HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SAIlyroa -
AGENDA BILL NO. 389(a)
DATE: February 2, 1983
Initial:
Dept. .—.05
C. Atty.
DEPAr, -n,' : Community Development C. Mg
SUBJECT: C -199 - Eugene L. Zambetti, Rezoning of Portion of Site at
- -14540 Big Basin Way from RM -3000 to C -C
Issue SLnary
At your meeting of January 19, 1983 the City Council approved the rezoning
of a portion of the site at 14540 Big Basin Way from RM -3000 to C -C
(application C -199). They directed Staff to prepare the proper ordinance
to amend the Zoning Ordinance NS -3.
Reconiendation
1. Approve the Negative Declaration on the project.
2. Introduce the Ordinance NS3ZC -86 and adopt .at the next meeting making
the appropridte findings listed -in Exhibit':.. "B ".
Fiscal Imoacts
None
Eyhibits /Attachments
1. Negative Declaration
2. Ordinance No. NS3ZC -86
Council Action
2/2: Clevenger/Mallory moved approval of Negative Declaration. Passed.5 -0.
Fanelli/Moyles moved introduction of ordinance by title only, waiving further reading.
Passed 5 -0.
2/16: Fanelli /Mallory moved'to adopt Ordinance NS 3 -ZC -86 by title only, waiving further
reading. Passed 4 -0. (Moyles absent)
� 5
ORDINANCE NO. NS3ZC -86
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
RE: A PORTION OF APN 517 -9 -71 FROM RM -3000
TO COMMUNITY- COMMERCIAL
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Sectional District Map No. C -199 attached hereto (and
as further described in Exhibit "A ", "Description of Area to be
Rezoned to C -C ") and incorporated herein by reference is hereby
adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by
Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amend-
ments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the
crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that
portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within - adopted
crosshatched portion of the sectional district map.
So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with
any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within - adopted
sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed.
SECTION 2: This ordinance reclassifies certain property shown
on the attached sectional map from RM 3000 to C -C. It shall be-
come operative and take effect on and after thirty (30) days from
its date of passage.
This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting
time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this
day of , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
Exhibit
C -199
SDR 1517
A -810
Applicant: E.L. Zambetti
DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE R---- D TO C -C
All that certain property situated in the City of Saratoga,
Santa Clara County, California, described as follows:
The northwesterly 80 feet of Lot 10, Block 6 of "Plan
of the Town of McCartysville ", filed for record in Book "A"
Of Maps at Page 43, Santa Clara County Records,
cularly described as follows: more parti-
Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 10: thence
along the lot line common to Lots 10 and 11 of said Plan,
South 470 00' East 80 feet; thence at right angles South 430
00' West 50 feet to the southwegterly line of said Lot 10;
thence along said line North.47 00' West 80 feet to the
northwesterly line gf said Lot 10; thence along said last
named line North 43 00' East 50 feet to the point of beginning.
L
�-I.
C -199
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into conformance
with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga.
2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning ordinance
as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance.
3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment
(Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document).
3
r
CI'I OP Si uv'�iCi�\
AG J? 94� Initial:
�'DA BILL NO. I
DATE: February 2, 1983 Dept. FId_ C. Atty.
DEP.-N :-"-,,T: Community Development C. Mgr.
SU.SCI': Request for Modification to Scenic Easement:, Tract 5693 - Hong
Issue SL-=ary
On November 3, 1982 the Council declared that certain unpermitted grading
and retaining walls constitute a Public Nuisance at the above property.
On December 15, 1982 the Council referred the subject request to the
Planning Commission for a recommendation, and the Commission considered
the matter on January 12, 1983. The Commission recommended denial of the
application -and Mr. Hong has submitted a letter addressing that action.
If the City Council does not approve the modification, they should order
the retaining walls and fill to be removed and the area planted for erosion
control by June 30, 1983.
Recc=—c=
1. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request.
c
Fiscal Imcacts
0
None
Exhibits /Attachm --nts
1.
Letter
from Mr. Hong dated 1/19/83
2.
3.
Landscape
Report
of
Plan by Beaudoin (will be posted in Civil Chambers)
Planning Commission action dated 1/21/83
4.
S.
Minutes
Report
of
to
the January 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting
Planning Commission
6.-
S- ketch
of.
dated 1/5/83
proposed modification
Council Action
2./2: Fanelli /Clevneger moved.to uphold Planning Commission recommendation to abate 5'
retaining wall. Passed 5 - -0.
MR.RICH HARRISON
CITY OF SARATOGA
SARATOGA,CA 95070
RE: TRACK 5693
Dear Mr.Harrison
January 19, 1983
It is my sincere appology for my ignorance of City Ordinance and unable to respond
in time. However, it has been my honest intention to make -up for and an effort to
my best to resolve it since last November 1982.
I am applealing you for re- consideration of a recommandation made by the Planning
Commission on Jan 12, 1983 to deny my proposal and to remove a retaining wall, for
following reasons:
1. A denial maybe was an easy- way -out, but was not the best solution.
And the process of a removal is not a simple task,but also an
expensive waist.
2. It is my impression that Planning Commitee were influenced by a bomb-
ardment of a irrelavant complaint (off road vehicle problems) and a
hostility by discreminating neighbors to make a hasty decision without
considering other alternatives.
3. "to set an example" an opening statement by a commissioner to move a
motion to deny was a unfair. If the decision is to remove the wall
simply because it was an unauthorized structure, then other unauthorized
retaining walls and fences on adjacent lots to be removed and restored
to its original state.
A new proposal to correct the matter and allow us to finish landscpaing per attach
ed drawing is as follows;
A. Reduce the height of the retaining wall to be less than 5ft.
B. Limit the building envelope to the retaining wall area.
C. Re -study a drainage problems by a licenced engineer.
D. A wooden block on Comer side to stop a trespassing off road vehicle
going up -hill.
Again, I am pleading for your fair justice without any prejudice nor taking a part
in a neighborhood discrimination.
Sincerel*DR4
Phil Hon
21072 CO
SARATOGA,CA 95070
,p-x i N v
�
QhO+ w� L ��D
FRoPO��EG G►flIN LINK
W&,L i O e)E M OV If eO
' '^ '�_ �_ $5 ± \-'�_ —= #. -?•�_- j PER P�TAIL
�- A�'PR UX troCA71 �%tt '
G I T E FLAN
I'' a Z'
JON JOEL EWIGIEBEN
CIVIL ENGINEER
25743 SPRING DRIVE
HAYWARD CALIFORNIA
6-0333 94542
t
1
U
_1
C'�4w CITY of = � ATOGA
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 1 -21 -83
COUNCIL MEETING: 2-02-83
SUBJECT Tract 5693 - Phil Hong, 21072 Comer.Drive, Consideration
of Expansion of Building Envelope, Lot #2, per the
----- - - - - -- Scenic-Easement-Re-corded-on-the-Tract-Map --------- -
------------------------------------ - - - - --
The Planning Commission, at their meeting on January 12, 1983,
reviewed the request from Mr. Hong to expand the building
envelope on Lot #2 of Tract 5693 to allow for a retaining wall
and fencing with grading, per the scenic easement recorded on
the Tract Map.
After considerable
the applicant, the
of the request and
appropriate action
of four - wheel driv,
the landowner, and
discussion and input from the neighbors and
Commission unanimously moved to recommend denial
also recommended that the City Council look at
to ensure that drainage I is restored, that access
vehicles across the property is prevented by
that the vegetation is restored.
The minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1983 are enclosed for
your further information.
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Enclosure
NEW-), ..
Planning Commission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 1/12/83
Tract 5693 (cont.)
•
The Deputy City Attorney commented that, regarding the drainage, if the appli-
cation is denied then that in effect leaves him with a nuisance that we would
abate through court proceedings if the applicant does not voluntarily correct
the situation. He added that, regarding four - wheelers, the property owner is
responsible for maintaining his property. If he does not do that either
through its physical condition or through the use of the property, again there
may be a nuisance situation that would be corrected through court proceedings.
Discussion followed on the drainage. Staff indicated that if the matter is
denied and the applicant is required to proceed to remove the work that he has
done, part of that removal would be the consideration of the drainage. They
added that they felt if the applicant does not pursue the removal and the City
has to do the abatement, the City would pursue the matter of the drainage to
minimize the impact on the adjoining properties.
Mr. Procelli stated that he seriously doubted that,if the hill were to be put
back in its natural state, his existing drainage system would be able to handle
the normal flows. He described the drainage system on the property.
Staff noted that the process which the Mr. and Mrs. Harris went through was
the same as this one; essentially modifying the map and changing the scenic
easement. Discussion followed on the desire to maintain control over the
situation. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood the concern about
wanting to keep control; however, he also had a concern that the tract was
approved with certain easements and the applicant has chosen to go ahead and.
do significant modification to the topography of his land. He moved to recom-
mend denial of the application on the basis that he would hope that when the
matter goes to the City Council they will require him to restore the land as
best lie can to its previous condition. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bolger expressed his concern that the situation will continue on
if strong action is not taken, and the Porcellis will be left with a situation
that is impacting them. After further discussion Commissioner Siegfried modi-
•
fied his motion to recommend denial of the application and also recommend that
the City Council look at appropriate action to ensure that drainage is restored,
that access of four -wheel drive vehicles across the property is prevented by
the landowner, and that the vegetation is restored. Commissioner Hlava
accepted the modification, commenting that she has very strong feelings about
the fact that it is important to maintain the integrity of the scenic ease-
ments. The motion was carried unanimously 6 -0. The applicant was notifed
of the appeal period.
DESIGN REVIEW
10. A -842 - Downey Savings 14411 Big Basin Way, Request for Design Review
Approval to co struct a sign over 8 s . ft. in area
Staff described the proposal which includes two small parking signs. Dis-
cussion followed on the application; specifically the private property sign.
Commissioner Crowther moved t approve A -842, per the Staff Report dated
December 23, 1982. Commission r Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried
5 -0, with Commissioner Schaefe abstaining, stating that she felt there were
too mane signs on the site.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. General Plan Revision ( Impleme tation Measures, Hazards Overlay Map, and
Resolution Recommending Adoptio of General Plan)
Staff: reported that the Commission at this time should: (1) vote on the
implementation measures (consensus ite s from study session), (2) adopt the
Hazards Overlay Map as per the notation in the Staff Report and by reference
adopt the County Geological Hazards Map as well as the Division of Mines and
Geology Map for information only, and (3 adopt the resolution forwarding the
General Plan to the City Council, recomme ding approval as written.
Staff suggested alternative wording for th implementation measures LU.4.1 •
and LU.7.1, to read: "The City will formula e criteria for the types of
information required of major new developments to adequately assess economic
impacts." Staff then summarized the impleme tation measures.
- 6 -
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 1/12/83
SDR- 1531 `�,cont . )
Page 5
Bolger seco ed the motion, which resulted in a split vote with Commissioners
Nellis, Hlava and Siegfried dissenting, indicating that they would like to
see the indivi ual reports first to see if they are adequate before requiring
that a composit report be done. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger amended
the motion to st e that the three previous traffic studies be made available
with some statemen by Staff. The motion was carried unanimously 6 -0.
It was directed that his matter be continued to a study session on January
25, 1983 and the regul meeting of January 26, 1983.
9. Tract 5693 - Phil Hong, 21072 Comer Drive, Consideration of Expansion of
Building Envelope, Lot 1+2, to allow for retaining wall and fencing with
grading, per Scenic Easement recorded on Tract Map
Staff gave a history of this matter and the request made by the applicant,
stating that the City Council has asked for a recommendation from the Planning
Commission. They discussed the available options.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he had problems with all of the options
because they have major impact. He indicated that he was also opposed to
expanding the building envelope just for a retaining wall, and it was clari-
fied that_the applicant could then build anything in that envelope. He asked
the Deputy City Attorney if it would be possible to grant a variance to permit
retaining walls. The Deputy City Attorney commented that it was his under-
standing that the easement was created as part of the subdivision map and he
would have a problem with modifying in terms of the easement which affects not
only this property but everyone else's property in the subdivision.
It was clarified that if the application is denied then the existing structure
would have to be removed. Discussion followed on the process for restoring
the area to its previous condition if the structure were removed.
The public hearing was opened at 9:31 p.m.
Ernie Porcelli, one of the neighbors, stated that Mr. Hong has violated some
easements which were put in for a purpose not only for scenic but for drainage
and preservation of the hills, and it has jeopardized his property directly
below it. He also pointed out that Mr. Hong has an unfenced pool which is
dangerous to the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to do something about
this situation which has been going on for 1� years.
Barbara Porcelli submitted pictures of the problems that have been created.
She indicated that if Mr. Hong is allowed to increase the building envelope
and put a fence on top of the bank, they will be in a hole with no view at all.
Mr. Hong, the applicant, reported that the pool fence had been inspected by
the City yesterday. He described the fence and stated that the drainage on
his property had been studied by a licensed engineer and he had said it was
adequate for retaining walls. Staff noted that Mr. Hong had submitted plans
to correct the retaining walls, which are being held in abeyance relative to
determination of the wall or building envelope to be modified.
Janet Harris, 21083 Comer Drive, stated that they had been required to appear
before the City Council to get a variance for the scenic easement in order to
have a driveway. She also expressed concern about the grading that Mr. Hong
has done on the northwestern side of the property. She submitted photos of
what the scenic easement had looked like before the grading and pictures of
the portion that has been graded. She added that she finds the road objectional
and the ground cover and vegetation have been removed.
Mr. Hong discussed the four - wheelers and motorcycles on his property. He
stated that if lie receives a permit for the retaining wall he will do all of
the landscape. He also indicated that if the retaining wall has to be removed
it will not look the same as before.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther asked the Deputy City Attorney if the application is
denied, is there some way to control what is done on the property; can the
requirement be made that drainage be restored and access by four -wheel vehicles
across the property be prevented?
- 5 -
f �� § a.% .fir i ,°•:� w
LS
�5.
000
Qq ° ° `9002
4�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/5/83
Commission Meeting: 1/12/83
SUBJECT: Hong, 21072 Comer Drive - Tract 5693
REQUEST: Modification of the scenic easement of Tract #5693, Lot #2.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption
PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this project has been advertised in the Saratoga News,
posted on site and mailed to surrounding property owners.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Slope Conservation
ZONING: NHR
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Single family residential
SITE SIZE: 45,026 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 22%
BACKGROUND: On August 16, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a modification to
the building envelope of the subject site to construct a pool. The remaining portion
of the site was to remain as a scenic easement.
During the fall of 1981, the present property owner undertook grading and retaining
wall construction without permits on the northeastern portion of the property within
the scenic easement. Approximately 75 ft. of redwood retaining wall has been con-
structed and backfilled with material removed from a slope on the property. The
maximum height of retaining walls is 5'.
On November 3, 1982, the City Council reviewed the code violations and directed the
applicant to either abate the nuisance or make an application to the Planning Commis-
sion to modify the scenic easement to allow the encroachment.
Upon site inspection, staff found the graded areas vegetated with grasses and the
retaining wall did not pose any particular adverse visual impact. The proposed
building envelope extension is also not highly visable from Comer..
Report to Planning Commission 1/5/83
Tract 5693, Hong Page 2
To date, one other modification to the scenic easement has been approved in this tract.
This modification was also to construct a pool on the parcel opposite the subject site.
Both modifications were evaluated in terms of the original intent of this tract which
was to cluster development in the designated envelopes and leave the remaining area
in its natural state. This proposal, however, is a request for the enlargement of
the building envelope, which has not been previously approved. Considering the ori-
ginal intent, it does not appear that this proposal is compatible. An actual enlarge-
ment of the envelope would increase the amount of visual development permitted on this
lot.
Staff offers the following options for the Planning Commission to recommend to the
City Council on this application:
1. Deny application.
Staff feels the following options may require the agreement of all the property owners
in the tract, since these options would apply to all four (4) lots.
2. Redefine open space standards to allow the construction of retaining walls less
than 5' in height.
3. Approve the application with the condition that the applicant revise the tract
map to include all the revisions.
4. Define a process whereby modifications to the scenic easement can be made by
the Planning Commission (i.e., design review, site modification).
5. Eliminate scenic easement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend denial of the proposal to enlarge the building envelope.
Approved: vh '
Sharon Lester
Planner
SL /dsc
P.C. Agenda 1/12/83
Modification Approved August 16, 1978
.fication
i
il Envelop,A
,
�U
. j
OWNER:
1. TO OETFRUINE APPRCXIUATE I
OF POOL ON DAY OF EXCAYAT
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
OFFICE: Community Development
February 10, 1983
Mr. & Mrs. Phil Hong
21072 Comer Drive
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Mr. Hong:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
On February 2, 1983, the City Council considered your re-
quest for modification of the Scenic Easement of Lot 2,
Tract 5693. After careful consideration and in accordance
with the recommendation of the Planning Commission the re-
quest was denied. Therefore, the retaining walls over 2
feet in height and the earth fill in excess of 50 cubic
yards must be removed by June 30, 1983. These encroachments
were declared a Public Nuisance on November 3, 1982 and
should you fail to abate prior to the above date, the City
will take action to do so. All costs of abatement by the
City will become a lien on the property.
The Council also directed you to take appropriate action
to restore vegetation to the disturbed slopes, prevent
access by four -wheel drive vehicles and restore drainage.
Your cooperation in these matters will be greately appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Richard H. Harison
Senior Inspector
RHH /bjc
cc: Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial: /
AGENDA BILL NO: ?J S Dept. Head:
DATE: February 2, 1983 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr
SUBJECT: Fifth Annual KEZR Fools Parade Race
Issue Summary
The City has again been contacted by KEZR tequesting authorization to hold the Fifth
annual "KEZR Fools Parade Race ". The race is to be held on Sunday, April -10, 1983
The race sponsors will contact the Sheriff's Department torarrange for reserve officers
and will be responsible for payment of this additional service. Attached is the
request letter and race route.
Recommendation
Authorize race to be held on .April 10, 1983 -, with the- stipulation that the sponsors will
provide the City with proof of liability insurance naming the City as an additional
insured, will coordinate reserve officers as needed at their own cost and will be
required to provide clean -up of all race related debris along the entire race course.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Race request letter.
Map of race route.
Council Action
2/2: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
January 17, 1983
To: Dan Trinidad
From: George Wightman
Re: KEZR Fools Parade Race.
This is a request for permission to stage the fifth
annual Fools Parade Pace in Saratoga. Following are spe-
cifics for the race.
Director- George Wightman p'°l G 10, NO3
Date- Sunday, April - 4-,- r '3
Time - start- 9:00 A.M. (Runners will finish t,etween
30 and 90 minutes)
Distance- 6.6 riles
Supervision- Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department
General Comments - This has becone a popular race in our
community and it was run last year with-
out any complications. 17e would like
to have the race on a Sunday this year
and will inform the county sheriffs to
allow auto traffic through "breaks" in
the runners in an e`fort to kee- anv de-
lays to a ninir.un.
TYK CDi? '7-
call ':enr -e .•;,,s- t;s:n.
I,ore� 4(.7 -)79L
C;iTY OF SAi,! UUC A
P6 *ENDA BILL NO. 3
DATE: February 2, 1983
DEPARTmENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C.
--------- - - - - --
------ — ----- --
SUBJEM Tract 6528, Parker Ranch, Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch Court
Continental Circle - Reversion to Acreage
Issue Summary
Per the agreement between Blackwell Homes and the City, certain lots are to be combined.
Reversion to acreage appears to be the most expeditious process, therefore, Blackwell
is requesting that contiguous Lots 35, 36, 70, 71, 73 and 74 (Lots of Tract 6628, Parker
Ranch) be reverted to acreage (become three (3) lots) as-.shown on the parcel maps at
Parker Ranch Court and Continental Circle. All street improvements are bonded under
TFatt 6528, Parker Ranch.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a Public Hearing on reversion to acreage
2. Determine the merits of the request.
3. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. , approving the
reversion to acreage and making the appropriate findings listed
therein.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Proposed Parcel Map
2. Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Map Act_relating to reversion to acreage
3. Letter of Request from Applicant.
4. Resolution No.
Council Action
2/2: Fanelli /Dlallory moved to adopt resolution, making required findings, subject
to applicant's submitting two parcel maps for Lots 70 -71 and 73 -74. Passed 5 -0.
'f
(c) Retention of any portion of required improvement security or the land affected thereby, and shall :d,o coo,tiuutc abando►uucut of
deposits if necessary to accomplish the purposes of this division of all streets and easements not shy wu o,u the 'nap.
local ordinance adopted pursuant.thereto. [Added, Chapter 23 -1, Statutes of 19771
66199.18. Reversion shall be effective upon the final map being
filed for record by the county recorder, and thereupon all dedications
and offers of dedication not shown thereon shall be of no further
force or effect.
66499.19. When a reversion is effective, all fees and deposits shall
be returned and all innprovcmcnt security released, except those re-
tained pursuant to Section 66499.17.
66499.20. A tax bond shall not be required in reversion pro -
cccdings.
66499.20/2. A city or county may, by ordinance, authorize a
parcel ►nap to be filed under the provisions of this chapter for
the purpose of reverting to acreage land previously subdivided and
consisting of four or less contiguous parcels under the same ownership.
Any anal) so subn►itted shall be accompanied by evidence of title and
nonuse or lack of necessity of any streets or easements which are to
be vacated or abandoned. Any streets or casements to to left in effect
after the reversion shall be adequately delineated on the map. After
approval of the reversion by the governing body or advisory agency
the neap shall be delivered to the county recorder. The filing of
the map shall constitute legal reversion to acreage of the land af-
fected thereby, and shall also constitute abandonment of all streets
and casements not shown on the map. The filing of the map shall
=::Iso constitute a merger of the separate parcels into one parcel for
purposes of this chapter and shall thereafter be shown as such on the
assessment roll subject to the provisions of Section 66445. Except as
provided is subdivision (f) of Section 66445, on any parcel map used
for reverting acreage, a certificate shall appear signed and ackaow-
ledgcd by all parties having any record title interest in the laud being
reverted, consenting to the preparation and filing of the parcel trap. .
[Amended, Chapter 862, Statutes of 1975]
66499.203/.1. Subdivided lands may be merged and resubdividcd
without reverting to acreage by complying with all the applicable re-
quirennents for the subdivision of land as provided by this division and
any local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto. The filing of the final
reap or parcel map shall constitute legal merging of the separate parcels
into one parcel and the resubdivision of such parcel, and the real prop-
erty shall thereafter be shown with the new lot or parcel boundaries on
the assessment roll. Ali), unused fees or deposits previously made pur-
suant to this division pertaining to the property shall be credited pro rata
towards any requirements for the same purposes which are applicable
at the time of resubdivision. Any streets or easements to be left in effect
after the resubdivision shall be adequately delineated on the map. After
approval of the merger and resubdivision by the governing body or
advisory agency the anal) shall be delivered to the county recorder.
The filing of the map shall constitute legal merger and resubdivision of
—62—
ARTICLE 2. EXCLUSIONS
66499.21. The superior court of the county is which a subdivision
is situated may cause all or any portion of the real property included
within the boundaries of the subdivision to be excluded from such
subdivison and the recorded neap to be altered or vacated, in ac-
cordance with the procedures set forth ill this article.
66499.22.1 A proceeding for exclusion shall be initiated by filing
a petition therefor in the offices of (lie county surveyor and county
clerk of the county is which the subdivision or the portion thereof
nought to be excluded is situated. Such petition shall accurately and
distinctly describe tlue real property sought to be excluded by reference
;o the recorded map or by any :accurate survey; shall show tl►e aarncs
:and addresses of all owners of real property is the subdivision or
To tine portion thereof sought to be excluded as far as the sannc
are known to the petitioners, and shall set forth tl►e reasons for
the requested exclusion. The petition shall be signed and verified
by tl►e owners of at least two - thirds of the total area of the real prop-
erty sought to be excluded.
66499.23. The petition slat.'. be acconnpanicd by a racNv map show-
ing the boundaries of the subdivision as it appears after the exclusion
:and alteration, such anew nap to dcsi ,,uate as aunnbered or lettered
'narccl:; those portions excluded and show the acreage of each such
parcel. If such map can be co►upilcd from data available, an actual
Field survey shall not be required. if such snap nncets with the ap-
proval of the county surveyor, a certificate by all engineer or surveyor
shall not be required.
66499.24. Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to this article,
any judge of the superior court of file county in which the real prop-
erty is situated shall make an order directing the clerk of the court
to give notice of the filial,, of the petition. 'I'hc aoticc shall he for once a
week for a period of not less than live copse: utivc weeks and shall he
;riven by publication in sonic newspaper of general circulation within the
county, or if there is no newspaper published therein, by posting in
three of the principal places ill the county; provided, that if such real
property or any portion thereof is situated within a city, the notice
shall be given by publication i., ;orate newspaper of general circulation
•within the city, or if there is no ncwsl:aper publi.shcd therein, by post-
ing in three of the .principal places ill tine city. Such notice shall con-
tain a statement of the nature of tile. petition together with a direction
that any person nay file his written objection to the petition at any time.
lbcforc the expiration of the time of publication or posting. upon expira-
tion of the tine of publication or posting, all affidavit showing such
publication or posting shall be filed with tl►e clerk of the court.
—63—
BLACKWELL
HOMES
-
�� •
P.O. BOX
F'_3.17 155
EAST
SUNNYOAKS AVENUE
•
C A M 1 "' 13
E L L, C A L I P.
96008 PH :378 -5340
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruit.va.le Avenue
Saratoga, CA X15070
Attention: Arjan
November 23, 1982
The Parker Ranch, Unit #2 - Tract 6528
Lots 35, 36, 70, 710 73 and 74
Dear Arjan:
Blackwell Homes is the owner of* the captioned lots at the
Parker Ranch in Saratoga.
13y this letter, we are requesting that these lots revert to
aCre:it,e as per. P'11''Cl Maps prcviuusly submitted to you by
Jennings, McDermott. C,, lleiss, Inc.
This request is per the "Stlptllulatlon for Settlement" between
Blackwell Homes and the City of Saratoga, which provides for
the following lots 'to be combined:
35/36, 70/71, 73/74
The six lots would, accordingly, end up as 3 lots.°
Yours truly,
BLACKWELL HOMES
G�
.ack R. Blackwell
JP.B : gv
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA REVERTING TO ACREAGE CERTAIN LOTS
IN TRACT 6528, PARKER RANCH UNIT NO. 2,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT.THEREOF
WHEREAS, Blackwell Homes is the sole owner of Lots. Nos.
35, 36, 70, 71, 73 and 74 of Tract 6528, Parker Ranch Unit No. 2;
and
WHEREAS, Blackwell Homes has requested that said real.
property be reverted to acreage in the manner and form as set
forth hereinafter; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 1983 the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing at the request of
Blackwell Homes for said reversion to acreage, and after the closing
of said public hearing, reviewed and considered applicant's request,
staff reports, the parcel maps submitted by Jennings, McDermott &
Heiss, and other evidence presented to the Council at said public
hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
HEREBY RESOLVES as-follows:
1. The City Council makes the following findings:
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated
' or abandoned by the reversion to acreage are
unnecessary for present or prospective public
purposes.
(b) All owners of an interest in the real property
being reverted to acreage have consented to said
reversion to acreage.
(c) No lots shown on the final map or parcel map have
been sold within five years from the date such
map was filed for record.
2. Having made the above findings:
(a) Lots 35 and 36 are combined into one lot and
returned to acreage.
(b) Lots 70 and 71 are combined into one lot and
returned to acreage.
(c) Lots 73 and 74 are combined into one lot and
returned to acreage.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held
on the 2nd day of February, 1983, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
- 2 -
Mayor
1 16
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -34:38
OFFICE: Community Development
February 7, 1983
Blackwell Homes
P. 0. Box 817
125 East Sunnyoaks Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Gentlemen:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
At their meeting of February 2, 1983, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2035, Reverting to Acreage Lots 35, 36, 70, 71,
73 and 74 of Tract 6528, Parker Ranch Unit No. 2, and Making
Findings in Support Thereof. This approval is subject to sub-
mission of two (2) parcel maps for Lots 70 -71 and 73 -74.
A copy of this resolution is enclosed for your file. If you
have any further questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly,yours,
Robert Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Enclosure
cc: Bill Heiss, Suite 2001 925 Regent St., San Jose, CA 95110
Deputy City Clerk
i
N
M
-
•Tio of \ EP
,E
e
i TL
1 PARCEL 0
1 ( 3.358 4c.
1PrvATE ACCESS RD, I I-
PSE.B R. P E I •tT•svof'W
PEA T652E. 1
iI• 11 Ar �..1 ...( �
.• j F—•o Pff R.0
i � •(• 'A, Af lA
1 's Sri
\ �._.U.6 ,f, 00.
A.
n oo
LEGEND
• INDICATES EXIST S /A• IRON N ►E IU14LESS NOTED 1
INDICATES EXIST srD CITY MONUfIENT OR TO BE
.ET BY TRACT NO. 4526.
` OISTINCTIVF BORDER
ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND
DECIMALS THEREOF.
THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER INDICATES THE BOUNDARY
OF LANO SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP. THE AREA
WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER IS 5.GLB ACRES.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARING N 1` 21' 24' W ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF PARKER RANCH CT. AS SHOWN
ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 652B,THE PARKER
RANCH, FILED IN BOOK 499 OF MAPS, PAGES
35 THRU 41, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.
j9s PARCEL MAP
4_, S T�� ; C ONSiSIIN0 OF ONE E
�c`yr BEING A REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF
LOTS 70,71, 73 9 74.
pq p'c9 of Tract No.6528, The Porker Ranch
Unit Two, Recorded in Book 499 of
/,,• s y �..,\ MODE Pages 35 -41 and Lying Entirely
Within the
CITY OF SARATOGA, CA.
\ P ^ EC T
.. JENNMS • MCOERMOTT • HEISSfi
•.•.•feu' ��� 1
ii T, A. !)•�� aW tn9neers • iOtTd D1arr►era, SOfI IoSQ
? NRf•.o[ DEC lost SCALE I'M so'
-ENIC EASMENT ^� ;� _ .. SO OD
per Tr 6525, ^ - A•wr•N
•h }
..o
.o
iH•10'If •• % .� f .
•1 Af / .T, O.
.
Q5 0 00
- ATF:
11 d1 AT
IN fOOX OP PUPS, PIKE
THE 099MST
OF 4089ST f. KOERMOTT.
_AT
s PARCEL R_
RI
z 20 0 .4c.
^\
RANCH COURT
PARKER ,
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT \,
STATE OF CALIFORMIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA S S.
ON THIS `A DAY OFl6GC�brt IEE2,
BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NO"ARY PUBLIC IM
A FOR Am COUNTY B STATE PERSONALLY APPEARED E'�t �_���ci /e KNOWN TO ME TO BE
rHEr �r va ^e B �+- ".� 3 -ns r,HE CORPOR[71044 THAT
EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AS OWNER ANO KNOWN
TO ME TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN
IMSTRVMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION THEREIN
NAMED AND ACANOWLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH EXECUTED
THE SAME PURSUANT TO IT'S BY - LAWS OR A RESOLUTION
GF IT*S BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITNESS MY NANO AND
OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY ANDYEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTER.
YY COMMISSION EXPIRES _ JVe, PA 9.74
hOTgpY PU IN ANO ►OR SAID COUNTY is STAY[
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PARCEL MAP BEING A REVERSION
TO ACERAGE WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA , STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BT RESOLUTION NO _-
,AT A DULY AUTHORIZED
MEETING MELD ON THE DA• CF 1983
THE OEVELGPMENT OF THIS IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF
TRACT NO 6529,
GRACE E. CORY , CITY CLERK BY
CITY OF SARATOGA 1902
N AMCY AMN .•OOH
L••Y Clw. C
S1EVEYCR's CFRTIFrATF1
THIS MAP WAS PRt PARED AT Pe OR UNDER w1 olf[CTTON
AHO WAS COMP l Llo PRaw
[[CORD DATA IN CCNPORNANC[ WITH TK 4ECWIRENENT1,
r THE sto Dl Vt%t ON PIAP ACT AT THE AfQU ST of
BLACK W ELL MCNES IN JUNE 1982
1 KR[ET STATE TNAT THE PAIC[L I,AI PROC[DlN[f OF
^1 LOCK AGENCY ,LAWS SEEN CoWLIID WITH AND THAT
THIS PYC[L w Co"ININS TD THE ,APPROVED TENTATIK
NAP IF' ANY.
•�`
R•_BEPT G M<DCRMOTT
LS. ZT =♦
RECCRDIER'St C RTIFI
F +LEO TNT OAT W
- ATF:
11 d1 AT
IN fOOX OP PUPS, PIKE
THE 099MST
OF 4089ST f. KOERMOTT.
_AT
KORGI A. NNW(, COIMTV E(coRO[R
By o[PvTT
ITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICAT
THIS NAP CONFORMS WITH TK RE OUIREfE.TS w THE
stool vision RAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE.
H A 1 b,l, It —
6W fQ' 1 CERTIFIC=ATF1
TK UNDERSIGMEO "taffy C[RTI•IEf THAT K ASE
ALL I" PANTIf7 HAW INE AMY tlCORD /l Rl INTf.ST
IN AMO To M RI AL PRO►(R TY IWC LIIOEO YITHIA THE DISTINCT•
IVE BORDER SHOW( 11141 THE rI TM IN MAP, TMAIt K
LN! THE CIA" I[RSDM WOS[ COM INTf Atl fll C[1SYT
AND THAT K DO H[tlEI COMS [NT TO Tf1E Itl PAAAY101
AND
'"A We Cw SAID PARCEL MAP, BEING A
REVERSION OF ACERAGE OF THOSE LANOS WITHIN
TNT DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE THIS LOT IS NOT
RE SO 80 VIDABLE AND THE DEVELOPMEIIT OF +INS
IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF TRAIT NO. 6320.
OWNER: VALLEY TITLE COMPANY
i CALIFORNIA COPPOPATIOM
i M.H. 2353
CURVE TABLE
NO.1
RADIUS I DELTA
I LENGTH
10000
1 41.3205•
I 72 49
Z
8500
72-37"35-1
10774
3
i 78.00
1 70.01'31•
95.33
4
6 3. 00
j 70.01'31•
7700
S
126 00
j 28.38.32-
62 91
6 I
14100
I I,
7040
7
29037
7.21'57•
3733
8
305.37
I " i
3926
9
12600
27-31-15"
60.52
10 I
11000
1 165.4658
320.98
LEGEND
0 NOICATES EXIST 314' IRON M►E {UNLESS NOTZDI.
ik :NOICATES EXIST STD CITY MONUMENT OR TO /E
SET BY TRACT NO. 65ZG
OISTINCTIVF BORDER
ALL DISTANCES ANO DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET 4110
DECIMALS THEREOF.
THE 013TINCTIVE BORDER INDICATES THE BOUNDARY
OF LAND SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP. THE AREA
WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER IS ACRES,
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARING NI•21'24'W ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF PARKER RANCH CTAS SHOWN
ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 6528, THE PARKER
RANCH, FILED IN BOOK 499 OF MAPS, PAGES
35 THRU 41, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.
TRACT 6528 �O.STINCTIVE BORDER
PARCEL 8 / `� /
PARCEL 4 / Tr. 6528
[ 1 APD H[ 10 +Ir�O ?[
+T INDICATES ST +DD T,
•'�. 14116.1E IH TRPIW,iT
`�, • E° `i :� ,SIG• � ,,.,, "E.
S` Hf rA 03-'/ SCE
i•' F' A'� � L Will
8\ r:%
✓w
c D
O .:t 1 - L± 3.469 Ac. +`•
V 25 II j r[IT /- /' r --1
Z
U
Z
K
tY
W
Y
OT
I
0
�r
rF -y
/ 141 .. s..E{ ��: � � _ 4 • :{7�, 9 ,��
,r aI+I gl
10\ .
/ •II n
f:
/e
f
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE Of CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLAAA S S.
ON THIS '?r^ DAY OF !'Jt/•../P+hW� if82•
BEFORE ME. THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PvBUC IN
AP12 R SAIr/ 10 5v OUNTT B STATE PERSONALLY 4ME40EC
.�6 L RO RnO IEN TO rE TO BE
THE W+LC Vr/r O 111,0112,- 01 THE CORPORATION THAT
EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AS OWNER AND I[NOWII
ME TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN
INSTRUMENT ON KHALF OF THE CORPORATION THEREIN
NAMED AND ACIO+OWLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH EXECUTED
THE SAME PUIISU4TIT TO IT'S BY -LAWS OR A RESOLUTION
.F
IT S
BO 1) OF DIRECTORS WITNESS MY HAND AND
OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY AND TJEAR IRggT ••BOYS WRITTEN.
VET COVE MISS 1014 EXPIRES _1yd✓ i /9S•T
NOTARY PV8 IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY B STATE
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PARCEL MAP BEING A REVERSION
TO ACERAGE W43 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA, STATE Of CALIFORNIA, /T RESOLUTION NO
AT A DULY AVTHOA ZED
MEETING HELD ON THE DA• CF 1962.
THE DEVELGPMENT Of THIS IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF
TRACT 110 6528.
GRACE C CORY , CITY CLEAR 8Y
CITY Of SARATOGA _.. _. -..
� V AMC♦ AHN .ROOM
en" •.
1882
PARCEL MAP ONE SHEET
BEING A REVERSION TO ACREAGE OF LOTS
35 9 36.
of Tract No.6528, The Parker Ranch
Unit Tiro, Recorded in Book 499 of
Maps Pages 35 -41 and Lying Entirely
Within the
CITY OF SARATOGA, CA.
JENNWA - MC DERMOTT H HEISSIirtc.
Civil er9neeiTs P lard plortrwit, start lose
- DECIss: KALE I"- Do'
SURVEYOWS CFRTIFr.ATFt
THIS NAP WAS PREPARED DT Ht OA MOES NT e12ECTTON
AND WAS COMPILED roam
S(CORO OA /A IN COHFORHANC( ■ITN rH[( SEQVIMEMMT■
OP THt "101 r1110N w A[T Af try AE QLW SI or
BLACKWELL HOMES IN JUNE 1982
I "I"I, STAY( THAT THE PARCEL HAP pmo"oVREA OF
n,e LOCAI AO[N(T HAVE DEEM COMPLIED WIT" AWW THAT
THIS PAR W PARCEL I CO+PORPt TO THE APPWOVED TENTATIVE
, IF ►NY.
S-0�L. X/• / /TEd I fA�7�
ROBERT G Mc DERMOTT LS. 2734
PILED TNIE OAT Or 1982 AT
• 10 0009 — or IMPS, PAVE ---AT THE R(QWST
OF emas, {. HCOemm?T.
WON" A. HNa, I"TT RECam OCR
DT DEPWIT
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
THIS PYP CDNFDRPr WITH THE REQVIRe1tNT1 OF THE
SUBDIVISION HMI ACT AND LOCK ORDINANCE.
UAIL
c. r T,aP � un or [APirp
�Mt�IE 4 CERT"wIGATE,
TK UNDERSIGNED Ne ARDT CESTIFI(1 THAT K ARE
ALL THE PAATIeS HAVIN{ AMY RECORD TITLe INTEREST
IN CA" TO rN( SEA& PROI(0 VET INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTINCT-
IVE BORDER $MOWN . rH( ■ /THIN w, rNAT We
ARE THE OH.T rER1aN1 WHose caN1(NT1 ARe ItcffSoar
ANO r.AI to DO HE RED T COWS e111 rO THE PREPARATION
MHO RECORDATION M SAID PARCEL MAP, BEING A
4EVERSION OF ACER AGE OF [HOSE LANDS WITHIN
THE LI STINCT1vE DORDER LINE. THIS LOT IS NOT
RE SUBOIVIDABLE ANO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
15 SU /jECT TO CON OIT IONS OF TRACT NO. 6328.
OWNER: VALLEY TITLE COMPANY
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
1 �
BYE
J.M.H. 2351
apco Date Received :o-2- ,2
RECEIVED Hearing Date: 2-
0`.'.1983 Fee -,�(�
CITY USE ONLY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
At
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant: iLiv4% yc_ZllE _-/-d 10,W 1A4-
Project File No.: S�4Z /S3l
Project Address:
Project Description:
Decision Being Appealed:�p,�,� „c/G
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
( k & -, h-,., �, )
Apo an s Signature
*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.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
HE DATE OF THE DECISION.
DECEIVED
FEB 0 21 1983
ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
lopment, Inc.
14370 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110
February 1, 1983
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear City Clerk:
This letter is a request for an appeal hearing before the City Council
of the Planning Commission's denial of SDR 1531 for a tentaitve nine
lot subdivision on Tricia Way.
At their meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 1983, the Planning
Commission took the following actions:
1. Approved 4 -2 the Tricia Way access
2. Split 3 -3 on allowing nine lots
3. Split 3 -3 on approval of the tentative map
This split vote constitutes denial, and, therefore, I am filing
this appeal on the basis that the map meets all the criteria
of the subdivision and zoning ordinances and is in ccupliance with the
General Plan.
Very truly yours,
WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC.
wm=m .4
David S. WIlson