15613 On Orbit Saratoga, CA 95070 Bernard Marie Barden Clifford Gardner Jerry Baker Estate of Charlotte Ray 4837 Marlborough Carmichael, CA 95608 Herbert Hannelore Sommerfield Michael Carol Mauldin, et al. Michael Carol Mauldin, et al. 15345 Bohlman Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Suresh Usha Belani 22361 Santa Paula Cupertino, CA 95014 Persa Kralj, Life Estate John I. J. Denny James Mary Aanenson Mike D. Parley, et al. Don Catherine Franklin Don Capatosto Beverly Rafaty Service Address 12437 Saratoga Creek Dr. 19094 Saratoga Glen Place 21224 Saratoga Hill Rd. 13641 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 20248 Saratoga Vista Ct. 19881 Scotland Dr. 20380 Seagull Way 14650 Sixth St. 14650 Sixth St. 20185 Thelma Ave. 20423 Thelma Ave. 13250 Via Arriba Dr. 13360 Via Ranchero 20431 Walnut Ave. 13443 Ward Way 13459 Ward Way 18925 Westview Dr. Dr. APN 386 -21 -008 386-15-012 503 -29 -041 503 -20 -008 393 -42 -024. 393 -13 -012 386 -53 -006 517 -08 -004 517 -08 -004 393 -34 -006 393 -33 -054 393 -22 -008 393 -22 -040 397 -28 -002 389 -38 -052 389 -38 -054 386 -19 -021 Period 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 3/86- 5/86 12/84- 2/85 3/86- 5/86 8/35- 5/85 12/85- 2/86 3/86- 5/86 Page 7 Amount 111.25 71.82 64.66 71.82 70.30 54.76 71.82 71.82 71.82 81.41 71.82 45.68 72.67 90.55 70.30 71.82 96.94 10/15/86 Property Owner Ronald Florence Grainger Doug Helen Gjer Service Address APN Period Amount 12199 %bedside Dr. 386 -05-009 3/86- 5/86 71.82 12295 %bedside Dr. 386- 05-017 9/85-11/85 71.82 Page 8 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: October 7, 1986 (10/15/86) DEPT.: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Summary: Recommended Action: Council Action 10/15: Introduced ordinances. 11/5: Adopted ordinances. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL DECREASING THE SPEED LIMITS ON A PORTION OF PIERCE ROAD AND ON SOBEY ROAD 7o Based on recent engineering and traffic survey data the speed limit on Pierce Road, from Congress Springs Road to Surrey should be decreased from 30 m.p.h. to 25 m.p.h. and on Sobey Road for its entire length should be decreased ffom 35 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. These decreased speed limits would be safe and reasonable and would facilitate the orderly movement of traffic. In order for these proposed speed limit decreases to be legal and enforceable, an ordinance has to be adopted. Fiscal Impacts: Replacement of existing speed limit signs would be a nominal cost (probably less than $75.00) and would come from the traffic safety budget (3033 -3010) Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 38. (Pierce Road) 2., Ordinance No. 38. (Sobey Road) 3. Speed study sheets for Pierce Road and Sobey Road, Adopt Ordinances No. 38. and No. 38. decreasing the speed limits on a portion of Pierce Road and on Sobey Road. DATE: /0/2/e6 DAY OF WEEK: 77;e TIME O904 TO /0/5 SPEED LIMIT: 35 SAMPLE SIZE: X07 100 90 80 70 F" 60 Z W 0 50 cr W Q_ 40 85 34 M.P.H 50 27.6 M.P.H I 0 M.P.H PACE 23 M.P. H TO 33 TRAVELING WITHIN PACE 8/ -3X 30 20 10 0 0 5 SPEED STUDY LOCATION: 508 Y R0o40 ,Sa6eyilevvd ws C� DIR. OF TRAVEL: 4 0 1 CUMULATIVE SPEED DISTRIBUTION CURVE J 1 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ccoCCn (PA ou% 50 55 60 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 43 42 41 40 39 33 27 25 24 22 20 19 18 17 16 15 I• C., F' NC__ C C L c c -p 7 7 1 MPH V E H I C L E S M N0. 2 4 10 9 7 6 S 4 1 ACC. 10 /GS /0/ 90 79 5 47 38 29 Z2 /6 /0 s 100 98.1 94.4 90.6 84.1 7 63. 53.3 43.9 35.5 Z7.1 20.6 /5.0 9.3 4,7 0.9 Rn Na of Street CITY OF SARATOGA SPEED STUDY /t /v //5 ocation Direction of Travel Day of Week: 9 Date :10/3/9 Time: jc9 By: ethod: LEGEND: C Passenger Car, T Truck, P= Pick -Up, M= Motorcycle, 8 Bus, V= Van RESULTS: 10 MPH Pace: 23 to 33 %Within Pace: 8. 3/ Average Speed 27.8 MPH EZ£'0 EZ£'0 sa /W •ya^ 1i■� /,.ye (9oixoszsl S9£ w/w) £ZE'0 X ("Pa/0 SL'Z a o (s,z r (14 APO sa a/ o tya4 u° /!W 009'/ 009'Z (7aaj) aouop s!cj 1 NOf.2t/717.771/3 31172f 1NaC7i0d 1 I,' 0.lb 2Y A-4/.7 SJ•/b/ te4V •oil m47' 167 pb' (s .gu ur.i r7 07: Q fcy '2 O S' 1 NPW- 221dd30 .2 N314 A L INnW1NO.7 DATE: 2286 DAY OF WEEK: 7 TIME /O20TO /43 SPEED LIMIT: 3S 100 90 80 70 30 20 10 SAMPLE SIZE: /O9 85 36.1 M.P.H 50 31.1 M.P.H 10 MRH PACE 28 M P H TO 3 8 TRAVELING WITHIN PACE ee.82 5 SPEED STUDY 10 15 20 25 30 35 CP n (KR PI-11 LOCATION: 50 BE Y ROAD e S�oerry I/ DIR. OF TRAVEL: N/S CUMULATIVE SPEED DISTRIBUTION CURVE 40 45 50 55 6( 54 53 60 59 58 57 56 55 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 43 42 41 40. 39,c- 3$ f( C C "c.C c_ c 35 C I 34 cc, c c 33 P✓1 C 31 1 1 8 C c- L" 27 CC 26 ,r P L C/ 7 c V G c G V C C 8 _3 7 7 9 9 MPH V E H I C L E S 24 23 21 0 17 16 15 .1 2 2 19 19 18 18 NO. 1 5 7 7 9 !09 100 3 /0/3 99.1 105 96.3 8 1b 9/.7 7 9Z 84.4 85 78,0 78 71.6 65.1 56.9 495 42.2 7, 35.e 7 29.4 6 22. 6 17.4 4 //.9 3 3 2 ACC. t 54 39 32 z 5 /3 6 3 8.3 5.5 2.8 0 .9 CITY OF SARATOGA S?lEEDI TUDY C P 111-∎ N/5 N Name f Street Loco Direction of Travel LEGEND: C Passenger Car, T Truck, P= Pick -Up, M= Motorcycle, B Bus, V= Van RESULTS: 10 MPH Pace: 2 8 to 38 Within Pace: 68.8 Average Speed 31.3 MPH 'Day of Week: Date: /0 /eC Time: a By: Method: C /TY OF SARA7 COMMON! T y DEVEL OPMEN T DEPARTMENT 1 ACCIDENT RATE CAC CULAT/O/V I STREET e SOBE •04.0 Lo ca eic)/7 s) Disio Ge Daily. Trof i C �c36s Naha!? Vefi• M; /es ls28ox,o6) Teo,4cres Rd. io 3 y Gado Rd. 6,300 4000 0,435 t1///,, Vehicle Miles 04 v M) 0.435 Accident Rode 5 (Accident' s) 4. /8 X 2.7.5 (Years) 0.435(m M) EMA Ri(S DATE 9 DAY OF WEEK: TIME L 4 TO L1 SPEED LIMIT: SAMPLE SIZE: 36 I- 60 Z W 0 50 c 100 90 80 70 (L 40 30 20 I0 0 0 85 24.8 M.P.H 50 X22.7 M.P.H Z9 10 MP.H PACE _a_ M.P. H TO TRAVELING WITHIN PACE 4 1 5 S PEED STUDY 10 15 20 25 30 35 CD1~ rn RA DI-J1 W +tk3,+r3 ^4k18.:l:�at- LOCATION: PIiRcE 80.40 DI R. OF TRAVEL: CUMULATIVE SPEED DISTRIBUTION CURVE 40 45 50 55 60 iD f a CITY OF SARA TOGA OGA <vee MPH V E H I C L E S 6rsim- 21 r 11110ra 1 1 IZ. SPEED STUDY Lo anon n�..�,� treef on Direction of Trove LEGEND: C Passenger Car,. T Truck, P= Pick -Up, M= Motorcycle, e Bus, V ='Van RESULTS: 0 IOMPH Pace= 19 so 2 %Within Pace: 1)0 o, Average Speed 23.2 MPH Date Timer B y Method: ,c-ct, L o c a eic),— ir„ S) Congress SAe.4 s Rd TO Mf &lett D lance (Feel) 5,400 Daily TraPtc 1,0 M //o.7 Veh;c/e Miles 6f4V Fn c/or 365 c5280x/o Veh. M: /es 0.373 0.373 COMMUN/ T V DEVEL OI'MEN T DEPARTMENT 1 ,4cciDENT RATE CACCULAT /ON 5rREE7 e P /SRCE R0.41? Acc/olen Rozee 6 (Acc.ceh rest X 2. 5 (Years) 0.373 (M✓M 5. REMARlfS DATE: 9/ DAY OF 'Celt' TIME TO /335 SPEED LIMIT: 30 SAMPLE SIZE: 43 100 90 80 70 30 20 I0 0 0 85 27.6 50 %24 M.P.H 10 M.P.H PACEZ M.P.H TO 3 O TRAVELING WITHIN PACE 93.47 5 SPEED STUDY LOCATION= P,FRC ,QOMQ ad Oak Wp. DIR. OF TRAVEL: N/S CUMULATIVE SPEED DISTRIBUTION CURVE 10 15 20 25 30 35 cDrt= n (MA PI-II 40 45 50 55 60 19.,:2-A 9 D RESULTS: MPH Pace: 20 Name of Street so 30 cI TY OFSARATOGA SPEED S'TUDY c -4 Location N/5 Direction Trove of C 28 pc.c c 27 c 26 c c 25 f 23 22 c 20 G MPH 60„ 59 57 55 54 53 51 47 46 43 42 41 40 9 34 15 CC V E H I C L E S ACC. NO. Pm I .43I 42 97.7 1 :'41195,3 2 40 93.0 14:381 3 34 !79.1 531 72.1 g 26 go.s 6 '18 X 4/.9 4 12 27.9 4'8 IIa.6 2,4 1 9.3 2 r 4.6 1 LEGEND: Cr. Passenger Car,. T Truck, P= Pick -Up, M= Motorcycle, B Bus, V= Van %Within Pace: 93.O. Average Speed 25- 1 MPH uay of Week: -77-1)-- Date: `79 G /r G Time: ld c7 B y: Method: 'c 9 COMMON T y DEvEL D.dMEN T DEPART/WEN T 1 94CC/DENT RATE CAt C4/L AT/ON SIRE E T o PIERCE Abo9.0 Million Vehicle Mies (My /W 0.498 Accidente Rode /0 �Accidehfs) X 2. (Years) •4986M✓M0 L o c a tzi o n a i,,. V s, D: s eanc a (Pee Dail Traffic C Sctior i tqi//i o 7 Veh. Mi /es ?5280 10) H' Eden Ai to Sow 1,,. 4800 4300 0.498 9 COMMON T y DEvEL D.dMEN T DEPART/WEN T 1 94CC/DENT RATE CAt C4/L AT/ON SIRE E T o PIERCE Abo9.0 Million Vehicle Mies (My /W 0.498 Accidente Rode /0 �Accidehfs) X 2. (Years) •4986M✓M0 AGENDA BILL NO. //5 SUBJECT: SuQmary Fiscal Impacts: Total construction cost was $145,414.00. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. Recommended Action: Council Action 11/5: Approved. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4T DATE: 11/.5/86 (10/15 DEPT.: ENGINEERING CITY MGR. APPROV Accept the work and authorize filing the Notice of Completion. The contract for construction of the restroom /concession stand at Congress Springs Park was awarded to K. S. Mc Granahan on May 28, 1986. The work on this contract has been satisfactorily completed. X60 3T' CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK RESTROOM /CONCESSION STAND Notice of Completion AGENDA BILL NO. //5 DATE: 10/8/86 (10/15/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: GPA -86 -2, C -230 Osterlund Summary: 1. On March 12, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the above request and unanimously recommended approval of the General Plan amendment and rezoning. 2. By state law and local ordinance the City Council must make the final decision on the application. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Exhibits /Attachments: Recommended Action: CITY OF SARATOGA Approve the Negative Declaration. Approve the. General Plan amendment. Approve the rezoning of the property. AGENDA ITEM 4 CITY MGR. APPROVAL 1. Resolution of the City Council 5. Staff Report to Planncing Commission 2. Staff Report to City Council dated 3/4/86 3. Negative Declaration 6. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/12/86 4. Resolution No. GPA -86 -2 Resolution Council Action 10/15: Approved Negative Declaration; approved General Plan amendment; introduced ordinance rezoning property. 11/5: Adopted Ordinance rezoning property. Y c REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: GPA -86 -2, C -230 Osterlund ISSUE: General Plan Amendment from medium density of 3.48 maximum du /net acre to medium density of maximum 4.35 du /net acre and rezoning from R -1- 12,500 to R- 1- 10,000. BACKGROUND: As a result of developing a road for a new subdivision, a 3,652 sq. ft. "remainder" of a parcel (shown as the crosshatched section of the attached map) was created. The owners of Parcel B, wished to add the 3,652 sq. ft. to their lot and applicants agreed to adjust the lot lines. Since the General Plan designation and zoning of Parcel A (including the 3,652 sq. ft. area) was medium density 12,500 and Parcel B was medium density 10,000, a General Plan change was necessary to make the revised Parcel B one designation. No additional parcels would be created and no increased densities could occur. On March 12, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendments. The General Plan amendment will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare. The rezoning to R -1- 10,000 is consistent with the General Plan designation, M -10. RECOMMENDATION: Support the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approve the Negative Declaration, General Plan amendment and rezoning of t e proGerty. uek Hsia P anning Director immw ©g Lnino DATE: COUNCIL MEETING: 10/8/86 10/15/86 EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is to adjust the lot line between Lot 1, Tract 7499 on Herriman Ave. and Lot 11, Tract 1574, 13881 River Ranch Circle. A 3,652 sq. ft. parcel will be taken from Lot 1 and added to Lot 11. However, the lots are in two different zoning districts and General Plan areas. So in addition to the lot line adjustment, a General Plan and zoning change are also required for the project. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Osterlund Enterprises 59 N. Santa Cruz Ave. Los Gatos, CA. 95031 Jack Margaret Smith 13881 River Ranch Circle Saratoga, CA. 95070 File No. LL #12, GPA 86 -2 C -230 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project was found not to have a significant effect on the environment in that the Lot Line Adjustment, General Plan and Zoning Change will not result in the creation of a lot which would be large enough to later subdivide. Therefore, no increase in density will result from the project. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of 1986. YUCHUEK HSIA PLANNING DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL CO OF THE CITY OF ARATOGA CTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER ATTEST: /L(4, L Secretary B:GPARes RESOLUTION NO. GPA 86 -2 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR A 3,652 SQ. FT. PORTION OF LOT 1, TRACT 7499, HERRIMAN AVENUE (APN 397- 29 -02) WHEREAS, The City of Saratog recei an application from Osterlund Enterpri9es to amend the General Pl L Use Element Designation of a 3,652 sq. ft. parcel (APN 397- 79 -02) from Residential Medium Density Single Family .(M -12.5) to Residential Medium Density Single Family .(M- 10)! and WHEREAS, the Proposed GPnerel Plan. Amendment !Jas a condition of .approval for a Lot Line Adjustment (LL#t12) approved by the Planning. Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Cit of Saratog Plannin Commission review the draft negative declaration and the findings attached as Exhibit "D NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratnna' That the Planning Cnmmiacinn rerommenris that the City Council amend the Land Use Element designation of x•3,652 sq. ft.. portion of Lot 1, Tract 7499, Herriman Ave. (APN 397- 29 -02) from Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -12.5) to Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -10) as shown on Exhibit "C based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit "D The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 12th day of March, 1986, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, Guch, Peterson and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Guch and Pines Chairman, Planning Commission FINDINGS Exhibit "8" 1. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General Plan 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will maintain the residential character of the neighborhoods affected and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be matrially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. O RESOLUTION NO. C -230 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 12th day of March, 1986 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "E be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of March, 1986, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Guch and Pines ATT 1 $T: Itu Secretary i Chairman of the Planning Commission FINDINGS Exhibit "E" 1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. 'APN: Pla resi of M -101, 7fNTNF• 397 -79 -m7 R 3 -7 S MR FXTSTTNF I ANn 'ISF: PARCEL ST7P: Parc A Parre1 R R- 1- 12,Smm, R- 1- 1m,m0101 0 HATE: 3/4/86 rnNMTSSTnN MEETING: 3/17/86 APPLICANT: Rill HP1s5 nNNFR: 4sterlund Enterprises Jack Margaret Smith APP!TCATTnN Nn. R 'nnATTnN: FPA AF -7, 0-734, II417 Lni 1 (Parcel A) n Herrin Ave. (of Tr. 7499) lot 11, Tract 1594 (Parcel 8), 13 River Ranch Circle ArTTON RF(I'F5TFii: General Pian Amend Toning change and Lot Line Adjustment to transfer a 3,652 sq. ft. parcel from Lot 1, Tract 7499,_ presently zoned R -1- 17,5@ with e Genre! Plan designation of M -12,5 to Lot !1, Tract 1574 with the znninQ classification of R- 1- 1m,000 and General nTHFR APPRn11AlS RECEIVED: Final Map Approval recei FNVIRONMENTAI ASSESSMENT! N neclaration prepared 2/20 FFN1RAI PI AN PFSi(_NATION: M -1 M -10 Single family residence on Parcel Et! Parcel A is vacant SIIRRQI'NnTNn I ANn 'ISFS: Sar. Hi School borders the westerly portion of Parc A, si family residence s the parcels in all Other directions. Existing Proposed 37,891 sq. ft. 18,135 sq. ft. 34 ,329. ft. 21,697 sq. ft. Report to Plan co I 1 7 PPA RA-7 r -230 AVERAGE SITE SL OPE: PRO JFrT RACkSROI ir'ln APA RA -7 E xisting Proposed Parr_ e 1 A "A4% 3C Parcel R 1 19% 3/4/88 Pane 0RDINANCE COMPLIANCE The p does n ot meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance i that the two adjacent parcels have diff G Plan designations and a re located within different zoning districts. Therefore, the General Pla designation and zoning must be changed pri t appro of the Lot Line Adjustment. As part of th tentative m ap appro for Tract 7494, the developers were req to pr a so wall .immediately adjacent to the easterly side of the arre road. Thi was to off noise ahatement to the neighboring developed re properties nn River Ranch circle. Because 4 he sollnd is to he lnreted along the acres read rather than the property line, en agree was made to grant e landscape easement to affected property owners T.. his we to facilitate ma into of the aree b etwee n th snundwell a neighboring infs. As the erre coed turns to go thr lot 1 of Tract 7444, there is a 'somewh larger parc of la that lies between the sn undwell and the Smith' property_ The Smith's preferred to own this land rather than have an easement. in exrhenge •Osterlund Enterprises is obtaining a sewer easement across the Smith's property. In adding the`3,652 sq. ft. parcel from Tract 7499 to the Smith property, the resulting l w ill n ot be large enough to lat subdivide. Usi th slop density formula, the 19% average slope would not permit an additional dwelling unit on this site. Additionally, th width of the lot is not lar enough to p e anoth driM acc off River Ranch Circle. The General Plan designation of the area thAt 15 the subject of the lot l i ne Adjustment ,is m ediu m density single family (M -12.5) with e maximum density of 3 du/net acre. The applica is requesting that this be cha to e designation of M -101, o to Allow a maximum density of 4,35 HH /net acr Staff foresees nn major concern with this regrrest nr to the elope of the 1nt, further subdivi of the prnpn Parcel R is p ossibl N increase in density will result fro th project. The propo amendment is not inconsistent with the pnli -iPS an d goals of the General plan_ Appro of th proposal will not be detrimental to the puhl i h s afety or welfare. To avoid S plit znni of th prnpn Parre1 R a 7nhing c Anna iq regnirAd. changing th zo will n ot rP i th p'nte for futu inrrAa in dencit With the lot line Adicutmen'}, Moth Parc A .and Parcel B ca meet n m__. the i ?nning district uiraments of lot depth width No �raria n depth, l:_L'Ith and frontage. Will be required for A ex,isti g ctruurture if the lot line edjuustmAnt is approved. 1. The 6Aneral Plan Amend is rnncictent with the pnliriec And nhiec +.j'e of the General Pia 2. ThA propo G Plan Amendment will maintai the rPaidAn.tial charact of th neighborhood te a f an will F. d hawa no adverse impact on the surroundin areas_ 3. The prn Gener Pla Amendment will not adversely affect the pr�bl it safety, hPAIth an d wA 1 fare nr he mgterial1v injurious to adiarent nrnnPrtiAS nr imprn�1eMPnts RPrQMMFNnATTfN: Staff n rernmmendc that the Planni i o ics o g mm -n adopt the Attached resolution recommendin th the city Council amend the General Pla a ch ange the la Ltse d Pcignati of the .area t be transferred hPt n Int 1, Tract 7499 a Lot 11, Tract 1574 from Medium Density, m Density, M-10, per 6 M- 12.5 to MAdi., M-._, r A t_Ff Repert dated 3/4/86 and Exhibit B and r. Report to Planning rnmmiccin I #17 GPA RA r -738, Herri >z River Ran FTNnTnir,5 FTNnTNsS In accordance with Section 15 -85 of the Toning Ordinance, Staff has prepare_ t e i .iinn findi nc d nlln h f n 1. The Propos re,o is not contrary t the nhjerti of the 6enerA1 P!An and Toni Ordina The proposed runni will not have A sin ificent i en»irn nr adversely Affect the public health, safety or welfare. RPCOMMFNnATTf1m• Staff recom that the Plan commissi make the nerescar�r finriinnc_ anri adopt a rPcnlistinn recommendih t A rA_nne the su bj e ct property shown o Exhibit "R and r" from the R- 1- 7 Srnrn r• r i 1 to R- 1- 18 subject to the following conditions: 1. 6AnerAi Pla shall he zo rhan 7 7 .&mended Sn AS to be Nn ailtmmnhi le access shall he permitted between consistent with the "V4/8g Page 3 arce1 A end R_' pr Rennrt to Plan Cnmmiavinn 7 /4 /8S LL?12, PTA RP 7, C 2 301, QSterlund, HArri R Riv Ranrh Pane 4 1 1 417 Th re eCt to cha the int lin gn that a area phySirally Separated from int 1, Tr.a_t 7499 m a y b used to d._.nt t.._ he greater a va ap by a h� the ne _gh__n. ri ng property nwener fines not Spe1V1 an unreasonable request. The iot l i n e da a a adivatmpnt will n l t rP9ul t i n the tr in of any 5 1 4 tn i r. b...rd lots. No var 3ncf'S fnr existing str•11rt11reC' will he required. .The regjeat i rnmplirat b the nf'rpssity t change the General Pien degignatinn and zo of the 3,667 gq. ft. perce! prnpn5ed to he e'rhenged bet the t int5. The findi fnr lot linA a Ilst ter require en rnn5ictency with the re.neral Pla a d Zoning. Qrdinence. d� ef• tht n Z_.._r. n Therefore, the i� line adjugtment ran n y h epprnverd Such iert to the applicants i a r first nhtaining th nprpcgar 3Pn Plan and zoning Change.. FINnTNAc o 1. nn grantin the prnpnSed amend to th RenAral Pla the proposed o lt li line adjlictment will he rn .igte with n h the rener?1 Plan. 7. n granti th re fnr a zo Cha the proposed lot d t Line adjustment w ill he rnngigtent with the Zoning and Subdivision nrdine i that no vinlatin of such regulatin i being creat 7. The Rrn int li ediillat i i 11 not conflict with any eas nr arr"P q thrn nr uuSe of the guhjArt, RrnRertiAS. RFCQMMFAIDATTQIJ Staff rernmmpndc approval per Staff Report dated 7 /4/RR and Fr;hihit "R and C APPRQl1FD P.C Anenda• 7 /17 /RS Diana LAO. Planner R "AAA.. 0 0 /TN 11, 5C14001. A K A gar laaj"+"" ma amolatus .1 11 alwa.....,7,..„ _01.....p..mu al. v paarw miskinoSPI4,„„ taal mg Nom walf.zoravr, 'I' inie _4 In 1 •^-..z., HI/egr4 4 tallmAt .44o■ 11' q iittr 1#5114sak 4 e teotim•-#) 0 wiltistew 4. k 0-40Wair .4.04+ 41 4 la sts, 011,1frr Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 3/12/86 2 T Page 2 5. SD -1368 Allen Chadwick Anthony Cocciardi, request for a one year extension for a tentative building site approval for 11 lots on a 51.5 acre site in the NHR zoning district at the ends of Old Oak Chiquita Ways 6. UP -597 Mr. Mrs. A. Philip Bray, request for use permit approval to allow a 'Decorator Showcase' sponsored by the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary and Assoc. to be held from Apr. 26, 1986 to May 26, 1986 at 21459 Saratoga Hills Rd. All of the above items were removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened on #2, A -1171, C W Associates, at 7:42 p.m. Dale Drumm, 18395 Montpere Way, expressed the following concerns: (1) The home is over the 3500 sq. ft., possibly establishing a precedent for the other homes in the subdivision, (2) exterior architecture and color of the project and (3) lack of landscaping between the subdivision and the adjacent homes. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee Report, pointing out that there is a condition for screening along the northerly property line in the staff report. She described the trees on the site and suggested adding a condition for landscaping on the southerly property line. Discussion followed on the color, with Mr. Drumm indicating that the adjacent homes are of an earthtone color. The method of calculation for the square footage was explained to Mr. Drumm. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4 -0. It was suggested that a condition be added to read that the color shall be earthtone, with samples to be submitted to Staff for approval. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE A -1171 per the staff report dated March 3, 1986, with the added conditions regarding landscaping on the southerly property line and the exterior color. Passed 4 -0. Discussion followed on #3, LL -12, GPA -86 -2 and C -230, Osterlund Enterprises. Staff explained that the City is only allowed four changes to the General Plan in one year, and therefore suggested holding up the General Plan amendment and the zoning change until June. They suggested that the Commission act on the lot line adjustment and recommend to the City Council that the amendment and zoning change be approved in June. The City Attorney explained that a new process is being contemplated whereby General Plan amendments will be acted upon on a quarterly basis. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. The staff recommendation was explained to Bill Heiss, the civil engineer for the project. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4 -0. .,HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LL -12. Passed 4 -0. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE LL -12 per the staff report dated 3 -4 -86. Passed 4 -0. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GPA -86 -2 AND C -230, to be acted upon by the City Council in June. Carried 4 -0. The public hearing was opened on #4, SD -1356, Anthony Cocciardi, at 7:53 p.m. Wihelm Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, submitted a letter with pictures, expressing concern regarding a canyon that has been created from the rains, through which the creek flows. He explained that this canyon goes through proposed lot 19 of this development. He commented that the topography of the land has completely changed since the EIR, and it AGENDA BILL NO. 4 DATE: DEPT.: Inspect inn Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE, SDR -1510, MARTIN J. OUDEWAAL, 14375 SARATOGA Suamary: The public improvments required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. Fiscal Impacts: None 1. Memo 9 -29 -86 (10- 15 -86). Recommended Action: Council Action Exhibits /Attachments: CITY OF SARATOGA Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject site AGENT DA ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: City Engineer 1. Developer: Address: 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm CffU4 off 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 3138 SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1510 (Final Acceptance) Location: 14375 Saratoga Avenue All improvements required of 14375 Saratoga Ave. and agreed to in the Security Agreement dated 7/23/84 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: Martin J. Oudewaal 14375 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga 2. Improvement Security: Type: Improvement Security Amount: $14,9.68 Issuing Co.: Idemnity Company of California Address: Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 650534P 1 rt S. Shook DATE: Sept. 29, 1986 AGENDA BILL NO. `f DATE: 10- i5 -86 DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Suumary: 1. SDR 1604 is ready for final approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees, bond and agreements have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution 1604 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Location Map Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 1604 -02 attached, approving Final Map for SDR 1604; authorize execution of contracts for improvements agreement. Council Action FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR SDR -1604, MINOR DAVID ALTA VISTA AVENUE (2 Lots) CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF David Miner The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 9,567.0 square feet and 8,724.0 square feet parcels. Shown as Lot 52 and 53 on Tract Map at Williams Subdivision recorded in Book L of Maps Page 69 and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the city council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1604 MAYOR EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City. of Surat go APPROVED BY: C-J APN,: 397 -28 -28 DATE: 7 �r S Date: 7/16/BS INITIALS :C Commission Meeting: 7/24/85 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR- 1604, A -1104; 14040 Alta Vista Ave. (Lots 52 53, south side of Alta Vista at its northerly terminus) APPLICANT: David ?liner OWNER: Same ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site approval for two building sites on two sub standard legal lots of record and Design Review Approval for a two -story residence on Lot 52. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval, Grading and Building Permits. ENVIROONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. ZONING: R- i- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Medium Density SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residences are located to the south and west of the site. The property lying to the north and east is a large parcel with one existing residence. Saratoga High School is located north of the site. LOT SIZES: Lot 52 9,5E37 5q. ft. Lot 53 8,724 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The front portion of both lots is fairly level. The rear portion slopes very steeply to the east. Large mature oak trees are scattered on both lots. AVERAGE LOT SLOPE: Lot 52 237.. Lot 53 2 The application is for Tentative Building Site Approval for two (2) lots of record. Both lots are substandard in size and lot width. Report to Planning Commission SDR 1604, A -1104, Miner, vita Vista Ave. 7/16/85 Page 2 The County Sanitation District has indicated that sewer service can be made available to the sites. They are exploring cost effective methods with the project engineer for providing service and an interconnection with the Los Gatos Union School property to the north. The City Geologist has reviewed the project and recommends 'conditional approval. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1604 (Exhibit "B "'filed 6/7/85) subject to the following conditions: I GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu- lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 6O. 11. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees). (If•parcel'is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. Half- Street on Alta vista Ave. Report to Planning Commission SDR- 1604, A -/104, Miner, Alta Vista Ave. 7/16/85 Page 3 D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. E. Improve Alta vista Ave. to City Standards including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section 15 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2 P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (J -24). 3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "/Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. O. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 1. Watercourses must be kepi free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. K. Engineered improvement Plans required for 1. Street improvements 2. Storm Drain Construction L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve- ment Plans. M. Enter into improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (i) year of receiving Final Approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. O. Temporary turn around (cul -de -sac) at north end of Alta Vista Ave. Report to Planning Commission SDR-1604, A -1104, Miner, Alta vista Ave. 7/16/85 Page 4 III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSrt.,iION SERVICES A. Soils and foundation investigation and report by a licensed professional. B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or.R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 4. Standard information to include titieblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided. B. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to County Sanitation Dist. No. 4. C. Provide easements for building sewers to service adjacent parcels in accordance with County Sanitation Dist. No. 4. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. D. Developer to install one (1) hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications and deposit to cover hydrant rental for a period of five (5) years. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. Report to Planning Commission SDR- 1684, A- 1104, Miner, vita Vista Ave. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION 7/16/85 Page 5 VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. 6. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Company. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant, shall prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCvwu for review and certification. A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga Fire District. 6. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities oniin the subdivision. D. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. E. Applicant shall comply with the City Geologist's letter dated oo /G7%6S. Report to Planning Commission A -1104, SDR-1504, Miner, Alta Vista Ave. DESIGN REVIEW A -1104, Lot S2 SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE 4! 7 /i6iS5 Page 6 GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 630 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 5.5 Ft. Fill: 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 0 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 31 Ft. Rear: 72 Ft. (To Deck) Left Side: 6 Ft. Right Side: B Fi. HEIGHT: 28.5 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 26Z SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor (Incl. garage): 1,564 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1,153 sq. ft. TOTAL: 717 sq. ft. Decking: 720 sq. ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The residence will be finished with off white masonite lap siding. The roof will be light grey composition shingles. STAFF ANALYSIS: The project complies with all applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The lot is 50 ft. in width. The side yard setback on a lot that is substandard in width is 101 of the lot width or 6 ft. whichever is greater. The required side yard setback is therefore 6 ft. The size of the residence is below the allowable floor area. The lot is below the minimum. Comparing lot size and floor area, the project will be a floor area ratio of .28. Generally, in the R-1-10,000' zoning district the minimum lot size and standard floor area would be a floor area ratio of .35. A cantilevered bay window is proposed on the northern (left) side of the residence. The bay window will project about 2 fi. into the 6 ft. required side yard setback. The window does not extend to the ground and it is indicated on the plans that the window is not habitable. City policy has been to interpret garden windows on which someone cannot sit or stand and which do not project to the ground as architectural features. Staff is concerned that the bay window will be only 4 ft. from the property line. The proposed grading is for the excavation of a 673 sq. ft. basement. Stairs and a door from the outside are proposed. The Planning Commission at the July 10th meeting made the interpretation that if'a lower area of a residence is below grade and only exposed two feet on all sides, the addition of access from the outside does not conflict with the intent of the definition of basement in the Design Review Ordinance. Based on this interpretation, the lower level complies with the definition of basement and the area is not calculated into the square footage or height of the Report to "Planning Commission n -I107, SDR-1604, Miner, Alta Vista Ave. structure. Mature oaks are scattered on the site. The plans indicate a 21 inch oak to be removed. The porch of the residence will be 2 ft. from an oak tree. The right side of the residence will be 4 ft. from an oak. The deck at the rear of the residence will be constructed around an oak and i ft. from a second oak. City policy is to not allow development under the dripiine of an oak. If that is too restrictive, then development is to be 8 to 10 ft. from a tree. The proposed residence does not comply with the policy. However, the lot is substandard and the buildable area is restricted. Staff recommends that the trees be reviewed by the City Horticulturist to determine appropriate development techniques adjacent to the oaks. A second story deck is proposed on the northern side of the residence. This deck will overlook Lot 53. However, the deck is in the front of the residence and should not impact the privacy of the future residence to the north. Few windows are proposed on the south side of the residence. Staff noted no potential privacy impacts io the residence to the south. FINDINGS 1 Unreasonable interference with Views and Privacy The proposed residence will not unreasonably interfere with views or privacy from adjacent properties. Few windows are proposed on the southern elevation adjacent to an existing residence. Distance and landscaping provide privacy to the property across Alta Vista Ave. The deck on the northern side, adjacent to Lot 53, is in the front portion of the residence. Preservation of Natural Landscape Oaks are scattered throughout the site. Buildable area is limited by trees and topography. One oak is proposed to be removed. The structure will be located close to trees. However, with the condition that the City Horticulturist review the project, proper techniques can be used to preserve the trees or changes made based on the City Horticulturist's report. 3 Perception of Excessive bulk The residence will not appear excessively bulky in that given the lot is substandard, the square footage proposed is also below the standard. 4. Compatible bulk:. and Height 7/16/85 Page 7 The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with surrounding residences. The adjacent residences to the south and west are two -story structures. The project is below the standard square footage for the zoning district. Report to Planning Commission A-1104, SDR-1604, Miner, vita Vista S. Current Grading and Erosion Control LH% d5C 7/16/85 Page 8 The residence 15 being constructed on the level area of the site. Proposed excavation is for the constructin of a basement. Current City grading ordinance will be followed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the residence per the Staff Report dated 7/16/8E, Exhibits "8 and "C" subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the City Geologist's letter dated 6/27i8S. 2. The City Horticulturist shall review the oak trees to be preserved. The applicant shall comply with the City Horticulturist's recommendations. Landscaping shall be installed along the northern property line to provide screening to the future residence to the north. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy. APPROVED: LL. C 4(.01.) P.C. Agenda: 7/24%65 Lucille Hise Planner cnii ma Eli la ma ON 1 000it''' 4% NVitt o vai •4"‘ '4+ ejell'6- ar nurv 1 '411 •AK 5 SCHOOL R -1- 10.000 S'�R- I Go* R-uo /41Na'K AGENDA BILL NO. /141 CITY OF SARATOGA DATE: 10 -08 -86 (10/15/86 Mtg.) DEPT.: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on August 21, 1985 awarded the contract for the above project to Raisch Construction Company and the project was done in two phases. The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Fiscal Impacts: Total construction cost of $512,213.04. Exhibits /Attachments: 1.. Notice of completion. 2. Progress payment. Recommended Action: The work on the subject project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted and notice of completion filed. Council Action OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS NOTICE OF COMPLETION AGENDA ITEM 4'"(; CITY MGR. APPROVAL Nome RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO P Street Address City State Sar J NUttrr is hereby given that the undersigned, liar..XX..Rr Peacock (the agent ofJ* the owner of th certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the City..a£..Sarataga County of State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: Overlay certain City streets. That as owner of said land, did, on the ...21st 19 85 enter into a contract with 1ZALSCli ..COSiS.TRUCT1;Ql�..COk�Fli�' day of August upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of State of California, on the That on the 9th day of day of September r 19 $6 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said RAISCH ..CO.NSTRUCTIO..CMANY That the name and address of all the owner of said property are as follows: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nana of Q mnp1rttnn Averlay...certaia.. city streets, CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 and the nature of title to said property is County of SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE sS Delete words in brackets if owner signs. Th6 docurmnt I. only PootoI form which rhea W proper for um in simple trenmetions and in no way eats, or ie intended to eat, n wbetitute for the ,Mice of an attorney. The outline, doe. not make env werranty either eeprey.oeiwplieele, o-the- p,f IairlY11f• w te6lnY ofihme perm in env W Wifc t o PLETION BY OWNER (C. C. P. Sec. 1193.1) Owner By Agent for being duly sworn, says: 1 am (the agent ofJ* the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. 1 have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 PkOJ Eg,T: OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS 1985 DATE: to 6 86 EST, NO, 7 FROM: 9 s 6 TO: 10- s- BID ITEM Install 11/2 Overlay Install Fabric Mat A. R4000 Asphalt Binder Repair Failure Sections Heater Remix Recycle Agent 1/4" Crushed Granite Roc CRS -2 Emulsion Power Sweeping Wedge Cut RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS QUANTITY 7,443 146,885 39,659 4,018 24,419 4,884 923 23,158 830,119 5,784 UNIT WR .DONE PRICE TOTAL PREVIOUS EST. 31.00 230,733.00 7,058.10 0.40 58,754.00 152,500:00 1.30 51,556.70 31,117.00 7,987.00 1 :50 23,016.00 1.20 1.50 6,027.00 7,987.00 1.20 29,302.80 23,016.00 1.75 8,547.00 3,585.00 36.00 33,228.00 1,229.00 1.20 27,789.60 30,238.00 WRK. DONE TOTAL UNIT THIS EST. 'WRK,DONE PRICE 0.0. 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 8,301.19 830,119.00 1.00 5,784.00 6465.0 0.0 7,058.10 '31.00 152,500.00 n_4n 11,117.00 1.30 r 3,585.00 1.75 1,229.00 36.00 30,238.00 1.20 830,119.00 0.01 6455.0 1.0 TOTAL DUE LESS 10% RETENTION 218801.111 94.82 61000.00 109.82 40,452.1 78.46. 11,980.50 198.78 27,619.20 94.24 6771.75 73.40 44,244.00 133.15 36,285.60 130.57 8,301.19 100.00 4 5 6 8 9 10. TOTAL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Made By: Checked By: Approved by: Director of Community Development CONTRACTOR: RAISCH Cf1NSTRMTI0N Ine_ ADDRESS: P.O. Box 729 Mountain View, Ca 94042 TOTAL DUE 6455.00 TOTAL PAYMENT LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS PAYMENT DUE THIS EST. %WORK DONE 111.60 PO 19788 REMW BID ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL WRK.DONE PREVIOUS EST. WRK. DONE THIS EST. TOTAL WRK.DONE UNIT PRICE TOTAL DUE %WORK DONE REMARKS 11 3/8" Leveling Course 301 31.00 9,331.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 12 Repair Street Along Lip 21,910 1.50 32,865.00 16,264.00 0.0 16,264.00 1.50 24,396.00 74.23 13 Raise Manholes 135 145.00 19,575.00 145.00 0.0 145.00 145.00 21,025.00 107.40 14 4" Double Yellow Stripe 2,704 .50 1,352.00 2,704.00 0.0 2,704.00 0.50 1,352.00 100.00 15 4" Single Yellow Stripe' 106 .30 31.80 106.00 0.0 106.00 0.30 31.80 100.00 16 4" Broken Yellow 486 .30 145.80 486.00 0.00 486.00 0.30 145.80 100.00 17 Pavement Marking L.S. 1,900.00 1,900.00 L.S. 0.00 L.S. 1,900.00 1,900.00 100.00 18 Pedestrian Cross Walk 6 95.00 570.00 5.0 1.0 6.0 95.00 570.00 100.00 19 Paint School Crosswalk 9 120.00 1,080 :00 8.0 1.0 9.00 120.00 1,080.00 100.00 l0 Install Double Yellow "D" Marker 82 5.00 410.00 60.00 0.0 60.00 5.00 300.00 73.17 RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS TOTAL DUE 512,213.04 1 10-16 -85 12,748.05 LESS 10% RETENTION 51,221.30 TOTAL PAYMENT 460.991.74 2 11 -16 -85 118,334.99 LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 464,956.41 17 -9 -s5 167,863.26 Made By: Checked y 'AYMENT DUE THIS EST. 0.0 4 1 -27 -86 5 6 -18 -86 2,294.28 46,369.80 IOW Approt,{led 1pt\ NOTE: Retention 51,221.30 PROJECT: OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS 1985 DATE: Jo- 6 84. FROM: 9- 8 6 9 -3 -86 EST. NO. 7 TO: to 3- St, TOTAL 117,346.03 464,956.41 PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 City Engineer sheet of CONTRACTOR: RAISCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 729 Over Payment (3,964.67) Final Payment Due 47,256.63 11/19/96 Retention Mountain View. CA 94042 AGENDA BILL NO. //4f f DATE: October 10, 1986 (10/15/86) DEPT.: ENGINEERING CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: CIVIC CENTER STORM DRAIN Summary: Fiscal Impacts: $11,067.50 Capital Project Exhibits /Attachments: Council Action ar/ CITY OF SARATOGA We have received two (2) proposals for the construction of the Civic Center Storm Drain; Pacific Underground $11,067.50 and Glage`Underground _.$11,879.25. The Engineer's estimate for this work is $11,750. This project will eliminate the ponding at the southerly side of the Theater, and is included in the 1986 -87 F.Y. Budget. (Fund #0032, Project #0914 (Contractural Services #4510) Budget Amount: $17,000 1. Project plans. 2. Bid summary. AGENDA ITEM 411. Recommended Action: Award to Pacific Underground the contract for the Civic Center Storm Drain Project for the quoted price of $11,067.50 LOCH TON MAP ~NOT TO 5CAG E CIVJC CENTER STORM DRAIN C /TY OF SARATOGA DETAILS •L•N Of CAST IRON GG• W[ MOTTOS SIDE OE COWLS FIAT GRATE- DROP INLET 11111111111•111 L. I.I. SUN O. RING 6 COVEN ONTUI OF S.NSOLO STEM S OTS" C.w.WS r roly .90 NIM r 4 SI.. 5.4 I N M .iris SIN M I.N l0 66. guess S.rrr .T 0....4.S a owl **WINN Nero. Mho PISMO I. IWO W.I. rr NMI rir Y.r.SW..r SCC .w. guff.. Y Nwr plr. W. stmt.**, STANDARD MANHOLE GENERAL NOTES: 1. A1/ work is /o be done in accordance /.vi /,4 /hese ,p /ant and /he Sale of Ca /ifornia S.oecifications(./anuary, /98I) as appropriate. 2. A// reinforced concrete pipe shall be AS TM. C -76. 3. 41/ construction activities must be in compliance with CAL -OSHA. Failure to do so may provide cause for sus- pension of avor/c. 4. Cone tee, r to "Pot /foie o// utility conflict's prior to excavation for storm drain re %fed excavations. 5, Parking /of shaft have access at all tunes -at /ease one driveway during day time and both at night -lime. 6. It shall be the Contractor's responsibi /i!t le request necessary inspection prior to commencing any portion of 8e Ho•f. C /TY ENG/n/EER SHEET I OF 2 BENCA MARA': 379 SWYy copne, otreeisiu7i sZy side of rhea Elev.-375.00 375 365-- 7 ALL NDA clz tgo Azkr, V) i '370 7 le 1.3 s. E t... e,,, ......,,77 R,....., 11 7 777 -375 fit CA CE REDuce0 t 365 I -1 EE7 !Zs, 2 Eagr'5. it Ce Est /Male- Amount Un�e,-q�pa Wit Witt id Amount l/n Unit WI r9rau•-1cf, Amount Unit prirP, A nount Z7ait prig Amount Re.. Description p Quantity Cant 1 /2 NRei rSrcec7 6nc Pipe 275 1. F 30.CD 8 250.CL_ 26,SC; 7,28750 16.47 7, 279.25 Z. fiof &ra /e Orop In /e/ 2 Ea, 750.0 4500.06 /0804 2,/60.00 11C?i 2,200.00 3. stax�ariud ,Sfarm H. H. 2 Err, 1000.m 2,Cxx).00 8400 !,620.00 IA 2, 40610 TOT/-?L5 //750.00 //,067.50 11 ,Bvpaer s$ /?,DODO Project' S 9 /4 0 DATE,: 8s City of S.__ratoga Community Development Department BID SUMMARY. Sne et. -.RODE CT c CEO! TE.2 .STO,QM 4(22.4 AGENDA BILL NO. //4 q CITY OF SARATOGA DATE: October 6, 1986 (10/15/86 Mtg.) DEPT.: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF SHADOW OAKS WAY /DOUGLASS LANE /SARATOGA AVENUE Summary: Fiscal Impacts: $4,780.00 of which an appropriation of funds resolution will have to be approved. Exhibits /Attachments: Recommended Action: Council Action afigAirrtae 1. Sketch showing modification. dle6N 41e 4 67 a AGENDA ITEM 4' r CITY MGR. APPROVAL 2. Appropriation resolution. At the March 19, 1986 City Council meeting the above modification was approved in concept. This modification would more clearly define the right -of -way, by having Douglass Lane intersect Shadow Oaks Way at a right angle and Shadow Oaks Way intersect Saratoga Avenue at a right angle. This realignment would greatly increase the safety for vehicles using the intersections. Cushman Construction has quoted us a price of $4,780.00 to remove approximately 2,000 square feet of existing pavement and place 220 lineal feet of A.C. berm. T 6 A edoe'.01. Ar vet"e". 1 4A, Pc 1 1 0 4 0.4rn "i 4941eC 2$22' 4'7 C.Simpow Omk..? Wy) cuff* a W/O' Ift/•■• do C.8 VIIIM111111 NI\ 41, ligning and 0-0479 7 e accomplished by C'i .07e Saratoga A R 39 ,11 i g V izasooh'eliek/ e is,ekoll afterek 6 8d•rp. 0 42 "oo4 bow••••••■■ SCA(.E: /"-I 20' IllarcA /3,1986 svge) Initalt 67 smamottoA Alon4 4,..44 a W/O RESOLUTION NO. 2347. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1986 -87 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2347 be amended as follows: Transfer: Subsidiary: $4,780.00 from the General Fund Fund Balance to General Fund Appropriations. from 0001 -2000 to 0001 -2900 ORGN 3031 A/C 4510 Purpose: Provide funding for modification of Shadow Oaks Way /Douglass Lane/ Saratoga Avenue. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor AGENDA BILL NO. /SO DATE: 10/9/86 (10/15/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: AZO -86 -002 Second Unit Ordinance Summary: 1. On September 3, 1986, the City Council considered an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow second units in the R -1- 10,000 zone. The Council referred the amendment back to the Planning Commission to consider eliminating the age restriction. On October 8, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended that the ordinance not be amended; the occupant of the second unit must be 60 years of age or older. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff Report to City Council 2. Negative Declaration 3. Exhibit B Proposed ordinance 4. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 10/8/86 5. Correspondence received. Recommended Action: Approve the Negative Declaration. Introduce the attached ordinance, Exhibit B. Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA 10/15: Continued to 10/29. 10/29: Modified ordinance and directed City Attorney to prepare revised ordinance for 11/5. 11/5:. Introduced ordinance, adopted Negative Declaration. 11%19: Adopted Ordinance. AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL UMW 04 0 IP o 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Second Unit Ordinance Age restriction At the request of the City Council, the Planning Commission considered eliminating the requirement that the occupant of a second residential unit be 60 years of age or older. On October 8, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended that the ordinance not be amended. The Commission felt that the amendment would not benefit the community. The ordinance in:pll.ace ;serves to provide housing for seniors of Saratoga. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration. 2. Introduce the attached ordinance to allow second units in the R -1- 10,000 zone as recommended by the Planning Commission. Yu(chuek Hsia Pl ning Director YH /kc /dsc DATE: 10/9/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/15/86 EIA -4 Saratoga The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and. Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION- Amendment to the second unit ordinance to allow new second units in the R -1- 10,000 zone subject to a limit of not more than five per year. Amendment also includes eliminating the requirement that the occupant be sixty years of age or older. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Executed at Saratoga, California this 8th day of October 1986 2 )REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Limiting the number of second units to five per year will minimize any potential impact. The units will be infill projects which will not require the significant extension of urban services. Construction impacts will be mitigated through the use permit process and by application of existing codes and ordinances. Yuckuek Usia Planning Director DI o •R'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER File No: AZO 86 -002 0070 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 56.010, 15- 56.030 AND 15- 56.070 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SECOND UNITS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 56.010 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "15- 56.010 Statement of findings The City recognizes that some of its existing housing resources could provide a cost effective method to deal with housing needs. However there are environmental and service constraints the City faces which limit the use of methods such as adding second dwelling units. In particular, such units generally are not appropriate on hillside lots since these lots usually have environmental constraints on development. The use of second dwelling units is also limited by urban service capacity, public safety standards, traffic conditions, fire hazards, privacy impacts and compatibility with neighboring uses and structures. The limitation and control of second units is therefore required in order to avoid excessive density and residential sites and to .reerve and enhance a stheti values while bein: res.onsive to the housin: needs of the develo m ent of ualities and sin ro le -famil ert community. The following Article incorporates these limitations." SECTION 2: Paragraph (a) of Section 15- 56.030 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) The lot upon which the second unit will be created is located within an A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district; provided, however, no second units shall be permitted on any lot which is smaller than the minimum site area prescribed for the district wherein such lot is located, except a second unit established prior to January 1, 1983. upon a lot legally created and constituting a part of the City as of October 22, 1956, for which a use permit application is made pursuant to Section 15- 56.110 of this Article." SECTION 3: Paragraph (m) of Section 15- 56.030 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(m) If the second unit is detached from the main dwelling, the lot upon which the second unit is located must be at least 1.6 times the minimum net site area prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling and upon a lot located within the R -1- 10,000 district, the minimum net site area of such lot shall be 12,500 square feet." Rev. 10/30/86 -1- SECTION 4: Paragraph (a) of Section 15- 56.070 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) Not more than twenty use permits for second units may be granted during any single calendar year and not more than five of such use permits may be granted during any single calendar year for second units located within the R -1- 10,000 district. The City Council shall periodically review the impacts of second units for which use permits are granted under this Article. Such review shall be conducted annually or at such other interval of time as may be specified by the Council Ai each periodic review, the Council shall determine the limitation, if any, on the number of use permits for second units to be granted until the next scheduled review. The numerical limitation may be increased, decreased or retained by the City Council, based upon its review of the impacts caused by the creation of new second units and legalization of existing second units." SECTION 5: If any section. subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this. Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 10/30/86 -2- MAYOR PROJECT: LOCATION: .1. BACKGROUND II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 4f)4 (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe"answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? FORM EIA -lb FILE NO: R-OZ_ 0071 1 YES MAYBE NC J e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? g- r Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? 3. Water. .Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? -2- YES MAYBE 0072 d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? g- Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? -3- YES MAYBE 0073 !!o v f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 1/ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? t� d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? -4- YES MAYBE NIL 0074 1/ J VI 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE ND b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? e iCadittattu /1' C-a2--6:14-e-eea7J2t c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in.any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -6- YES MAYBE 12 007G 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer dr septic tanks? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding xnental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE N0 G077 J s. 20. Cultural Resources.. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical which would affect unique ethnic cultural d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? l- 1 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,: threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) YES MAYBE 6078 0 c. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION YES MAYBE x9 A s z4- ,4 �22,C i Q eQ i72u 4?h).d xee_ .�s -9- 0079 O IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment; and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: For: v V1�J (rev. 5/16/80) ORDINANCE NO. Ex/1;1) a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 56.030, 15- 56.070 AND 15- 56.110 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SECOND UNITS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (a) of Section 15- 56.030 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) The lot upon which the second unit will be created is located within an A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district; provided, however, no second units shall be permitted on any lot which is smaller than the minimum site area prescribed for the district wherein such lot is located, except a second unit established prior to January 1, 1983, upon a lot legally created and constituting a part of the City as of October 22, 1956, for which a use permit application is made pursuant to Section 15- 56.110 of this Article." SECTION 2: Paragraph (a) of Section 15- 56.070 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) Not more than twenty use permits for second units may be granted during any single calendar year and not more than five of such use permits may be granted during any single calendar year for second units located within the R -1- 10,000 district. The City Council shall periodically review the impacts of second units for which use permits are granted under this Article. Such review shall be conducted annually or at such other interval of time as may be specified by the Council. At each periodic review, the Council shall determine the limitation, if any, on the number of use permits for second units to be granted until the next scheduled review. The numerical limitation may be increased, decreased or retained by the City Council, based upon its review of the impacts caused by the creation of new second units and legalization of existing second units." SECTION 3: Paragraph (a) of Section 15- 56.110 in Chapter 15 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) The owner of any lot containing a second unit established prior to August 18, 1984 shall either discontinue such unit or apply for a use permit pursuant to this Article. The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, determined as follows: (1) If the lot is located within an A, HC -RD, NHR or any R -1 district except R -1- 10,000, the normal application fee charged as of December 31, 1985 shall be paid plus a like amount for each calendar year, or fraction thereof, which has elapsed from January 1, 1986 to the date of filing the application. 6088 (2) If the lot is located within the R -1- 10,000 district and the application is filed prior to January 1, 1987, the normal application fee charged as of the time of filing shall be paid; if the application is filed after January 1, 1987, the normal application fee charged as of December 31, 1986 shall be paid plus a like amount for each calendar year, or fraction thereof, which has elapsed from January 1, 1987 to the date of filing the application. An application shall be deemed 'filed' when the same is submitted to the Planning Director and accepted by the Director as being complete and all required fees and cost deposits have been paid in full." SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days from and after the date of 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 this day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:. ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK s s s MAYOR 0,111D7' ©2 0 'MO 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUES Planning Commission Planning Department AZO -86 -002 Eliminate the restriction on second units requiring the occupants be at least 60 years of age (Sec. 15 56.030(1), 1 5 56.040, 15- 56.110B -5) Noise and traffic impacts could increase with the elimination of age restriction; however, this can be controlled on a case -by- case basis through the conditional use permit. Approval of the change would provide additional housing opportunities for all socio- economic segments of the society and appeal to a larger rental market. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Negative Declaration. Recommend that the Council eliminate the references in the City Code requiring the occupant to be 60 years of age or older. Attachments: Negative Declaration Exhibit A Article 15 -56 Second Units Exhibit B Proposed Amendment re: Second Units as recommended to City Council. Exhibit C Memo from City Clerk dated 9/8/86 KC /dsc 1 DATE: 10/8/86 AGENDA if 0069 Sections: 15- 56.010 15- 56.020 15- 56.030 15- 56.040 15- 56.050 15- 56.060 15- 56.070 15- 56.080 15- 56.090 15- 56.100 15- 56.110 15- 56.120 Zoning Regulations ARTICLE 15 Statement of findings Use permit required Restrictions and standards Waiver or modification of owner occupancy and age restrictions Inspections Findings required for issuance of use permit Limitation on number of use permits Duration of use permit; use permit to run with land; certification of compliance Recordation of use permit Revocation of use permit Legalization of existing second units Illegal second units. sss Fxbit SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES S15 56.010 S15 56.010 Statement of findings The City recognizes that some of its existing housing resources could provide a cost effective method to deal with housing needs. However, there are. environmental and service constraints the City faces which limit the use of methods such as adding second dwelling units. In particular, such units would not be appropriate on hillside lots since these lots usually have environmental constraints on development. The use of second dwelling units is also limited by urban service capacity, public safety standards, traffic conditions, fire hazards, privacy impacts and compatibility with neighboring uses and structures. The following Article incorporates these limitations. S15- 56.020 Use permit required A second unit may be created or occupied only if a use permit has been granted for such second unit pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 and this Article. S15- 56.030 Restrictions and standards Only one second unit shall be permitted on any one lot. Each second unit shall comply with all of the following standards before a use permit may be granted: (a) The lot upon which the second unit will be created is located within an A, R HC or NHR district; provided, however, no second units shall be permitted: (1) On any lot within the R -1- 10,000 district, except a second unit Page 15 -149 0081 Zoning Regulations S15- 56.030 established prior to January 1, 1983, for which a use permit application is made pursuant to Section 15- 56.110 of this Article. (2) On any lot which is smaller than the minimum site area prescribed for the district wherein such lot is located, except a second unit established prior to January 1, 1983, upon a lot legally created and constituting a part of the City as of October 22, 1956, for which a use permit application is made pursuant to Section 15- 56.110 of this Article. (b) The lot upon which the second unit will be created does not have an average slope in excess of ten percent. (c) The second unit is no larger than eight hundred square feet of living space, not including the garage. (d) The second unit complies with applicable building, health and fire codes. (e) The second unit complies with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). No variances shall be granted for any new second unit to be constructed. (f) A minimum of one off street covered parking space is provided for the second unit in addition to the off street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (g) The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. (h) Except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 56.040, either the existing main dwelling or the second unit is occupied as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the main dwelling or the second unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization. (i) Except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 56.040, either the second unit or the existing main dwelling is occupied as the principal place of residence of a person sixty years of age or older or a person who is physically handicapped. (j) The second unit is served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (k) The second unit may not be occupied by more than two people as permanent living quarters. (1) If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second unit and the main dwelling must be served by a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (m) If the second unit is detached from the main dwelling, the lot upon which the second unit is located must be at least 1.6 times the minimum site area prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. Page 15 -150 6082 Zoning Regulations S15- 56.040 (n) The second unit shall comply with such other conditions or standards which, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. S15- 56.040 Waiver or modification of owner occupancy and age restrictions (a) The Planning Commission shall have authority to waive or modify the owner occupancy restriction as set forth in Subsection 15- 56.030(h), or the age restriction as set forth in Subsection 15- 56.030(i), or both of such restrictions, if the Commission determines that, by reason of special circumstances in a particular case, the application of such restrictions will result in extreme hardship upon the owner or occupant of the property. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary or appropriate in order to mitigate any actual or potential adverse impacts from the granting of a waiver or modification hereunder. (b) This Section shall apply to either a new or existing second unit for which a use permit is granted pursuant to this Article. S15-56.050 Inspections (a) Prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the proposed second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any construction or alteration work is completed. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the applicant. (b) Each second unit and a main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liability with respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the issuance of a second unit use permit constitute a representation or warranty by the City to the owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes. S15- 56.060 Findings required for issuance of use permit Sub' t to the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 15- 56.070, the Planning Commission may grant an application for a second unit use permit as applied for or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence Page 15 -151 6083 Zoning Regulations S15- 56.070 submitted, the Commission makes all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 55.070 of this Chapter and all of the following additional findings: (a) The proposed second unit complies with the standards described in Section 15- 56.030. (b) The proposed second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. (c) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. (d) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping. (e) The proposed second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion or overload existing public facilities or utilities. S15- 56.070 Limitation on number of use permits (a) During the first year after the effective date of this Article, a maximum number of twenty use permits for second units may be granted. Prior to the first anniversary of such effective date, the City Council shall review the impacts of the second units established under such use permits. A public hearing shall be conducted for this purpose. The City Council shall then determine the limitation, if any, on the number of use permits for second units to be granted during the next successive year or such longer period of time as may be specified until the next review by the City Council. The numerical limitation may be increased, decreased or retained by the City Council, based upon its review of impacts caused by the creation of new second units and legalization of existing second units. (b) During any period of time in which a limitation on the number of use permits for second units is imposed, all applications for such use permits shall be date stamped and consecutively numbered when received and permits shall be granted in the order of receipt. The Planning Director, or his representative, may decline to receive any application which is not accompanied by payment of the application fee and all information and documents described in Section 15- 55.040 of this Chapter. If a use permit is granted by the Planning Commission and the matter is thereafter appealed to the City Council, the use permit shall still be included within the numerical limitation unless and until the granting thereof is reversed by the City Council on appeal. If the application for such use permit is denied by the Planning Commission, such application shall not be included within the numerical limitation notwithstanding any appeal to the City Council; provided, however, in the event a use permit is granted by the City Council on appeal, such use permit shall have priority over applications granted subsequent to the date on which the City Council renders its decision. SI 5-56.080 Duration of use permit; use permit to run with land; certification of compliance (a) A second unit use permit may be granted for a specified period of time, Page 15 -152 0084 Zoning Regulations S15- 56.090 with or without the right to apply for extensions, or may be allowed to continue indefinitely for so long as the holder of such permit complies with the applicable restrictions and standards contained in this Article and the conditions of the use permit. Such use permit shall run with the land and the conditions thereof shall be binding upon all successive owners of the property on 'which the second unit is located for so long as the use permit remains in effect. (b) At each five year interval from the date a second unit use permit is granted, the holder of such permit shall certify to the Planning Director, on such form as he may prescribe, that the holder has complied and continues to comply with all of the applicable restrictions and standards of this Article and all conditions as set forth in the use permit. The Planning Director may request the holder to furnish such information and documents as the Director may deem necessary in order to verify the truth or accuracy of any statements contained in the certification. S15- 56.090 Recordation of use permit The original second unit use permit shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. All of the restrictions and conditions applicable to such use permit shall be set forth therein, together with the requirement for certification of compliance as provided in Subsection 15- 56.080(b). S15- 56.100 Revocation of use permit In addition to the grounds for revocation of a use permit as 15- 55.110 of this Chapter, the Planning Commission may revoke a second unit upon a finding that: (a) The second unit has failed to comply with any restrictions or standards contained in Section 15 56.030; or (b) The holder of the use permit has violated any of the conditions set forth' therein; or (c) The holder of the use permit has failed to provide a certification of compliance in accordance with Subsection 15 56.080(b); or (d) The owner of the property has failed to establish the second unit within a reasonable time after the granting of the use permit; or (e) The second unit has been eliminated through alteration of the structure in which such unit was contained; or (f) Any of the findings required under Paragraphs (b) or (e) of Section 15- 56.060 can no longer be made. Page 15 -153 set forth in Section any use permit for of the applicable S15- 56.110 Legalization of existing second units (a) The owner of any lot containing a second unit established prior to 00 Zoning Regulations 915- 56.100 August 18, 1984 shall either discontinue such unit or apply for a use permit pursuant to this Article. If such application is filed prior to December 31, 1985, the normal use permit application fee shall be charged. If such application is filed after January 1, 1986, then the normal application fee charged as of December 31, 1985 shall be paid plus a like amount for each calendar year, or fraction thereof, which has elapsed from January 1, 1986 to the date of filing the application. An application shall be deemed "filed" when the same is submitted to the Planning Director and accepted by the Director as being complete and all required fees and cost deposits have been paid in full. (b) In the case of applications for legalization of existing second units established prior to January 1, 1983, the Planning Commission shall have authority to modify the standards set forth in Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (1), (j) and (m) of Section 15- 56.030, provided the Commission is able to make all of the other findings required under Section 15- 56.060 for the existing second unit and subject to the following limitations: (1) Where a second unit is located upon a site having an average slope in excess of ten percent, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, that the second unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. (3) Provided that not less than three off street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for such covered parking space. In such event, the parking space for the second unit shall be screened from view from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site may be utilized as a parking space for the second unit. (4) Where a second unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his successors will be obligated to connect the second unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a sanitary sewer whenever the same becomes available and to pay his proportionate share of the installation cost. (5) The requirement of occupancy of either the second unit or the main dwelling by a person sixty years of age or older or by a person who is physically handicapped shall not apply to any tenant in lawful possesion of the premises as of August 18, 1984, and such tenancy may be continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. Page 15 -154 008E Zoning Regulations S15- 56.120 (c) Wherever in this Article the legalization of an existing second unit or the occupancy thereof depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. (d) Use permits for legalization of existing second units shall not be subject to or included within the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 15- 56.070. S15- 56.120 Illegal second units The establishment or continuance of a second unit without a use permit is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance. Any violation of this Article shall be subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. Page 15 -155 0087 OJFEW g2 1° I3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Deputy City Clerk Second Unit Ordinance As you recall, the Saratoga City Council, in May of this year, directed that an ordinance permitting new second units in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district be prepared. On September 3 the City Council; with two new members as a result of the last election, discussed the proposed ordinance. By a vote of 4 -1, the Council decided to refer to the Planning Commission the question of deleting the age restriction which is presently in the ordinance. The Planning Commission has 40 days in which to report back to the City Council. The Council intends to discuss the question of new second units in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district after the 40-day period has ended. cc: City Manager EXhi C DATE: Sept eer 8, 1986 RECEIVED SEP Li 1565 PLANNING DEPT. 0 6 9 0 3- 5/16/84 Miss Allen then spoke in favor of the long -term are ombudsman program, stating in answer to Councilmembers' questions that there were 415 long -term care residents in Saratoga and that the Saratoga facilities generally had a good reaction to the program. Gerry Wells spoke in support of funding for Volunteer Saratoga at a slightly higher level than last year. Laurie Goppell spoke in support of the Live Oak Adult Day Care Center and answered Councilme'nbers questions about costs per user and number of Saratogans using the facility. Richard Drake, 20509 Gordon Ct., spoke in favor of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council's funding request, saying staff hours and salary needed to be increased and a health screening program needed t be established. In answer to councilmemoers' questions, he described the screening program and stated that dues had been increasing. Barbara Campbell spoke in favor of the County Library funding request ember Mallory requested budget figures for the last five years. Judith Sutton spoke in favor of funding for the Valley Institute for Theater Arts. She described the program and answered COuncilmembers' questions. Charles Martin spoke as Manager of the Saratoga Community Garden. He stated that the Garden staff still disagreed with the Oddfellows home about use of certain buildings, but that parking problems in nearby residential area had been solved. Dorothy Diekmann spoke as Business Manager of the Is Gatos Saratoga High Shool District She supported funding of handicapped access in public areas of Saratoga High School and answered Councilmembers' questions. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m; The Council then recessed until 9:59 p.m. B. Consideration of Housing Element; Introduction of Second Unit Ordinance City Attorney explained revisions in proposed second unit ordinance and discussed several points concerning enforcement of the prohibition against illegal second units. He also noted the possibility of some restrictions, such as those on age and number of units, being found invalid in court. The public hearing was opened at 10:13 p.m. Jessie Maguire rose to ask for clarification on the question of variances for second units. City Attorney explained that variances were to be allowed only for pre existing units and then only on certain aspects of the second unit. Mildred Gordon, President of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, expressed general satisfaction with the revised ordinance but suggested that the minimum age limit for occupancy of a second unit be reduced to 55. Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista, spoke as a citizen of Saratoga. He opposed second units but was pleased that if an ordinance allowing second units was to be adopted it would include strict limitations. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clemson, suggested that a newsletter be sent out informing Saratogans of the proposed ordinance and that the public hearing be continued. CounciLnember Fanelli, noting that Mr. Nellis' concern might be with existing second units in the Quito area, stated that such units could not be approved in an R -1- 10,000 area and would thus be abated. Mr. Nellis then stated that if the Council did not wish such units to be abated, they should not provide for that. Joan Nelson, 18644 Bucknall Rd., spoke as a homeowner. She stated that there were several existing units in the R 1- 10,000 area which were attractive and not causing problems. She expressed concern as to their possible abatement. Russ Crowther spoke as a Planning Commissioner; he expressed concern with the changes by the Council. He feared that specifying enclosed rather than covered parking might encourage carports. He suggested that the ordinance contain a provision that if the limit on annual number of permits issued or the age limit we 0091 4- 5/16/84 could be voted upon. He also favored a ceiling of 300 second units in the City on the basis of environmental and public safety considerations, with the limit not to be exceeded except by a vote of the citizens. Councilmember Callon noted that if part of the ordinance were declared invalid, the ordinance could simply be amended. Councilmember Fanelli said she felt a moratorium would be out of context, and if the ordinance were declared invalid it would return to the attention of the Council in any case. She also opposed a moratorium because as proposed it would go into effect automatically without giving the Council an opportunity to take action. Councilmember Mallory brought up the possibility of placing a cap of 300 second units allowed in Saratoga; Councilmember Callon believed the public hearing and use permit process provided enough protection so that a cap was unnecessary. He then suggested that the date before which a second unit had to be established in order to be considered for a variance for legalization be changed to January 1, 1983. He further suggested that the requirement for covered parking be changed to enclosed. Other Councilmembers noted that only covered parking was required for single family residences, and that enclosed parking might be more obtrusive. Councilmember Mallory also suggested a limit on the number of cars and a statement in the ordinance that it was to be rigorously enforced. There was no consensus to do so. Councilmember Clevenger commented that a newsletter should be sent out so that the citizens would be informed as to developments, especially the requirement for legalizing existing second units. Councilmember Mallory further suggested that second units be restricted to the R- 1- 20,000 district and above, and that they not be permitted on lots 1.3 or less times the size of the minimum lot in the district. Councilmember Fanelli opposed setting arbitrary limits at this point, when it is not known how many units exist and what their impact is. Mayor Moyles then brought up the question of the R -1- 10,000 district, and there was consensus to prohibit second units in that district. Councilmembers Callon and Fanelli expressed concern about possible abatement of existing second units in the R -1- 10,000 district. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:25 p.m. CALION/NOYLES MOVED 1O ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON GF -344. Passed 5 -0. MOYLES /CALLON MOVED TO READ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3 BY ADDING ARTICLE 16A RELATING TO SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5 -0. MOYLES/CALLON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE. Passed 3 -2 (Clevenger, Mallory opposed). CAL ON/FAN> LLI MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 16A.4 A PROVISION IS ADDED TO THE EFFECT THAT NO VARIANCES WILL BE GRANTED FOR NEW SECOND UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTW; IN PARAGRAPH H THE AGE IS CHANGED TO 60; IN SECTION 16A.11 PARAGRAPH B IS CHANGED TO APPLY TO EXISTING SECOND UNITS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1983. Passed 5 -0. FANELLI /CALLON MOVED TO AMEND SECTION 16A.11 TO ALLOW EXISTING SECOND UNITS IN THE R -1- 10,000 DISTRICT TO BE PLACED UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS OTHER ILLEGAL UNITS IN THE CITY. Failed 2 -3 (Clevenger, Mallory, Moyles opposed). c CALLDN /MALLORY MOVED THAT IF PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING RESTRICTION TO SENIORS ONLY OR THE NUMERICAL RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF SECOND UNITS SHOULD BE HELD INVALID IN A COURT OF LAW, A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF FURTHER SEOND UNIT USE PERMITS WOULD BE IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS, DURING WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW THE ORDINANCE TO SEE IF IT SHOULD BE MODIFIED. Passed 4 -1 (Fanelli opposed). Councilmember Clevenger noted that she was concerned about the difficulty and cost of enforcement of the proposed ordinance; possibility of illegality of some provisions; possibility of the ordinance's changing the residential character of Saratoga. Councilmember Callon commented that although the State thrust the necessity for the ordinance on the City she felt the proposed ordinance was a good•crnpromise and a conservative approach; she also was pleased at the opportunity to fulfill a need in the community with extensive input,frcm citizens. 0092 5- 5/16/84 Mayor Moyles felt there were risks involved with the ordinance, but he felt the goals were worth the risks. Councilmember Mallory expressed appreciation at the handling of the discussion of the ordinance. Although he felt it was not consistent with the desires of the citizens, he felt it was a step forward. He preferred the original ordinance recommended by the Planning Cai ission. Councilmember Callon suggested that a newsletter be sent out during the 30-day waiting period before the effective date of the ordinance to inform citizens about it. Mayor Moyles commented that it should be mailed to the prcperty owners so that those who were responsible would have notice. City Manager stated that a newsletter was to be sent out before the end of June, and notification of the second unit ordinance could be included in it. He was not sure that the prcperty owners list could be used, but stated he would find out. FANELLI /CALLON MOVED TO ADOPT IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REVISED FANE /MOYLES MOVED 20 ADOPT GENERAL PLAN. Passed 5 -0. RESOLUTION 2147 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL HOUSING FTF. ¢g T OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Passed 5 -0. RESOLUTION 430.3 ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE C. Consideration of Special Tax for Road Maintenance City Manager explained issues. Councilmember Fanelli brought up the question of property tax relief for seniors and asked whether the proposed tax could be included in that program and whether vacant land could be removed from the list of parcels to be taxed. City Manager stated that any screening of the assessor's parcel list was estimated to cost $4000, and only the County could perform it. In answer to Councilmember Mallory, Mr. Toppel stated that the pavement management program was not referred to in the documents because it would not appear in the ballot pamphlet, and reference to it might cause confusion. The public hearing was opened at 11:55 p.m. E. T. Fargo, Camino Barco, suggested that the measure not be placed on the November ballot because of the proposed County sales tax increase which was to appear on the same ballot. Alan Aspey, Lolly Ct., expressed the opinion that a flat per parcel tax was inequitable. Dale McIntyre, President of the Brookview Haneowners Association, opposed the tax as being unnecessary and stated that the public should be given more information about it. No one further appearing to speak, at 12:05 a.m. Councilmember Fanelli and Mayor Moyles moved and seconded to close the public hearing. (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted upon immediately, and, after the discussion below, was withdrawn.) Councilmember Clevenger expressed concern about having the proposed tax on the November ballot along with the County's proposed sales tax increase. Mayor Moyles felt there would never be a favorable time for a tax issue, so it might as well be placed on the November ballot. Councilmember Fanelli also supported the November ballot, with a lower tax the first year. Councilmembers discussed the possibility of hold a special election at a time other than November. Ernie Kraule, Chief of the Saratoga Fir District, stated that the district had found it possible to conduct a special election by mail without excessive costs. Deputy City Clerk reported that she had little current information on such elections but noted that it might not be possible to conduct one on a particular date. City Manager noted that a mail ballot conducted by San Diego was on an advisory issue, not a tax, and it had been challenged in court. Deputy City Clerk noted that costs of a non consolidated election would be significantly higher than those fora consolidated election. Councilmember Clevenger suggested that an appeal process be included in the tax measure. Mayor Moyles felt an appeal process would be impractical. Councilmember is o n Callon ro would that staff determine whether a State ro property tax relief provision for seniors would apply to the proposed special tax. Councilmember Fanelli stated that since the City Ma nag r d that differentiating between parcels would be a long and G093 a 2- 6/6/84 Mr. Tbppel of the City Attorney's Office explained the proposed settlement. Councilmember Mallory felt the number of lots granted exceeded that in the original map. MOYLES/FA\ T T MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2152 APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE PROVISION THAT IT BE WITHDRAWN IF NOT SIGNED WITHIN TAT DAYS BY ALL PARTIES. Passed 5 0. 3. Agreement for Settleme,)c of T1::erli.1% aL al. 's. Saratoga Mr. Tbppe1 explained the proposed settlement. Council agreement because he felt it went beyond the intention of t cpPland an yhe adding lots in exchange for public improvements. Counci Specific Plan mm that the agreement was the best compromise which could be worked out und commented te circumstances. FAQ- I /MOYI S MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2153 APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREMEENTT Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed). B. REPORTS FROM COMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES 1. Report fray Councilmember Clevenger Regarding Hakone Foundation Councilmemher Clevenger reported on progress of Hakone Foundation and asked Council to authorize further action. FANELLI /CLE'VENGER MOVED TO REQUEST THAT BILL GLEV140N PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL DO TO ESTABLISH THE HAKONE FOUNDATION. Passed 5 -0. 2. Report from Planning Commission to Modify CC &R's for Tr. 6526 and 6528 (Parker Ranch) Planner Kerdus explained request to modify CC &R's, noting that this was expected to be the last amendment allowing more lots to have swimming pools. In answer to Councilmember Callon, Bill Heiss, who had submitted the request, stated that about j 50°% of the lots would have pools if the amendment were allowed. Councilmember Callon also commented that the original concept was to restrict individual pools and encourage community facilities. F) EI /.`IOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA BILL 649 REOOMMENDING MODIFICATION TO CC &R'S. Passed 5 -0. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Second Unit Ordinance (second reading) Mr. seconded Toppel r the their ordinance. Mayor Moyles and Councilmenber Callon moved and note: The motion was not voted u title only, waiving further reading. (Clerk's to on and was later wi thdrawn.) Councilmember Fanelli brought up the possibility of allowing the legalization of existing second units in the R- 1- 10,000 district under the same conditions as in other districts. She felt the ordinance as written was punitive, since it requir compliance without providing a method for compliance in that district. Councilmember Clevenger felt that the decision that second units should not be allowed on such small lots had been reached after much discussion, and it was a appropriate decision; Council ember Mallory agreed. After further discussion, the motion to read the ordinance by title only was withdrawn. MOYLM /C:,tLGN "own TO CONTINUE THE ITEH TO THE A Z E1.T 10 EE PIrySIC:.LLY ATT�1CfiED '10 THE PROPOSED R S AND WITH PROPOSED ALL THE GaOUPS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY PARTICIPATED. sled ORDINANCE, lep WITH NOTICE opposed). Passed 3 -2 (Clevenger, g Mallory 2. :'._vi ::ice to Ordinance :S -3, subsection 13A.7(a) (7), Desi PesiCVntial St n ctures (C -208) (second reading) gn Review of moVID HEADING. -U. AN x::8)1.. AL „q 3,57 BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER 6094 7- 6/20/84 J Concerning the eucalyptus grove, Community Development Director stated that the trees had depended upon a leaking cistern which had been removed when the area was developed; they were not in their natural habitat and had declined when the cistern was removed. Councilmembers discussed the siting of the home, its impact on views, and whether findings could be made to grant the application. Councilmember Callon opposed the siting of the house so that it was visible over the ridge line. Although it had less impact than some other houses, she said, it should not be built. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she could not make the findings, feeling that the house was unreasonably bulky and interfered with the natural landscape. Councilmember Hlava, noting that she had voted for the application when on the Planning Commission, felt the impact on visibility was not excessive because most of the house was on the other side of the ridge from the appellant A one -story design, she felt, could have more impact because it would require more impervious coverage. MOYLES /CT.EVENGER MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE RIDGELINES. Passed 3 -2 (Fanelli, Hlava opposed). Councilmember Fanelli noted that the applicant would have to apply for a new design review permit. Council and Bill Heiss discussed possible relocation of the house. Kurt Anderson stated that if he had to repeat the design review process and pay the fees again he would not be able to build the house. CALtON /MOYII'S MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION. Passed 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed). CALIAN /MOYL£S MOVED TO REDIRECT TIC APPLICANT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW WITHIN THE FOLLOWING PARAME ERS: THE HOUSE MUST NOT PROJECT ABOVE THE RIDGE LINE; VEGETATION MUST BE PLANTED TO SCREEN THE HOUSE. Passed 5 -0. C. Second Unit Ordinance (first reading requ;red because of substantial change at previous first reading) Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office explained changes in ordinance. Cauncilmember Moyles expressed concern over the Council's being required to act as a fryer of fact to determine whether particular second units existed before January 1, 1983. Mr. Toppel suggested adding to the 120 -day requirement on p. 6 a provision that application for legitimization of an existing second unit would have to be submitted within one year. Councilmember Moyles agreed that a longer "window" would be necessary, as well as thorough noticing of the community so that everyone involved would have an opportunity to apply for legitimization. Councilmember Hlava stated that she opposed adding second units in the area served by Pierce Road. The public hearing was opened at 12:25 a.m. Armand DiGiovanni, 21931 Via Regina, stated that he had two units on his lot, which had an average slope over 10% and was served by septic tanks, and asked whether the situation were legal. Mr. Toppel explained that Mr. DiGiovanni would not be allowed to have a kitchen in the second structure because it would then be considered a second unit which did not meet the conditions for legitimization. Furthermore, he said, the fact that the structure was built before incorporation of the City would place the unit under the non conforming ordinance, which requires removal of a non- conforming structure and discontinuance of a non conforming use after a certain period of time. Bill Notz, 18276 Purdue Drive, spoke as President of the Sunland Park Homeowners Association.. He stated that the association opposed second units in the R 1- 10,000 zoning district because they would have too much impact. Winifred Tyler, 20710 Carmel Ave., spoke as legislative chair of the Los -Gatos Saratoga American Association of University Women. She stated the the Executive Board supported the second unit ordinance, especially the legitimization of existing second units in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district, since it preserved safe housing which was already in use. They opposed limiting occupancy based on age. Margaret Russell stated that she lived in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district and opposed second units because of parking difficulties. Mayor Fanelli pointed out that the only second units to be allowed in that district were existing ones. Richard Drake, 20509 Gordon Ct., spoke for the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating 0095 V"' 8- 6/20/84 Council. They supported the ordinance as amended. Kay Toevs inquired as to second units existing before the incorporation of the City. Mr. 4bppel explained that they would have to meet the requirements of the ordinance in order to be legitimized. In answer to Mayor Fanelli, Mr. Toppel explained that second units were not allowed on substandard sized lots. Bert Toevs inquired as to the retroactivity of the ordinance as applied to second units which cannot be legitimized, stating that lawsuits might result similar to those filed as a result of Measure A. Mr. Toppel explained that the non-conforming ordinance gave the City the right to require removal of non conforming uses or structures; there was no relation whatsoever to Measure A. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 12:48 a.m. Councilmember Callon suggested a number of reductions in permitted variances so that impact would be lessened. Mayor Fanelli pointed out that these variances were not automatically granted by the Planning Commission; if the impact were too great, the variance could be denier. Councilmember Hiava stated that she understood that very few lots would be affected by the proposed reductions, at least in Sunland Park. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT IN PARAGRAPH A, SECTION 16A.11, A SENTENCE IS ADDED READING, "NO USE PERMIT MAY BE GRANTED FOR AN EXISTING SECOND UNIT UNLESS APPLICATION FOR SUCH USE PERMIT IS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE." Passed 5-0. MOYLFS/HLAVA MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE AS READ BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 4 (Clevenger opposed). Councilmember Hiava noted that the ordinance provided for review of the ordinance one year after adoption. She suggested that staff maintain empirical data on which the Council could base its review. City Manager replied that staff intended to do so. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Communications, if any None. B. Written Communications from the Public #1 from B. Kelly objecting to denial of tree removal request noted and filed. Mr. Toppel explained that he had written Mr. Kelly that caring for the tree was the landowner's responsibility. #2 from, two residents objecting to elimination of single can garbage service because it discourages recycling noted and filed. #3 from N. Behel objecting to new garbage policy because of its effect on seniors noted and filed. #4 from K. Eshleman, AAUW, requesting fee waiver for use of Community Center to be agendized at a study session. C. New Business from Councilmanbers Fanelli stated that City Manager would prepare a chart showing committee assignments, so Councilmembers should consider where they wished to serve. She also requested that they make notes on items to be considered at their next sessions. D. New Business from Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled City Manager reported that the City was about to begin an extensive road maintenance program; if complaints were received, they should be referred to staff. He submitted the Median landscape Master Plan prepared by Callendar and Associates and asked that Council review it for discussion in the next few months. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, j' ��''1/ 009E 3- 7/18/84 4. Ordinance Adding Article 16A to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Second Units as Conditional Uses in Certain Zoning Districts (second reading) Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's Office explained a wording, change he had submitted which clarified Council's intent; existing second units on non conforming lots established before the City's incorporation were to be permitted, subject to all other requirements of the ordinance. Councilmembers agreed that that had been their intent, and Dir. Toppel stated that the first reading would not need to be repeated. MOYLES /HLAVA MOVED TO READ ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO CTARIFICATION OF CITY ATTORNEY, BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5 -0. MDYLFS/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NS3.59. Passed 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed). Councilmember Clevenger, noting that she had explained her opposition to the ordinance in the past, made no further statements on the matter. Councilmembers discussed communicating with the Planning Commission on interpretation of the ordinance, and Mayor Fanelli directed staff to send the Commission a memorandum stating that their application of the ordinance should be strictly according to the provisions of the ordinance. Councilmembers then discussed disseminating information about the ordinance. There was tentative consensus to publish the ordinance in the Saratoga News in full, to send the residents of Saratoga the newsletter which had been prepared and to send property owners notification, if staff indicated that the costs were not excessive. 5. Resolution of Intention to Abandon a Portion of Riverdale Drive CALLON/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2161. Passed 5 -0. 6. Resolution Favoring the Reduction of Alternatives to be Studied for the Development of Route 85 and Recommending Guidelines for the Alternatives Analysis Councilmember Clevenger suggested the resolution be amended to show that if the Policy Advisory Board supported study of an eight -lane freeway, the light rail -only alternative should also be studied. There was consensus to do so. CLEVEVGER/HLAVA MOVED TO AMEND AS SUGGESTED AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2162. Passed 5 -0. 7. Resolution Appointing Council Representatives to Various Committees and Agencies Councilmember Moyles stated that he was willing to relinquish the position of alternate to Sanitation District #4 Board to Councilmember Clevenger. Other Councilmembers acquiesced, and the resolution was so amended. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AMEND AS SUGGESTED AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2163. Passed 5 -0. 8. Resolution establishing Finance Charge, Administrative Charge and Special Assessment Charge on Delinquent Accounts for Garbage Collection MOYLES/FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2164. Passed 4 -0 -1 (Hlava abstaining). 9. Resolution Approving County -Wide Multiple Casualty Incident Plan CLEVE GER/MOYLESS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2165. Passed 5 -0. D. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 1. Purchase of Backhoe Attachment IHAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF BACKHOE ATTACHMENT. Passed 5 -0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Communications, if any. 0097 4- 5/1/85 Mrs. Protiva rose again to state that the property owned by Mr. Grodhaus and Ms. Smith did not border her lot. She also disputed the statements that her house touched the property line, saying that it was as much as 12' from the line. M rs. Coughlan rose again to state that the Protiva house was 6' to 8' from the property line. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. In answer to Councilmember Mbyles, staff explained that according to a 1978 map on which the lot lines might not be accurate, the Protiva house was about 1' from the Lot 11 property line and did encroach on Lot 13. Councilmsnber Clevenger inquired as to the precedent cited by Mrs. Protiva, and staff replied that the house mentioned was on Carniel. Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's office recornpsded that the Council judge each case on its merits rather than relying on precedents. He then explained the Council's options to grant, deny, continue, grant conditionally the appeal or request further modification of the design. Councilmembers discussed issues, saying that Oak Place is one of the few historic neighborhoods left in Saratoga; the main issue is design, not just height or set backs. Counciimember Hlava commented that she had been on the Planning Comm ssion when the original design was discussed, and the discussion centered around an even smaller house. She felt the long side of the house with the 6' setback should be adjacent to the developer. Councilmember Moyles pointed out that modern standards would not allow the houses to be built as in the past. He preferred to. err on the side of preserving the character of the neighborhood. He stated a willingness to grant the Protiva appeal if Mrs. Protiva merged the two lots. After further discussion, Mayor Fanelli asked Mrs. Protiva if she preferred to have the Council act on the proposed design, with the understanding that if her appeal were denied she would have to return to the beginning of the approval process; or if she preferred to return to the Council with a new design which met the guidelines of' the Planning Commission. Mayor Fanelli summarized the Council's view that the design should be compatible with the neighborhood, meet the height and setback and requirements with respect to the immediate neighbors, and be within the 2,380 square feet allowed by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Protiva stated that she could return to the Council with a new design on June 5; it was pointed out that if either she or the staff were not fully prepared by then, the hearing could again be continued. Councilmember bbyles added that he would be accessible to discuss the design with Mrs. Protiva in order to avoid her developing a design which he would feel bound to vote against. CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 5. Mayor Fanelli then recessed the meeting from 9 :11 to 9:28 p.m. B. Consideration of Revisions of Second Unit Ordinance Mr. Toppel explained the proposed changes, which primarily liberalized restrictions on existing second units, represented the apparent consensus of the Council at study sessions. He noted that the Second Unit Ordinance was to be before the Plannin Crnmission May 22, and that the purpose of this hearing was simply to gain public input, not to take action. He then answered questions on the ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. John Cahill, 12077 Carol Lane, expressed satisfaction with the flexibility of the compared ordinance as coared to the current ordinance. He favored more flexibility, however, as to the requirement for owner occupancy. Barbara Simper spoke as President of the rpigu of Warne Voters. She stated that the League favored preservation of current housing stock, including existing Second units. Louise Cooper, Mt. Eden Rd., suggested consideration of liberalizing restrictions-on new second units in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. 0093 5- 5/1/85 Charles Bolander rose to state that there were more young applicants for his second unit than older applicants. He opposed the age restrictions. Harriet Handler, 13385 Ronnie Ave., spokein favor of liberalizing the ordinance, saying that the lot size restrictions prevented establishment of much needed second units. No one further appearing to speak, the hearing was closed at 10 :08 p.m. Mayor Fanelli summed up the questions to be referred to the Planning Commission as follows: 1. Is 1.6 acres too much to require for a new accessory structure? 2. Is the penalty for not applying for a permit high enough? t Is the owner occupancy requirement appropriate? Is the age requirement appropriate? 5. Should more than one second unit be allowed on a property? 6. Should second units be allowed on R -1- 10,000 lots which are larger than the basic requirement for that district? Specific comments concerning the questions were as follows: #3 Callon felt the requirement to be necessary, with perhaps a one -year grace period if an owner has owned the property for a long period of time. Hlava agreed with Callon and pointed out that deleting the requirement would result in two rental units on one lot. Clevenger brought up the possibility of deleting the requirement if the owner lived next door, but other Councilmembers felt such a provision would be too complicated to enforce. Fanelli stated that there was some consensus for owner occupancy, but that the issue was still open to Planning Commission review. #4 Callon wished to retain the requirement, since the issue had initially come to the Council from seniors who wanted to remain in their own homes or move into someone else's second unit; she felt the seniors tended to be good neighbors and cause less impact due to noise and cars. Fanelli noted that age groups other than seniors need housing and that the age requirement might be legally unenforceable in any case. Moyles expressed opposition to the age requirement. Hlava wished to be cautious in making a major change to the ordinance such as deleting the age require- ment until we have more experience with second units. Fanelli stated that the majority of the Council apparently wished to keep the age requirement. #5 Fanelli felt that this could be accomplished by rezoning rather than changing the ordinance. Callon pointed out that the purpose of the second unit ordinance is not to create multi residential housing in single family areas; an owner wishing to do so has other options such as subdividing, rezoning, or moving a unit to another lot. #6 Fanelli believed that an existing unit created by dividing a house without remodeling the exterior would not cause a problem and should be allowed. Callon felt they could be considered for new second units. Clevenger felt that this would be the district in which second units could have the greatest undesirable impact. Callon stated that there were only a few lots in the district which would be larger than the basic requirements, so not many second units could be added. Fanelli believed that most second units in Saratoga are on small lots and do not impact the neighborhoods adversely. Hiava favored having the Planning Commission look at the issue in terms of what size lot would be allowable. Councilmember Clevenger then asked about the cap provision; Mr. Thppel of the City Attorney's Office replied that the cap of 20 new units per year was still in the ordinance, and far fewer than that have been granted. He expected more applications if the ordinance were liberalized, but not an inundation. Councilmember Moyles requested that the Council comments after the close of the public hearing be transcribed in detail to give the Planning Commission the direction of the Council's thoughts. He favored creating two classes of second units: those existing before August 1983, which would be treated on the basis of compliance with health and safety considerations; those established after that date, which would have to comply with stricter standards. He was concerned about legitimizing existing units and wished to make it easier by deleting the owner occupancy requirement and allowing multiple units if they have caused no offense to the neighborhood. 0099 6- 5/1/85 Harriet Handler rose again to ask how to apply for a second unit. Mayor Fanelli IC answered her questions, and Ms. Handler stated that second units have little impact on the neighborhood. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Oral Caammications, if any None. B. Written Cammtmications from the Public #1 fran Louise Pahl requesting recognition of National Nursing Home Week. f E t/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2234 CONCERNING NATIONAL NURSING HOME WEEK. Passed 5 -0. C. New Business from Staff, Administrat ve Reports not Scheduled City Manager brought up the request from the Foothill Club for waiver of fees for their Memorial Day Parade. CLEVENGER/MYLES MOVED TO WAIVE FEES FOR MEMORIAL DAY PARADE. Passed 5 -0. City Manager then noted that he had appointed Clement O. Ford as Deputy City Treasurer for the period May 1 through October 1, since the Finance Director, who acted as Deputy Treasurer, was resigning. He asked for an appropriation of funds to cover Mr. Ford's salary,' saying that the salary was only a token amount. Councilmember Callon asked that Mr. Ford's qualifications be stated, and City Mana- ger replied that there were no statutory qualifications, but that Mr. Ford is a retired accountant and had been taking care of sane of the duties of the Deputy Treasurer on a volunteer basis. In answer to Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney's office, he stated that Mr. Ford was not qualified to be Deputy Finance Director. Councilmember Hlava remarked that she was somewhat bothered by having a non -City employee do this type of work and would therefore abstain fran voting. CALLON/MOYLIS MOVED TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR SALARY OF DEPUTY TREASURER. Passed 4 -0 (Hlava abstaining). D. New Business from Council members Callon brought up the possibility of passing a resolution on Warren in Business. GALLON /CLEVENGE2 MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2235 CONCERNING WOMEN IN BUSINESS. Passed 5 -0. Callon brought up a letter from Floyd Steinberg concerning removal of a tree. Mayor Fanelli reported that the remover had been required to replace the tree with a 15- gallon tree. Staff explained that the dispute had care about because of conflicting information as to whether the tree was on Mr. Steinberg's property or his neighbor's. Hlava suggested that a resolution ctu. tending Dr: Paul V. Collins, retiring Superintendent of the Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District be adopted. There was consensus to do so at the next meeting. reported on an upcoming Joint Powers Agreement meeting concerning Transit Assist. Clevenger reported that most of the school districts contacted had responded to the school site survey, and recommendations could be made soon. Fanelli reported that the Council was to meet with the Board of Trustees of West Valley Joint Community College District the next night; Clevenger noted that she would be attending the Peninsula Division League of California Cities meeting instead. E. Action Referral Log No comments. 0 0 f :F? City of Saratoga Saratoga, California Dear Mayor Hlava and Councilnembers: Starting as of now, Granny Units in R 1-10,000 this is what I perceive, using myself "as a case in point!" I live in a 10,000 zoned area, on a lot less than 10,000 square feet. If you do not slam the door shut, if I were permitted to apply for .a use permit, if it's a case by case consideration, this is what my lot would offer, a fig tree, a cherry tree, lime, lemon, pomegranate ripening at different times two peach trees, two nectarine trees, two •orange, two pltm, two pear, two persimmon, two apple. The lot •contains three raised vegetable beds, for "intensive" gardening. Four flower beds, and three varieties of grapes. A young avocado tree and a new hyrid, pear and peach combined. "The unit would consist of three rooms, (two entrances) A vaulted, beamed ceiling, A string of windows across two walls, facing the yard and orchard, a large, handsome bathroom, and a comfortable bedroom. And strawberries all •through the Spring. I emphasize --its not the size of the lot but its quality. These lets have served growing families, one after the other, Why now suffer the question as to whether it would support two, or three adults??? The issue is Seniors living alone, or husband and wife, without adequate income (for whatever reason) in under utilized homes' Five use permits a year Legitimized by the .Council at a, Public Hearing. And inspected, approved by the Planning Canmission. The issue is not lot size, appropriateness is not determined by lot size alone it is only one consideration, if a use permit is judged on it's own merit, making it fair for all to apply. It has never been tried Senior limited housikg, lift the restrictions, unwind the red tape collect your fees, check, and recheck for code and violations, but please, let's not get bogged down againi If a residence remains "as is" no add-ons, no additional free- standing structure, to house one or two Sennrs and if approved by the Planning Commission and formerly housed a growing family, surely that should be the criteria. The issue is Senior housing not lot sizel Yes, the City must have "guide lines' but, the goal is legalized Senior Housing, in present under ulitized existing homes. It has never been tried, egally in R 1-10,000 on lots as they now exist, if they prove to be a problem (you won't know, until tried) (you're testing with five) the ordinance can be rescindedl Thank You for "hearing" me. Thank you for your considerations. I so hope for a favorable decision. October 31, 1986 (,:,1 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 9 -26 -86 (10- 15 -86) DEPT.: Inspection Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE, SDR -1536, THOMAS WHITNEY, 14880 SOBEY ROAD Summary: The public improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Memo 2. Resolution No. 36 -B- Council Action Recommended Action: Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject tract CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 11) MEMOIRANIDUM Address: Type: Amount: Issuing Co: Address: 5. Special Remarks: TO: City Council FROM Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Thomas Whitney, 14880 Sobey, SDR -1536 Location: 14880 Sobey Road The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1536, 14880 Sobey Rd. has expired and all`deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion 36-B- which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: Thomas Whitney 287 Mapache Dr., Portal Valley, CA. 94025 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3. Improvement Security: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Security Bond $25,500 Great Western Savings 199 Main St. 4. Miles of Public Street: Los Altos, CA. 94022 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 308- 508046 -7 .025 Miles June 11, 1985 DATE: Sept. 26, 1986 Robert S. Shook AGE'N'DA BILL NO. 0401_ DATE: 9 -25 -86 (10- 15 -86) DEPARTMENT: Inspection Services SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SD -1598, DAVE FLICK, 14411 QUITO ROAD Issue Summary The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site. Release cash bond Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action CITY ue SARAIUGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. 4.fi\ MEMORANDUM 14411 Quito Road 1. Bond Type: CASH 2. Amount: $4700 3. Receipt, Bond or certificate no.: 8778 Issue Bond release to: Name: Address: P.O. Rox Cr Robert Shook 0E27 gg °ArE 13777 FRU1TVAL1i AVENUE SARA'I'OGA. CALIFORNIA Oso7o -108) 8137 -3.138 TO: Finance Dept. FROM: Inspection Services SUBJECT: Bond Release for: SD 1598, Dave Flick DATE: Sept. 25, 1986 The work guaranteed by the bond listed below has been satisfactorily completed. I am, therefore, requesting that bond be released as follows: 4. Date Posted: 11 5. Bond posted by: Dave Flick 6. Work guaranteed: road improvements and construction 7. Account Number: 0001 -1045 Dave Flick Los Gatos, CA. 95030 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 9 -25 -86 (10- 15 -86) DEPT. Inspection Services CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE, TRACT 6766, PINN BROS. Summary: The public improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Memo 2. Resolution No 36 -B- Recommended Action: CITY OF SARATOGA Grant "Final Acceptance" to the subject tract. Council Action AGENDA ITEM 4 MEMORANDUM RANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract 6766 SDR (Final Acceptance) Location: Jamestown All improvements required of Tract 6766 and agreed to in the Improvement Agreement Agreement dated June 18, 1980 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Pinn Bros 2. Improvement Security: RSS /dsm Type: CASH Amount: $7500 Address: 3. Special Remarks: G off 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Address: 24 70 S. Winchester Blvd., Campbell Issuing Co.: Woodgate Homes DATE: Sept. 25, 1986 2470 S. Winchester Blvd., Campbell Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 54577 Rober S. Shook RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS JAMES TOWN It appearing that on or about May 19, 1980 the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviison map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub- divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No. 6766 recorded in Book 466 of Maps, at Page 19 2,0 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on July 8, 1980 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de- clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain. Improvement Bond No. 54577 dated June 18, 1980 and issued by Woodgate Homes The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the 15th day of Oc-toher 19 86 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR SUMMARY: CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. S AGENDA ITE4 0 rf DATE: 10/6/86 (10/15/86) DEPT.: Planning DR -86 -015, V -86 -005 Gregory, Appeal of the Planning Commission decision SUBJECT: to deny the variance application to reduce the sidyard setback from 6 ft. to 3 ft. for a detached garage and require the remodeled,home have an asphalt shingle roof.. 1. On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request for design review approval of plans to allow the conversion of a single story dwelling to two -story (53% expansion in floor area) and variance request to allow the construction of a detached garage to within 3 ft. of the side lot line where 6 ft. is required. 2. The Planning Commission took public testimony at the hearing and discussed the proposal. The Commission felt the addition was well designed and that an asphalt shingle roof would be more compatible with adjacent properties. The Commission was unable to make the required findings for the variance and cited fire protection and emergency access concerns with having a structure located so close to the property line. 3. On September 22, 1986, the applicant appealed the Planning Commissions' decision to deny the variance and require an asphalt shingle roof for the reasons stated on his appeal application. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Staff report to Planning Commission dated 9/10/86 3. Appeal letter 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 9/10/86 5. Plans 6. Correspondence RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal and affiriin the decision of the Planning Commission. COUNCIL ACTION: Granted. apeaI,-.on roof, allowing cedar shingles; motion to uphold Planning Commission on garage ssue "failed 2 -2,. -and this issue was thus automatically continued to 11/5. ilzonS or LTco REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Y 1( uek Hsia P1 ning Director M UT ©2 BACKGROUND: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The appellant, James Gregory, wishes to remodel the existing single family dwelling and construct a new detached garage at 14684 Oak St. A cedar shake roof is proposed for both the main dwelling and garage. In addition, the appellant proposes to locate the detached garage to within 3 ft. of the left side property line where a 6 ft. setback is required pursuant to City Code Section 15- 65.160. On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the appellant's request. The Planning Commission approved DR- 86 -015 and agreed with staff's recommendation to require asphalt shingles as the roofing material. In making the design review findings required by City Code 15- 45.040, the Planning Commission felt that the remodeled home would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood if an asphalt shingle roof was used. In addition, the Planning Commission denied the variance request because they could not make all the findings required by City Code Sec. 15-10 -060 as follows: (1) the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of setback requirement would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in that the garage can be located in conformity with the Code requirements (i.e., 6 ft. sideyard setback) and still be accessible, and (2) the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that a 3 ft. setback would not adequately protect adjacent properties in case of a fire and hinder access to the rear of the property in an emergency. Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decisive of the P1 -nnin Commission. DATE: 10/6/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/15/86 DR -86 -015, V -86 -005 Gregory, Appeal of the Planning Commission decisions SUBJECT: to deny the variance request to reduce the side yard setback for a detached garage from ft. to 3 ft. and design review requirement that the appellant install an asphalt shingle roof at 14684 Oak Street 041 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION 4 0 DR-86-015, V-86-005 I Request for Design Review and Variance Approvals, 9/10/86 Location: 14684 Oak St. 4 4,10 w10 J FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: 9/10/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR -86 -015, V -86 -005, 14684 Oak St. APPLICANT: James Gregory APN: -08 -044 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval of plans to allow the conversion of a single story dwelling to two -story and variance approval to allow the reconstruction and enlargement of a garage to within 3 ft. of the side lot line where 6 ft. is required. ISSUES: 1. The proposed second story addition will be 29 ft. 3 in. high and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in that five other two story homes are located within 200 ft. of the subject property. One story homes immediately adjacent to the subject lot have steep high pitched roofs (approximately 23 -25 ft. high) that make them appear two story. 2. The applicant proposes to exceed allowable floor area "adjusted" for the 7,500 sq. ft. lot by 22.5 sq. ft. 3. Staff is unable to make the required variance findings regarding practical difficulty or physical hardship, exceptional circumstances and public welfare. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant be required to maintain a 6 ft. side yard setback for the detach garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration, Resolution; DR -86 -015 and Findings and deny V -86 -005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration 2. Resolution DR -86- 015 -1, Exhibit A, Findings 3. Technical Information 4. Exhibit C, Variance Findings supplied by applicant 5. Exhibit 8, plans EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and.Resolu- tion 653 of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves adding 1,243.5 sq. ft. of floor area (53 to an existing single family dwelling including a second story addition at 10684 Oak Street and reconstruction and enlargement of a detached garage. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT James Gregory 276 Old Adobe Road REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION An initial study was completed which indicates the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this 10th day of September Yuckuek Ilsia Planning Director DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER File No: DR -86 -015 V -86 -005 ,1986. Design Review WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition and detached garage located at 10684 Oak St. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of JAMES GREGORY for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 1. See Exhibit A Secretary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. DR -86 -015 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA File No.DR -86 -015 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10 day of September 86 by the following roll call vote: Chairman, Planning Commission 01.02 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR -86 -015 1. The applicant shall submit a written agreement to these conditions as finally approved within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or such resolution shall be void. 2. The height of main dwelling shall not exceed 29 ft. 3 in. as measured in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 6.34 of the City Code. 3. The height of the detached garage shall not exceed 17 ft. 3 in. as measu in accordance with Chapter 15, Section 6.34 of the City Code. 4. The applicant shall maintain a 6 ft. side yard setback for the proposed detached garage. 5. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 2647.5 ft. 6. Landscaping plan for screening along the south property line adjacent to t detached garage shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits and installed prior to final occupancy. 7. The proposal exterior colors and roofing material shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of buiding permits. 8. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. half street on Oak Street. 9. The applicant shall enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" with the City prior to the issuance of building permits to provide the following street improvements: a. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). c. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities 10. Submit Improvement Plans for the required street improvements as listed in Condition 8. above. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date .103 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site do not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that it is on a level lot, not on a visible hillside and and the applicant will be required to plant a 6 ft. landscape strip along the south of the detached garage to help soften the exposed wall. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the number and size of second story windows on the north and south elevations have been minimized. To the west, existing vegetation and distance (100 ft.) between buildings mitigates privacy concerns. 2. Preservation of the natural landscape -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no grading is proposed and no ordinance size trees will need to be removed. 3. Perception of excessive bulk The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that other two -story dwellings are located on similar sized lots and adequate front and rear yard setbacks are being maintained. 4. Compatible bulk and height DR -86 -015 FINDINGS The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within.500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in that five homes within 200 ft. of the subject lot are two story and adjacent one story homes have steep high pitched roofs which give the appearance of being two- story. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks will be maintained pursuant to the City Code. 5. Grading and erosion control standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. COMMISSION MEETING: 9/10/86 APN: 517 -08 -044 TEChIICAL INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALIJIS APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: DR 86 015, V 86 005 ACTION REQUESTED: Design review approval of plans to expand an existing dwelling by over 50% including a second story addition variance approval is requested to allow the constuction of a detached garage to within 3 ft. of the side property line where 6 ft. is required. APPLICANT: James Gregory PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared August 29, 1986. ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential (medium density) EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 7,500 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Typical front and rear yard landscaping including a large tree in the front yard. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 57.5 ft. Left Side: 12 ft. (dwelling) 3 ft. (garage) Right Side: 6 ft. HEIGHT: 29 ft. 3 in. (dwelling) 17 ft. 3 in. (garage) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 40% (60% is the maximum) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing Proposed First Floor (including garage): 1404 sq. ft. 1693.5 sq. ft. Second Floor: -0- sq. ft. 954 siii TOTAL: 1404 sq. ft. 2647.5 (1) Staff's calculations ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the detached garage is only 3 DR -86 -015, V -86 -005 ft. from the side yard where 6 ft. is required. MATERIALS b COLORS PROPOSED: Cream colored siding, cedar shingles and wood shutter window treatment and see Staff Analysis. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests design review approval of plans to allow the addition of 1162.5 sq. ft. (excluding garage) of living area to the existing dwelling at 14684 Oak Street in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. The proposal also includes removing the existing garage (18'x 21') and constructing a larger (21' x 21') garage. Specifically, the applicant proposes to expand the existing first floor living area by 208.5 sq. ft. and add a 954 sq. ft. second story addition. The existing garage will be removed and replaced with a 441 sq. ft. detached garage. 1. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Since the applicant proposes to expand the existing floor area by more than 50%, the development plans were forwarded to the City Engineer for comments. Based on his remarks, the applicant is required to enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" with the City to guarantee the installation of street improvements as listed in Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, 48, 49, and 410. 2. FLOOR AREA Calculated pursuant to City Code Section 15- 06.020 the applicant proposes a 2,647.5 sq. ft. two -story dwelling on the subject lot. The proposed total floor is below the zoning districts standard of 3,500 sq. ft. However, the applicant's property is substandard in terms of "minimum net site area" in that the lot is only 7,500 sq. ft. in area or 75% of the 10,000 sq. ft.. minimum. A more accurate comparison of the, applicant's proposal to the "Allowable Floor Area" standard is obtained by multiplying the zoning district's standard by .75 or; 3,500 sq. ft. x .75 2.625 sq. ft. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 22.5 sq. ft. increase in floor area standard as "adjusted" for the subject lot. 3. HEIGHT The applicant is requesting a 29 ft. 3 in. high second story addition. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mixture of one and two story single family homes. Within 200 ft. of the subject property, there are five two -story homes. One story homes are located on each side of the applicant's property; however, both have steep, high pitched roofs (23 -25 ft. high) that make them appear two story. The proposed height of the two -story addition will not interfere with the solar accessibility of the adjacent dwellings. 4. SIDEYARD SETBACK (DETACHED GARAGE) The applicant proposes to remove the existing garage and replace it with a larger (21' x 21') garage. The new 17 ft. 3 in. high garage is proposed to be located to within 3 ft. of the left side property line. Pursuant to City Code Section 15 -65 -160 setback requirements for substandard lots will be adjusted according to the following formula: "Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall not be less than ten percent (10 of the width of the site or six feet; whichever is greater" In this case, a 6 ft. side yard must be maintained. Since the applicant proposes to reconstruct and enlarge the existing garage and sufficient yard area exists to locate the larger garage within the required setback areas, Staff feels that it is not a hardship to require that the new garage be located 6 ft. from the south property line as required by City Code. MATERIALS AND COLORS The applicant proposes cedar shingles for the roof. However, Staff recommends asphalt shingles as the most of the existing dwellings in the neighborhood have asphalt shingles (see Condition #7). 11 Ex-tElr C Reasons to Approve Side Variance 1. 3 feet or less is the normal side variance for the area when lot is 50 feet wide (see pictures). 2. A 6 foot side variance plus a 21 foot wide garage would be a total of 27 feet, which would be more than half the width of the backyard (50 feet wide). This would not be visually pleasing and would detract from the imoroved look of the new house and yard. A 6 foot side variance would &so require that an additional 3 feet of asphalt would have to be added to the width of the driveway in the back of the new house. This addition would be very visible and would detract from the beauty of the yard. 4. The area between the garage and the side frence would also be visible from the street, and the view of 3 feet more of the garage, which is designed to add to the attractiveness of the house would be much more esthetically pleasing than 3 feet of fence. With 27 feet of 50 feet taken up with the garage and variance, it would not be practical to add a swimming pool in the backyard. With a 6 foot variance on the other side of the yard it would only leave 17 feet which is not only insufficient room, but would make the yard very unbalanced. 6. The distance from the deepest point of the new house to the back property line will be 56 feet 6 inches. With this much depth, the yard needs all the width possible. An additional 3 feet will make a significant difference in the looks of the backyard. APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: ►^n2,5 s1.,,■ l� Address: Telephone: (4pc0a9 5 S Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: n V��v� r t'�r o� tb3/(d n a� $.co■2 S act Is" and eL�r\s \jck c v-\ ay, C`�Q Decision Being Appealed: So„,�,1 L r\ k erv� r. V\ vy. Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. TIIIS APPLICATTON MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TIii' DATE OF THE DECISION. llant's .Signat Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE ON] General Gro z for Appeal DR -86 -0115, V -86 -005 All of the indications I had prior to the Planning Commission meeting from people other than staff, vas that my case for the cedar shake roof and the 3' variance iVaS valid and I had no need to be concerned. Therefore, when the application brought on the floor, I presented my case, but' did not attempt to convey a strong argument There mere no objections received by the Planning Commission from the public notice, and the staff nor any of the Commissioners asked me any questions or made any objections to the reasons I gave for approval of the cedar shake roof and the 3' variance. This led me to believe that my case vas indeed on solid ground. During the initial discussions, I received very complimentary remarks about the project from Commissioners Guch and Pines. I also thought that the rest of the Commissioners shared the thought communicated by Gucli and Pines. However, further in the discussion several maters were raised that I think should have been raised during the public hearing so I could address them. DR -86 -015 Condition. 17 (1) A picture taken. of a house to show the colors vas presented by staff indicating that the roof in tare picture vas aspa It This picture happened to be taken in Georgia and the type of roof he no bearing on the colors and the fact that the roof V8,3 aspahlt should not have been presented as a reason to require our house to have one. (2) The house ac1033 the street is a ?3ctorn and has an aspahlt roof_ A comment vase that our house might be considered a "period" house and this might be a reason for requiring an aspahlt roof_ Even though our house could be considered a period house, it doesn't follow that the roof should be aspahlt. Our house is definitely not a victories' and a home right around the corner on Lomita is the exact same style and it has a cedar shake roof. I had a picture showing this with me at the meeting_ (3) The basic argument by the staff for requiring an aspahlt roof vas that most of the emoting dveltings in the neighborhood bare aspahlt shingles_ I presented at the meeting that there were other homes in the neighborhood that have cedar shake roofs. If you just count the houses on the same side of the street as our house between Lomita and Komina, four of the five are aspahlt and one is cedar shake. Hovever, across the street on the block where the victories' is, two of the four houses have cedar shake and two have aspahlt Across the street between St. Charles and Saratoga- -Los Gatos Road, there are at least two sets of apartments and two condo projects, all with cedar shake roofs. There are some aspahlt shingle roofs too but a majority have cedar shake. Around on Lomita, out of 15 houses, only two have asphalt, the rest have cedar shake_ Cedar shake is a standard, if not "the" standard, roofing material in Saratoga and there is nothing unusual about our roof; therefore, one should be allowed to use cedar shake unless the staff has a substantial reason why a cedar shake roof on our house would violate any building requirements or integrity of the area. It is my belief that the whole style and srumture of the project will be an asset to both the immediate area and Saratoga in general. V -86 -005 3°Side Yard Variance It is my understanding that the basic reason for requiring 10 or minimum 6' setbacks is for safety and fire protection. Normally garages are not detached and the arian ces preta n to the main structure of the home itself. This is not true in this case. The variance application is for a detauched garage that is being rebuilt and currently has a 3' variance. The property next to us on the side where the garage is located also has a detached garage adjacent to ours ami the driveways are adjoining. I do not think the 6' variance raquirement is applicable in our case. The 3' foot variance would not be a fire hazard nor would it present a safety hazard. I am also very concerned about the amount of usable yard 'we mould have if a 6' variance is required. We are increasing the width of the garage by 3' to 21', in order to have a full two car garage. With the lot only being 50' vide, one will only have 17' of usable width (50- 21 -6 -6 =17). The additional 3' that the 3' variance will give us, would give us 20' of usable width, which is still small, but a big improvement over 17' PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris proposed review of the application in study session if the applicant felt that the size of the house could be reduced; Chairwoman Burger concurred. Mr. Powell stated that of the 2894 sq. ft., 1766 sq. ft. is carport; within the building portion, including the garages, is 2718 sq. ft. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Planner Caldwell stated that a carport is required parking and is therefore counted in the square footage. Chairwoman Burger summed up the consensus reached by the Commission, namely, that a study session was desirable to come to an agreement on a reduction of the square footage of the house and moving the house back 5 feet on the lot. This Item will be continued to the Study Session of October 14, 1986 and will be heard at the Public Hearing of October 22, 1986. 7. DR -86 -015 James Gregory, request for design review approval of plans to allow the V -86 -005 construction of a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 14684 Oak Street in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval to allow a 3 ft. side yard setback for a detached garage where 6 ft. is required at the above address per Chapters 15 and 16 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia read "Report to Planning Commission" dated September 10, 1986, and stated that Staff was unable to make the required Variance Findings. Commissioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M. Mr. James Gregory, Applicant, stated that this application is a request for a major remodeling of the house to compliment the environment. The applicants have tried to achieve a single story appearance for the house; this explains the high pitch roof. He questioned the following Conditions of Approval: On Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval. DR -86 -015, 4. The existing garage, with a 3 ft. setback from the property line, is being tom down due to termite damage. The rebuilding of the garage will make it a two car garage and place the structure further in and back on the lot. The current 3 ft. setback was not intended to be changed. Pictures were presented to demonstrate a neighbor's garage that has the 3 ft. setback. The Applicant asked that the Variance be approved allowing the 3 ft. side yard setback. Mr. Gregory questioned comments made in the Staff Report and stated that from the point of view of attractiveness, the garage is better placed closer to the fence, rather then 6 feet removed. Neighbors on adjacent properties have no objection to the 3 ft. side setback. On 9, the Applicant questioned whether this condition is required on all new houses; he restated the fact that this application is for a remodeling of an existing house. While he has no objection to this Condition, he does not wish to be the exception to the rule. On Technical Information and Staff Analysis. Materials and Colors Proposed, the Applicant requested that cedar shake roofing be allowed on the house and the garage. Most of the homes which have not been remodeled, have asphalt shingles. Examples of homes with cedar roofing in adjacent areas were cited. Cedar roofing is more attractive and will enhance the house; according to a real estate agent an asphalt roof detracts from the aesthetic and financial value of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to the above, The Chairwoman clarified for the Applicant that Condition 9 was due to the fact that the remodeling involved over 50% of the house. This was confirmed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Harris stated that on the land use visit, it was noted that the garage is being increased in size to the side and to the back. There is space available to allow for the additional 3 ft. bringing the side yard setback up to the 6 ft. requirement. Commissioner Guch noted that a 6 ft. side yard setback may make the turning radius in the driveway difficult to negotiate; the applicant concurred. The mature plantings on this property were noted. PINES /CALLANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Planner Caldwell stated that in regard to the turn into the garage, the City Engineering Department was consulted; the additional 3 ft. will not made a significant difference. The garage can be located in conformity with Code Requirements and still be accessible. In regard to roofing materials, a photograph was presented to show asphalt shingles; the neighborhood, with the exception of recent condominiums, have asphalt shingles. In order to be compatible with the neighborhood, Staff feels that asphalt shingles be used as a design feature; the use of cedar shingles is out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pines complimented the Applicant on a beautifully designed remodeling of a house; he will accept the 3 ft. side yard setback of the garage and the use of cedar shingles on the roof. Commissioner Guch will also accept the 3 ft. side yard setback and questioned the purpose of the 6 ft. setback requirement. However, the Commissioner agrees with Staff recommendation on the materials to be used on the roof and stated that asphalt siding is in character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Harris noted that the Commission had the opportunity to require the setback standard in the zoning district; the buffer zone created by the setback is for fire protection and emergency access. Commissioner Callans concurred and urged the Commission to require the 6 ft. setback. Chairwoman Burger stated that she will accept the proposed square footage; she favors the roofing material as recommended by Staff. The Chairwoman will accept the consensus of the Commission in regard to the side yard setback; she noted that the use of the 6 ft. setback of the garage will off set the aesthetic view of the house. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. PINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR -86 -015, EXHIBIT A, CONDITIONS 1 -3; CONDITION 3 TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN A 3 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE; CONDITIONS 4-11. Failed 3 -3, Commissioners Harris, Callans, Tucker opposed. HARRIS /CALLANS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -86 -015, EXHIBIT .A AS WRITTEN; Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. HARRIS/I'UCKER MOVED TO DENY V -86 -005 AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. 8. SDR -1629 Protiva, request for site and design review approvals and a lot line DR -86 -004 adjustment to allow the construction of a two story single family home at LL -86 -001 14458 Oak Pl., in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district as per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 1986, at the request of the Applicant. VAN ARSDALE RALPH H ET AL 14690 OAK ST SARATOGA CA NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNESDAY, the 15th day of October, 1986, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A All interested persons may appear and be If you challenge the subject projects only those issues you or someone else described in this notice, or in City Council Committee at, or prior to 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 95070 517/08/043 1986 RECEIVED OCT 0 G 1986 PLANNING DEPT. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR A 3 -FOOT SIDE SETBACK FOR A DETACHED GARAGE WHERE 6 FT. IS REQUIRED AND APPEAL OF CONDITION 7 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL REQUIRING AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 14684 OAK ST. IN THE R -1- 10,000 ZONING DISTRICT. (DR 86 -015, V 86 -005) (APPELLANT /APPLICANT, J. GREGORY) The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Public hearings will begin when that item is reached on the agenda, but no later than 8:00 p.m. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga.City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. heard at the above time and place. in court, you may be limited to raising raised at the public hearing written correspondence delivered to the the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before October 9. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL of eAa-rnb Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk ft-eq twutir .Lk k 'T'- AL c w-ou)21 k 04 o a- y ipief -cx .447' L A'4,Sa.& 0. oir .7c 4 s� ��f G, Q %o, \t'■ o