Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-26-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF SAIZNP I1 V R_UZA BILL NO. DATE: March 26, 1982 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. . DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. Appeals of SDR -1511, Clarence Neale, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road SUBJECT: Tentative Building Sire Approval - 2 Lots. Issue SL=ary After a rezoning of the subject site to RM -4,000 for conformance with the General Plan, an application was filed to split the subject 1.16 acre lot with a proposal to place 5 units on Parcel "A ". Planning Commission approved this lot split with conditions. Mr. - Neale, the applicant, has appealed conditions II -C, III -A and VII -C of the Planninc Commission approval to split the lot. These conditions require construction of an emergency access road across the adjacent SCVWD parcel to Walnut Avenue, inspection for code conformance of existing structures and a future dedication of lands to SCVWD should existing structures be removed. The neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Steele, have appealed the approval, pointing to a petition from the neighbors opposing any type of access across SCVWD and expressing concerns on the environment, flooding safety and liability for an access road to be built across SCVWD lands. Mr. Neale requests one month's continuance due to surgery. Recommendation: I. Conduct a public hearing on appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of the lot split as conditioned. 4. Set de novo hearing for May Sth or May 19th, which will comply with request of both appellants. Fiscal Impacts None-anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Appeal letters w /req. for contin- 5. Exhibits 2. Staff Report uance 6. Resolution 3. General Findings 7. Correspondence Received on Project 4. Minutes of Approval and Rezoning Council Action 4/7: Jensen /Mallory moved to continue Steele appeal to de novo hearing 5/19. Passed 5 -0. Jensen /Mallory moved to continue Neale appeal to de novo hearing 5/19. Passed 5 -0. 5/19: Mr. Steele withdrew his appeal. Clevenger/Watson moved to deleteoondition 1 requiring construction of emergency access road across water district land to Walnut Avenue; to uphold condition 3A requiring inspection of existing structures; to uphold ndition 7c r uir g future dedication of an additional 15 feet from top of bank; and to grant the appeal as modified. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 40812864800 City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 i i"AR 3 11982 I Norman E. Matteoni Y Allan Robert Saxe _ I Lynn C. Belanger March 30, 1982 Re: Request for Continuance for 30 Days of Appeal by Clarence Neale; SDR -1511; Currently Set for Council's Agenda of April 7, 1982 Dear Madam Clerk: Please be advised that Clarence Neale, who made the above - mentioned appeal concerning conditions of development for SDR -1511 requests a one month's continuance of the matter that is currently set for April 7, 1982. Clarence Neale today has entered O'Connor's Hospital for hip surgery and needs the additional time requested in order that he may personally participate in the appeal. I understand that there is also an appeal by a Mr. Steele concerning the Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision of this property. I would appreciate it if you would notify Mr. Steele of our request so that he is not inconvenienced by needlessly attending the April 7 Council meeting. Also, I would like you to place this letter before the Council and renew Mr. Neale's invitation to the Council members to personally visit the property to better understand his concerns about the conditions which he is appealing. He anticipates being available to show members of the Council the property the first week in May. Ve;VITW ly yours, NORMAN E NEM:md cc: Mr. Clarence Neale Saratoge Planning Department Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 / J � RECEIVED' IAAR 0 9 1982 Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe CW1.1UNITY DEVELOPMENT Lynn C. Belanger March 9, 1982 Re: Appeal of Conditions of Development for SDR -1511, Clarence Neale, Two Lots Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council: Clarence Neale has consulted me for the purpose of reviewing the Planning Commission's resolution approving the tentative map of a two lot subdivision for 1.16 acres, with certain conditions of approval, in order to locate a triplex on the property and divide the land between Mr. Neale and his son. The comments made below are intended to supplement Mr. Neale's appeal of three particular conditions: 1. Condition II -C calling for the construction of an emergency access road across the land of the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Walnut Avenue. 2. Condition III -A concerning inspection of existing structures. 3. Condition VII -C requiring future dedication of an additional 15 feet from top of bank to the Santa Clara Valley Water District when certain structures are removed. Mr. Neale has two purposes in mind by the approvals. that he seeks from the City. The first is to divide the land in question into two parcels of approximately 25,000 square feet each in order that he and his son, who jointly own the property, may divide their holdings. Further, Mr. Neale has secured a residential structure from the Federated Church which he desires to locate on his parcel as a triplex available for senior citizen housing. The three conditions mentioned above jeopardize the completion of this project because of the extra development costs that they impose, as well as threat to improvements at the lower elevation of the property but above a retaining wall adjacent to Saratoga Creek. It is important to recognize that the property is already improved with certain residential structures. Parcel A Honorable City Council March 9, 1982 Page Two has a duplex and a garage. Parcel B contains a residential structure. These residences have access from a cul -de -sac from State Route 85. In this general context, the concern for the above - mentioned conditions are discussed. First, staff has proposed emergency access over the lands of another, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which has verbally indicated to the City that it is willing to lease the area. Immediately to the west of the subject property are apartment houses and, as indicated above, subject property contains existing residential units. The bulb of the cul -de -sac is located adjacent to subject property which would allow emergency vehicles such as fire trucks complete access to any of the units on subject property. Mr. Neale has asked a contractor for the estimate of improving the emergency road across the Water District's land and has received an estimate of approximately $12,500. Neighbors on Walnut Avenue have filed an objection,to access onto their street. According to Mr. Neale's judgment, the improvement of this emergency access road will only serve the Water District in facilitating access to the creek area for repair. Currently, the Water District comes through Neale's property. An emergency access corridor already exists from the Neale property to Highway 85 which does not involve the expense of a new route over the Water District land. Along the . northerly side of the apartment house property, Neale has a 20 foot ingress and egress easement which contains the utilities to his property. He has not used that ingress and egress easement for general access, but PG &E and other service companies periodically use the corridor. This corridor enters the Highway 85 right -of -way at the top of the hill where the City's pathway is installed. Emergency access can be taken from the end of the cul -de -sac through Parcel B and along this 20 foot ingress and egress easement exiting onto Highway 85. The cost of maintaining this route as emergency access is not expensive and does not involve the steeper grades that are on the Water District land. Mr. Neale invites each of the Councilmembers to view his property and would be willing to demonstrate how this emergency access could serve his property, if it is necessary at all. Honorable City Council March 9, 1982 Page Three The second concern is with the requirement of inspecting existing structures on the premises. All of those structures were built with City building permits. The duplex on the lower portion of Parcel A has been in existence since 1948. Mr. Neale would be pleased to show the Council these improvements. He does not feel it appropriate to go to the expense of _inspecting the existing premises. They are pre- existing structures and in some cases actually existed on the property before incorporation of the City. These structures do not relate to the placement of a new structure on the property which obviously would be subject to present Code requirements. The third concern is with the requirement of dedicating not only the creek area below the existing retaining wall, but the requirement to commit to a future dedication above the retaining wall of land that is currently occupied by buildings. The existing duplex and adjacent garage are at an elevation of 429 feet which is just below the estimated 100 year flood line of 431 feet. One of the apartment structures on the adjacent land is also below the 431 foot elevation. But, the property is protected by an existing retaining wall along the creek. It has not suffered damages from flood waters in the years of its existence on this property. Thus, a condition to agree to future dedication when the structure is removed is not warranted at this time. Again, in order to understand the conditions complained of, it would be most helpful if the Council would call on Mr. Neale to visit the property and examine exactly how the proposed conditions would affect the property. The overall project has received favorable comment from the City. Mr. Neale desires to perform on the project but must ask the Council's consideration on these conditions. You will find numerous other conditions.set forth in the approval with which Mr. Neale will comply, to satisfy all City standards and guarantee public safety and welfare in the development of his property. Ver,vl' tru NORMAN E. NEM:md cc: Clarence Neale you ATTEONI t b�av svgs TO: City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga CA 95070 FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Grover B. Steele 20410 Walnut Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 REFERENCE: SDR -151 1 City Council: March 1 7, 1982 / 1 RECEWED MAR 18 1982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I hereby document my continuing objection to the recent Saratoga Planning Commission action to approve the site known as SDR -1511 for tie— cons��eton -of-a -- on Arbeleche Lane and the subsquent City Council 4�},rTAl rconfirmation of this questionable act. I further demand that a de novo hearing be called to review these decisions. 7 My objections along with . those. of other, s . has . been made public before. These objections have been stated in public appearances and in documented petitions. The demand for a hearing is predicated on the fact that the decisions are contrary to the expressed interest of your constituents and that they serve only the financial gain of a single individual. As a minimum, the objections to these decisions are delineated as follows: / PETITIONS; by the admission of the Gay- -- Council on February 24, petitions were on file from the residents of Walnut Ave. and Victor Place opposing the action. Even though public record, these objections where not addressed. ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSI.7ENT; as part of his public appearance, Clarence.Neal stated that two different enviromental groups had filed protests. The public admission by Mr. Neal on February 24 leaves -2- • 11 leaves unanswered questions concerning the enviromental assessment. ..DEPOSITION; a three page deposition was introduced in to public record by Mr. Reid of Saratoga Ave. during the Cit ouric l meeting an February 24. In his address to the Geocil, Mr. Reid stated that the desposittioira sea several legal questions concerning the Planning Commissions general analysis of the site, grades, flood control measures and the legality as to how the'triplex obtained from Federated Church and was moved'.on to the site. On a point by point bases, Mr. Reid's deposition demands study and resolutions. ACCESS ROAD TO WALNUT. AVE; unaswered is Mr. Neal's right to use the water district land and the financial responsibility for the on going maintenance of the proposed road. A legal and moral question exists as to the parties responsibile for the financial restitution for all damages to private and public properties resulting from either construction or use of the road. The financial questions have not been addressed from either a present or future view point. As a minimum, these and other questions arising from the approval of site SDR '511 demand an answer. Grover B. Steele L� Maryann Steele �m 0 T0: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 FROTH : Mr. &Mrs. Grover B. Steele 20410 ' dalnut Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 REFERENCE: SDR -1511 Ci -�� CC>Vr�mS51or) < In regard site approval Argeleche Lane our continuing action. 4 r-D 1, March 9, 1982 i 417 C�'SCL��MC�D MAR d 1982 - to Adecision of February 24th granting .or the construction of a triplex on by Clarence Neal, we hereby reconfirm objection to your tastless and careless Your approval of issue SDR -1511 is reflective of your blatant disregard for the interest of the residents of Walnut Ave., Alta Vista, Victor Place and Saratoga Ave., and by your own admission have willingfully and knowingly chosen to disregard their signed petitions and depositions. This travesty of justice for the singular financial gain of one individual over the documented objections of your.eonstituents raises both legal and moral questi*w*ch on fur:t hy investigation could lead to an injun r Grover B. Steele Maryann Steele F67— 43 y3 4' { C M REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Cif" Of SQraao 12/04/81 DATE: ..2/17/82* Q Revised Commission Meeting: 2/24/82 SUBJECT: SDR -1511, Clarence Neale, Tentative Building Site Approval, Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Arbeleche Lane, 2 lots (multi - family). REQUEST: To receive Tentative Building Site Approval to split a 1.16 acre parcel at the end of Arbeleche Lane, in order to place 3 additional multi - family dwelling units on the Parcel "A'.' (2 already exist). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project was with the general plan). adopted at the time of rezoning (for conformance PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been readvertised by publishing in the within 500 feet. newspaper, posting and by mailings to property owners GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -M -4000. Apartments. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single - family residential (R -1- 10,000 and R-1-12,500) to the north and east; residential (R -M -3000 and R -M -4000) to the south and west, multi - family SITE SIZE: 1.16 acres(50,529 sq. ft.). Net - 20,389 sq. ft. Parcel asking for eventually 15 feet wide. SITE SLOPE: 9 %. Parcel "A" - Gross - 25,660 sq. ft. "B" - Gross - 25,003 sq. ft. S.C.V.W.D. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to split a 1.16 acre lot and to place a triplex (remodeled residential structure from the Federated Church site) on Parcel "A". Report to Planning Commission 2/24/82* SDR -1511, Clarence.';Neale Page 2 Access to the lot is proposed to be via an improved easement, longer than 400' which crosses Arbeleche Lane. The applicant's engineer has been requested to submit a title report showing his right to use this access since the reports to date only give him partial access. More than 15 housing units exist on this easement, a dead -end street system, thus an emergency secondary access is required by the project and included as a condition of the Staff Report. A gated Emergency Access is proposed to extend through the adjacent S.C.V.W.D. parcel to Walnut Ave. and is conditioned in the Staff Report. S.C.V.W.D. has verbally indicated they would be willing to lease an area for the emergency access and if the property were to develop, the City could then require an easement. On Parcel "A ", a duplex and garage as well as several concrete walls exist. A carport extends over the property line to the southwest. A triplex is proposed as well as two additional carports and five parking spaces. The total of five units on the 20,389 square foot (net) is the maximum number of units allowed in the R -M -4000 zoning district. If the S.C.V.W.D. takes____, an additional 15 feet in the future, there would not be enough area for_.__, five units. The existing duplex and garage are located in the 100 year flood area (a - retaining wall has been placed on site reaching, or almost reaching, the 431 foot surface level of the flood waters although the S.C.V.W.D. is not willing tO accept this improvement). The proposed triplex is shown with a 25 foot rear yard setback and a 15 foot side yard setback. The side yard setback needs to be 10% of the site width which is 186 feet, thus the proposed building will need to be moved 3 feet to conform to minimum setback requirements. Since the site slope is less than 10 %, a site develop- ment plan is not required and is not being approved at this time. The set- backs are to be approved at the time of design review. Parking required for apartments is one covered space and one uncovered space per unit. The access to the five uncovered spaces would cause the removal of a large walnut tree. Parcel "B" shows only four covered spaces. Again, parking can be reviewed and approved at the time of design review. Prior to approving the project the Planning Commission needs to make the following special findings: In the opinion of the advisory agency the only feasible method for developing the property for the use for which it is zoned is on a cul -de -sac over 400 feet in length. However, an emergency, secondary access is conditioned. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 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 filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1511 (Exhibit "B" filed 10/20/81 subject to the following conditions: Report to Planning Rission SDR -1511, Clarence Neale I. GENERAL CONDITIONS 2/24/82* Page 3 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 regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Deparment. 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. 60. II... SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION A. Construct access road 26 feet wide, of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base * from private turnaround. Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:. I. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be surfaced using 22 inches of A.C. on 6 inches of aggregate base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet of length. 3. The minimum vertical clearance shall be 15 feet. 4. The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 feet. ** B. Cvrr3tru_t -tru x 4ira- 4r -3-a- foot -rttd,�t -ow- approved--e�i- ttsi� doub -lam -ooa t -o-1- -1- mtn4 ri� t�tz - bet -t-ei- +24T wtchre -try -t�l-t -corrt�t-e t-e-) on- -6— i-rrc4r -a��-e- -ba (DELETE) * C. Construct emergency access from public road (Walnut) to turnaround 18 feet wide plus 1 foot shoulders using double coat oil and screening or better (22 -inch A.C.) on 6 -inch aggregate base. D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by Director of Community Development. E. Obtain encroachment from CalTrans for any work done within State right - of -way. F. Bond and inspection fee as determined from engineered plans, to be posted and paid. G. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. H. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (pay required Checking and Recordation Fees). Report to Planning tission '"' 2/24/82 SDR -1511, Clarence Neale / /82 Page 4 II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES (Cont. I. On -site parking areas to be A.C., J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. K. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. L. Enter into-Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - INSPECTION SERVICES DIVISION A. Existing structures to be brought to Code prior to permits or bond for amount of repairs. B. Flood plain elevation to be calculated by Registered Civil Engineer. C. Prior to Final Map Approval: Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional on foundation. D. Prior to issuance of permits: Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork. quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet numbers, owner's name, etc.). IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITIATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated 11/16/81. B. No deep- rooted trees are to be planted over or adjacent to existing sanitary sewer easement. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1511, Clarence Neale C. Emergency access exit to be available for use by District to maintain the siphons and mains easterly of this parcel. V. SPECIFIC'CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 2/24/32 Page 5 A. 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. Slope driveway shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: I. Driveways having slopes between 12% to 15% shall be surfaced using 22 inches of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base. 2. Developer to install one (1) hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications and grant an easement for it to become a public hydrant. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. 2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. 3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. * B. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. * C. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. ** * D. Construct an emergency access (secondary access) road from property to Walnut. Said access road shall be constructed in accord with the provisions of the 1979 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.207 -A -E. A recorded document showing right -of- access across the Santa Llara Valley Water District is required prior to final approval. * E. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. * F. No additional unit shall be constructed without first complying with the following: 1. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. 2. Developer to install one (1) hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications and grant an easement for it to become a public hydrant. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. Report to Planning lFrimission 2/24/82 SDR -1511, Clarence Neale Page 6 VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Any future building shall have a first floor elevation of 433.5 feet (2 feet above the 1% flood). B. Dedicate right -of -way along entire creek frontage, as show n, but not the retaining wall, to Santa Clara Valley Water District. C. When existing structures in 1% flood area are removed, an additional 15 feet back from top of bank are to be dedicated to S.C.V.W.D. D. Any outfall structure details to be submitted to S.C.V.W.D. for review and approval prior to Final Approval. E. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the S.C.V.W.D. for review and certification. ** F. A recorded document showing right-of-:access Valley Water District is required prior to VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Residence locations and driveway designs to approved by Saratoga Fire District prior to * * B. Design Review Approval on Parcel'B required issuance of permi ts'. across the Santa Clara final approval. be reviewed and issuance of permits. on project prior to C. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. ** D. Design Review Approval is required on Parcel A prior to final map. Setbacks shown on map are not approved at this time.. IX. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved: Ka by K�j�`dus , Associa�'e Planner KK:lt P. C. Agenda: 2/24/82 *Revised by Staff 2/17/82 * *Revised by P. C. Meeting 2/24/82 planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 2/24%82 V -S72 (cont.) 1 Page G the C -C district. He explained that, even though there are no parking districts in the C -N districts, we may have developed an area that is the center of the c mmunity, and yet we may be doing a disservice to the parking by not wing the ratio that has been used in the parking districts. Ile sugge ted that perhaps the ordinance should be reviewed. Staff clarified that \�a are not considered commercial structures, and therefore the storage has been computed in the parking. Commissioner Monia commented that ld like to have Staff recompute the parking and consider the storea, since the storage area of a store is not considered in the parFie suggested that perhaps a condition that might be imposed is ttriping to accommodate smaller cars. Commissioner Laden al mmended that the 1400 sq. ft. of storage area be subtracted in nsideration of usable space. She added that perhaps the Deputy Cio ney could reword the condition about the easement, so in fact n ted easement is not required, but some access to the northerpe ty at a time when it may come in for development. Commissioner Bolger expressed Ill s concern about the traffic flow, stating that lie would like the traffic unt at Brandywine and Blauer. Commissioner Crowther stated that he did not feel that parking is a major issue. He commented that he felt the Commission should look at some of the other issues, which he feels a e the real issues related to this proposal. Commissioner King suggested that the applicant look at the ingress and egress features of the traffic flow i regard to the main and secondary entrances of the center. It was directed that this item be conti�ued to a study session on March 2, 1982 and the regular meeting o March 10, 1982. 9. SDR -1511 C. Neale, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the R -M -4,000 Zoning District at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; continued from December 9, 1981 Staff described the proposal. It was determined that Item II -B of the Staff Report, regarding the turnaround, should be deleted, since Staff does not feel that it is necessary because there is an emergency access to Walnut. It was clarified that the existing structures on both parcels will have to be brought up to code. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. Mr. Neale, the applicant, discussed bring the building up to code. He indicated that he has permits from the City showing that the duplex on the one parcel is up to code. The easement which he has given to the Flood Control was discussed, and also the conditions of the Staff Report.* Charles Reed submitted a letter which he had written in opposition to the project. Mr. Reed stated that he feels a handsome looking building is needed on the property, and what is now there is a terrible eyesore, and it is only 80 ft. from where he lives. He discussed the cul-de -sac and the number of homes on it. Mr. Reed added that the water district hill. is somewhere between 19% and 20% slope. He indicated that the creek is a real problem in that location. He expressed his opposition to the houses on the lot. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the houses that are on the lot were houses removed from the church property that was developed. He explained that the situation there is that they were perhaps sal.vagable and Mr. Neale had an arrangement with the church to acquire the houses for possible use on this site. A written agreement was prepared and executed between the City and the applicant, which provided that he had permission to temporarily place the houses on this site, with the very clear understanding that, by doing so, the City was not approving the homes; that he would have to comply with all building codes, with design review. lie added that, if at that time the City determines the homes are not suitable, for one reason or another, then he will be required to *Vise- Chairman King reminded Mr. Neale several times that he had indicated at the study session that he understood and agreed with the terms of the Staff Renort. Plan,iing Commission `. Page 7 Meeting Minutes - 2/24/82 g SDR -1511 (cont.) have the structures removed. Mr. Reed stated that the bank is giving away on both sides, and always has and will continue to do so; yet there aren't any requirements in the Staff Report from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. He indicated that one of the lots is 70% in the flood zone. Grover Steele, 20410 Walnut, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that lie had disagreed with the rezoning on this site because Walnut could not handle hoth the ingress and egress that the applicant proposed. lie stated that he strongly objects to the fact that the proposed road across the Water District property is on a steep grade of land and portions of that cross his property. He noted that there is a petition on file by 100; of the residents on Walnut objecting to this. Staff explained to Mr. Grover that there would be an emergency access that would be gated at both ends and would not be for through circula- tion. They indicated that it would be an 18 ft. wide road. Mr. Steele stated that the property is only about 25 feet wide, and the road would have to cross his property. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see the following addressed: (1) if the road does cross Mr. Steele's property or not, (2) if the slope of the hill is 19% to 20 %, it would violate the Fire Code, and (3) the issues brought up by Mr. Reed should be resolved with the Water District. Mr. Neale stated that there is a retaining wall the full length of his property, which the Flood Control has accepted as being sufficient to keep any water from coming onto his property. He noted that the wall has been there for 46 years. Mr. Neale indicated that the County Engineer had said that the road was a 15% slope. Staff pointed out that both the City Engineer and Fire Chief were out on site and felt that a road could be engineered which would be to their standards. It was noted that Condition V -A adequately deals with the emergency access road and states the conditions which would be accepted. Staff clarified that there has been a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District listing conditions, which are included in the Staff Report. The timeframe for the dedication of an additional 15 ft. was discussed. It was noted that this will be done when the structures are being removed. The encroachment of the carport into the property line was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the encroachment of the carport wouldn't necessarily change the boundary line of the parcel map. He stated that it was his understanding that there is no plan by the appli- cant to remove the duplex; in that event the 15 ft. dedication to the Water District would not be triggered. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he feels the Staff Report addresses the concerns. He moved to approve SDR -1511, per the Staff Report, as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion. A time limit for the houses to be removed from the site was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney commented that he did not have the agreement with him and did not recall if there was a time limit. Commissioner l;lonia asked if it would be appropriate to'tie.in the final approval of this lot split to the fact that these buildings, in some period of time, will comply to code. Staff clarified that it could be conditioned that Design Review Approval be obtained prior to Final Approval. Commissioner Laden stated that she has a concern for approving a tenta- tive map when in fact she does not believe she has seen the entire map. She indicated that she has a problem not seeing the secondary access needed. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the oddity here is that the access is actually going to be constructed on the Water District property. Dis- cussion followed on Condition V -D addressing the emergency access. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he felt the condition actually has to be phrased in terms of a document to be recorded; it would actually be a grant of an easement from the Water District covering its property and finding where that goes. He added that, since it is property belonging - 7 - 'Planning Commission I Page 8 Meeting Minutes SDR -1511 (cont.) to the district, the first issue is just to define where that access is located, and establish evidence of the availability of this access from the Water District. He added that that may be something granted to the City itself rather than Mr. Neale. An easement may not be nece- ssary if the right is between the district and the City, for example. Commissioner Zambetti amended his motion to include an amendment to Condition V -D to read that a recorded document showing right -of- access across the Santa Clara Valley Water District is required prior to Final Approval. That condition was also added as Condition VII -F. Condition VIII -B was amended to read: "Design Review Approval on Parcel B required on project prior to issuance of permits. Condition VIII -D was amended to read: "Design Review Approval is required on Parcel A prior to final map. Setbacks shown on map are not approved at this time." Commissioners Zambetti and King accepted those conditions as part of their motion. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with Commis- sioner Laden dissenting,, stating that she did not feel there is a sufficient map showing the proper subdivision of this property. Mr. Neale stated that the project will be a good looking one, and the senior citizens will benefit from the project. 10. SDR -1515 Fisher /Gomez, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the R- 1- 20,000 Zoning District at 14586 Aloha Avenue . Staff described the proposal, explaining that there was a previously approved lot split which has expired. The public hearing was Opened at 11:30 D.m. A letter from the neighborrs, in opposition, was noted into the record. Cor Bregman, 20330 Saratog -Los Gatos Road, expressed his opposition to the project. He stated th t he considered this to be a third dwelling on the property. He added hat he and his neighbors do not feel that another dwelling would be in the best interest of the area. Malcolm Wilson, 20318 Saratog�-Los Gatos Road, agreed with Mr. Bregman. He stated that there are large houses in that area set in approximately one -acre lots, and he did not nt to see them split. Kevin Fisher, engineer for Mr . mez, stated that he felt making Aloha Avenue one -way will help the tra fie situation. He indicated that he feels the project is compatible w th the zoning. He added that there are many trees and shrubs on the p operty to act as a buffer between Mr. Gomez' property and the neighb rs or Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Cozette Cermak, 14585 Aloha Avenue, stated that she did not object to the Mr. Gomez dividing his property. However, she does object to the closing of Aloha Avenue and she believes that the law prohibits the closing of such a street. She indica ed that her husband has had his practice on the corner for 30 years d , a this will be a detriment to his practice. She added that she did not eel that the street is more dangerous than any other intersection. Mrs. Cermak expressed concern regarding the turnaround which has been roposed, which goes into her driveway. Commissioner Monia moved to close the pub \Avenue, ring. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carrnimously. Discussion followed on the closing of Alo and it was clarified that there will be ingress one way. Commissioner Laden moved to approve SDR -1 the Staff Report. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motionCommissioner Crowther stated that he was to the project on the basis of the input from the neighbors. Coner Bolger stated that - 8 - l� 4- 8/19/81 The Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Councilmember Jensen asked whether the applicant were willing to add three conditions to the use permit: turning off the lights at 9:00 p.m. and all day on Sunday; installing a wooden sign rather than a plexiglass one; and adding flowers to the landscaping. Mr. Scampini replied that Imperial Savings and Loan was willing to comply with whatever conditions the City imposed, but that regulations required financial institutions to keep interior lights on. Councililerrber Jensen stated she believed the project could be a real improve- ment. She favored a retail use of the vacated space in the Village. Councilmember Watson felt the applicant's presentation and the staff presen- tation were good. Imperial Savings and Loan had been a good neighbor, he felt, and the City needed sales tax revenues. He, therefore, favored the use permit. Councilmiember Mallory noted the concern of Planning Commissioner Monia that the proposed project was not in the best interest of the City. A better - designed facility should be placed along the scenic highway, he felt. Mayor Callon stated her belief that the Planning Cmrdssion was correct in its denial of the use permit. She felt that financial institutions brought in sales tax revenues indirectly through increased use of the area, so loss of such revenues was -am argument. against granting the permit. Councilmember Clevenger said she considered the proposed project counter- productive to increasing retail space in Saratoga. She, therefore, favored denying the appeal without prejudice. jENSgQAA,iATSON MOVED To GRANT USE PERMIT WITH THREE CONDITIONS. Failed 3 -2. B. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM R- 1- 12,500 TO R -M -4,000 ON THE 1.15+ ACRE PARCEL IO ATED AT 14239 SARATOGA- SURMALE ROAD, PER ORDINANCE NS -3 AND ARTIC IE 18, AND THE ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. City Manager explained appeal in general, and Assistant Planner Flores provided further details. Councilmember Jensen expressed concern that the rezoning did not comply with the provisions of the General Plan report regarding emergency access in areas with over 15 housing units. Asst: Planner Flores responded that two means of access had been recorded. Councilmember Jensen then noted she felt the proposal was inconsistent with the goal expressed in the General Plan report to have single - family dwellings in the area. Assistant Planner Flores responded that the boundaries mentioned in the General Plan report were un- clear, and staff had interpreted them as allowing the proposed rezoning. Councilmember Clevenger stated that this was not discussed in the General Plan area meetings, but that the Planning Commission felt the rezoning was consistent with the General Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 P.M. C.W. Neale spoke as the applicant, saying that the property was surrounded by.condominiums and apartments. His purpose was to have five small units for senior citizens which he would rent out for $300. in order to pay expenses. He planned to move three units from the Saratoga Federated Church property, he said, and add two more. Mr. Neale stated that he already had a list of senior citizens who wished to rent the units. In response to Councilmember Watson's question, Mr. Neale stated that he had no drawings of the proposed buildings. Councilmember Mallory expressed the opinion that the Saratoga Federated Church buildings were not particularly desirable; Mr. Neale stated that he was willing to build five new buildings if the church buildings were unacceptable. Mayor Callon asked if the units would come under the design review process, and Assistant Planner Flores confirmed that they would. Grover Steele, 20410 Walnut, spoke against the proposed rezoning, stating that it would provide an easement close to his hone with a dirt road with great erosion problems. He felt the rezoning would not be in the best interests of the residents of Walnut. C �= 8/19,81 The Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. t Mayor Callon asked why R-M -5,000 was not the rezoning chosen for the site. Assistant Planner Flores stated that there was no other R-M -5,000 in the City; the project,adjacent to the property is zoned R- M- 4,000, so the proposed zoning would be consistent. He also stated that the easement was not required as part of the rezoning; it is an issue that would have to be resolved in the building site approval stage. Councilrmenber Watson expressed concern that such approval might be almost automatic; Assistant Planner Flores stated that building site approval is not automatic, and other easements are possible on the property. Councilmenber Jensen asked for a map of the floodplain, and Director of Public Works provided the nap`: and .explained its meaning. Councilmetmber Jensen then stated that the matter should be referred to the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for interpretation of the General Plan Report and map. Councilmenber Mallory expressed his desire to act tonight. Councilmenber Clevenger preferred not to refer it to the GPCAC because they are so busy with other matters. Furthermore,.she felt that since the issue had never come up, there was no significant community concern. She felt the idea of high density had strong support for the Village area. Further, the property was attractive and had a good entrance, unlike the Carreia property, in her opinion. MALLORY /CAISAN MOVED To APPROVE REZONING. Passed 5 -0. Mayor Callon encouraged Mr. Steele to be actively involved in the development of the property and noted that Council action did not endorse an easement. City Manager stated that the staff would provide an ordinance to render the rezoning effective, and that the rest of the procedure would be ministerial. CouncihTeimber Jensen requested that a flood plain zoning ordinance be pre- pared; Mayor Callon suggested that the Council meet with the City Manager. C. REPORT AND ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ABATEMENT - 1981 SEASON. City Manager outlined issues. Cliff Johnson, Fire Marshall for Santa Clara County, reported on the subject, stating that 233 people had been notified that weed abatement was necessary, and in only 89 cases had abatement needed to be done by the County. He explained that there had been communications problems with Dr. Ned Abrams, whose property had been disced by the County as a fire hazard before the Fourth of July. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Dr. Ned Abrams spoke to object to the discing of his property by the County, since he had already disced. He explained the communications problems that had occurred; he also asserted that he had followed a certain method of discing for many years; and that method had been deemed adequate in the past. Dr. Abrams urged the City not to accept the County's procedure. ..Councilmenber Watson noted that the main factor to consider was safety, but the becase of the location of the Abrams property, appeararice was a factor. He questioned whether fire breaks were adequate as opposed to discing an entire field. Chief Johnson stated that mowing would not work, and discing such a large area would be too costly. Mayor Callon expressed her concern that Dr. Abrams had received no written notice of the County's intent to disc. Chief Johnson noted that his office had attempted to contact Dr. Abrams, but that he was away, and the field needed to be disced before the Fourth of July. Ed Miljevich, Miljevich Drive, asserted that the discing on Dr. Abrams' land l had been done properly and related his extensive experience in'discing. i _. ...... ," :'Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes - 7/8/81 ti,, SDR -1499 (cont.) existing lega lot and the applicant has a right to build on it. 7,• Richard Stowers architect, questioned the condition by the Saratoga 4 t' a 32 foot radius on site He explained that r r � M Fire istrict re ues ing a turnaround havi g that large a radius would be detrimental to the site because of the tre s and topography. It was determined that the Fire District does have arious options to a standard 32 foot radius turna- round, and Condition -B should read "Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling sit having a 32 foot inside radius or other approved type turnaround which m st meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on buildi plans." Commissioner Zambetti move \-1499. d by Commissioner King, to approve the Negative Declaration for SThe motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved by Commissioner King, to approve SDR -1499, per the Staff Re July 8, 1981 as amended, and Exhibit "B ". The motion was carriusly. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6r.,- etive Declaration - C -197 - C. Neale 6b. C- 197""\C. Neale, Consideration of Rezoning from R -1- 12,500 to R -M -4,000 n the 1.15+ acre parcel located at 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road V ff scribed the proposed rezoning. They commented that they have, is s regarding secondary access. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated that up to one - quarter of the site would be taken up by easements due to flood hazards, and this would significantly reduce the maximum number of allotted units that could occupy the site. Chairman Laden stated that the issue at this time is the rezoning of this property to bring it into conformance with the General Plan. She explained that the owners can later bring in a site development plan, at which time the structures can be conditioned and the access can be addressed. She added that the Commission can either suggest a rezoning or.General Plan Amendment to the City Council. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Clarence Neale, 14165 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated that he has two accesses to the property in his deed, both of which are accessible to Highway 85. He explained the history of the site, explaining that the property had previously been zoned R -M -4,000 and had not been developed; .therefore the zoning had reverted back to R -1. Mr. Neale described the access roads and the proposed project, stating that he wished to build —units for senior citizens on this property. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the rezoning of the property not give building site approval; that can be dealt with at a later date. .Chairman Laden explained to Mr. Neale that the emergency access condition could be addressed with the Fire Chief when the time comes to ,y develop e'' �Y..�S ai �Mh ' Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. r Commissioner Crowther questioned why a zoning of R -M -5,000 was not being ,\considered, since it is listed in the ordinance. Staff explained that the "7 Y1 ..R -M -4,000 is consistent with adjacent developments and there is presently no R -M -5,000 in the City. Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt R -M -S 000 would be more consistent with the density requirements of the r General Plan He noted that this site is already being used for multi - s v '! N r'.- 'm'a'tt .t. h,�'„y,.C:" {. r r 1 r,�C 1�6 ��' �F s 1r ♦ 2 Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes - 7/8/81 KL'= U 1 a = �1YC -197 (cont.) ,I".r' family and is directly adjacent to another multi - family residential area. r, Commissioner Schaefer agreed that she felt the R -M -5,000 zoning would be reasonable. After discussion, it .was the consensus of the Commission l' that a R -M -4,000 zoning would be consistent with the General Plan. The Negative Declaration for the rezoning was discussed, and it was determined that the sentence reading "The applicant intends to provide senior citizen rental housing on the site" should be deleted. Chairman Laden explained to Mr. Neale that he can specify senior citizen rentals to the bank and City when he comes in with a site development plan. Commissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the amended Negative Declaration and rezoning to R -M -4,000 for application C -197, " bringing it into conformance with the General Plan; making the necessary , r { {Y.`t , . 3 • S li �l 471 1 �, findings. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, amending it to include the conditions recommended in the Staff Report, that the applicant shall prepare a total site development plan and submit proof of a viable secondary access, to the site. The amendment failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Bolger seconded Commissioner King's motion for recommendation of the Negative Declaration and rezoning. Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the motion to rezone the property to R -M -5,000 instead of R -M- 4,000. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. The vote was taken on the recommendation for rezoning to,R -M -4,000 and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Zambetti stated he would be voting no, explaining that it Should be a conditional rezoning and he feels that at some future time, before final approval is given at the City Council level, the applicant should submit a site development plan to ensure a viable double access for fire and emergency. He added that he feels, if the site development plan was not activated in two years, then the plan should revert back to a R -1- 12,500 zoning. Commissioner Schaefer agreed. The motion for rezoning to R -M -4,000 was carried, with Commissioners Zambetti and Schaefer dissent- ing. Chairman Laden suggested to Mr. Neale that he follow Commissioner's Zambetti's suggestion to present a site development plan to the Planning Department a u -.,.for their review; Mr: Neale stated he would do so as soon as possible. Dr. Coll' %hb n, Request for a Use Permit to allow the continuation, ,.,,t.. �,.x.•. �• under new nership, of an existing veterinary clinic in the C -N (Nei rhood -Commercial) district at 13561 Quito Road r ,ice Y 5 1 L Jl a . q r \ S . f.�.M1... Staff described the p oposal. • The public hearing was pened at 8:4S p.m. ,Since no one appeared, C missioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Cr wther seconded the motion, which was carried i; unanimously._ Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP -503, making the findings. Com- missioner Schaefer seconded e motion, which was carried unanimously. of _r }• %.• .. i. ^� Staff suggested that the Commi sion should consider changing the use permit f = to run with the land, as oppose to with the owner. The whole issue of zz `use permits will be taken up in a future .study session. 8'y UP 504E Thomas Gwin," Request for Use Permit to allow the construction of r't.:: t` a_;detached garage over 6' n height (12' max.) in the required rear and at 19621 Jun a La ? u,y A report on 'the proposal was given by taff The setbacks of the project } :fwere `discussed t; .yyi t c 3 ; , . -.. .(N.,.A. J .•a4x.��i.s f,.. FUnr�t.- :f�:yb .Slt ..J,...../ �:i. a .ut ..... ,... . . /.ti.. . _ ..... ?, .. ._.... .� i. ... .. .. RESOLU']'ION NO. SDR- 1511 -1 s� RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF CLARENCE NEALE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -15II of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im- provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer- ence to the approved Staff Report dated December 4, 1981 (amended 2/17/82 being hereby made for further particulars, and and 2/24/82) WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions Of CEQA, and E i WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with the conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 20th day of October , 19 81, and is marked Exhibit "B" in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adop- ted by the (Planning Commission) ( IXdCtiCcXX12Ccl�a {IX�d��YX��5�3��X) at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of February 19 82, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Monia, King.and Zambetti NOES: Commissioner Laden ABSENT: Commissioner Schaefer ATTEST: ecretary l) ADVISORY ENCY By: C_. Chri:Lrman Chas W. Reed P.O.Dox 585 Saratoga, Ca., 95071 February 24, 1982 Planning Commission, City of Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. RE: S.D.R. # 1511 NEALE To the Commission and Staff: I respectfully request that approval be denied and the proposal be dropped from further consideration for the following reasons: 1. Your staff report, upon which you are relying for your information is in serious error when it states "This project complies with all the requirements of the sub- division ordinance of the City ", since this project; A...., Is designed with a Cul de sac street over 590 feet long, with no practical emergency outlet, while ordinance allows 400 feet. The proposed emergency outlet over Flood Control land is between 19 and 20 0 grade, when your ordinance bans anything over 17.5 0 You have stated in Committee of the whole, and the owner agreed, that the other considered outlet simply will not suffice. This Cul de sac already has twenty -one mail boxes on one side, and your staff recommends six additional residents. P. You are creating a new subdivision containing sub - standard struct- ures, one of them many feet below the 100 year flood line specified by Flood Control in their letter of 11 -2 -81 in this file. This is a two-fold wrong: (1) It creates an approved serious hazzard tb public health and safety, for which the City may be later liable if injuries or drowning occurrs. (2) This is a significant environmental hazzard, while your staff report testifies that there is no significant such hazzard by adopting a negative declaration. c. You are approving a new subdivision of two parcels, when one of them, half the plan, lies at a stated elevation under the 100 year flood level over about 70 0 of that parcel's area, and you have required no mitigation of this hazzard on the part of the applicant. The State of Calif. Piap Act forbids subdivisions in flood hazzard areas, and your ordinance includes that law in itself by reference. 1 (continued) (2 -24 -82 Ltr: Reed to Planning Comm., Re; S.D.R. 1511, (Neale) ) D. You have allowed a house to be moved onto this project last Sept, with no plan as to its appearance when complete, and with no adequate bond to assure completion ar abatement if not completed. Section 21 of your Building code forbids moving any building on to a site until a final site approval has been approved, and a formal, final map has been recorded or presented for recording. This as written, is a mandatory requirement, and none of the exceptions in the law applies here. Article IV, Sec. 3 -25 (b) requires a complete plan showing the result of any additiona or fixing to a moved structwre before it is permitted to move it. This must be a complete three sided plan of architectural design and appearance on all sides, No such plan exists. for this already moved on building. A $ 5,000. bond is mandatory for this building move -on permit, plus liability insurance. No such bond is recorded at the city for this job. E. Any move on must conform with the City's Building code when it is finished, and non - compliance is a public nuisance, by the code. Your Building code is very specific, and very all - encompassing, including by reference, the Uniform codes for all utilities, plus glass, heating and cooling,etc. There are apparently no plans to do so in this instance. Sec. 3 -13 of your own code specifies that any building moved on in violation of the City CodeYshall be abated ". This one has been moved on in violation of that code. F. The precise meaning of the term, "up to code ", as used in this staff report was in some question at your Committee of the Whole last week on this matter. That can be cleared up by reading Code sec., 3 -8, Article II. It is complete and covers all aspects of construction, and is no small matter, and is almost impossible in a ramshackle struct- ure such as this. G Sec 7.1 states the subdivision proceedure cannot waive compliance with any other ordinance,(such as the Building Code), of the city. H. Art. 2, Sec. 12.5 mandates the Santa Clara Valley water district to report on any substantial flood hazzard, as well as the specific (continued) 2 2 -24 -82 Ltr: Reed to Planning Comm. Re: S.D.R. 1511, Weale) ) flood control measures to be carried out before it will be approved. 70 % of one lot under the 100 year flood level in a two -lot plan is a substantial hazzard. The Flood Control letter in this file, dated 11 -2 -81, does not report on this, therefore is not adequate, and the District has not performed their function as required by law. The District purchased the adjoining parcle by threatening eminent domain, with the justification, in 1975, that the flood channel control measures were so extreme and so extensive that it made the parcel un- developabble. They stated widening the channel as much as 80 feet, and heavy rip- rapping with bagged cement along the entire length of both banks, specifying that work would use up most of the land and most of its worth as a development. This parcel, the next one up stream, is actually average lower - lieing in terrain than the parcel owned by the District. There appears to be a serious ethical and logical conflict here, since the district now claims their land is not a flood hazzard plot, and now offers to give this developer a free street through that property so that he can develop. This is a key matter which must be resolved before anythin else is done In vier* of all these foregoing errors, deficiencies; mistakes, and outright mis- statements of the facts, I respectfully request, and urge you in compliance with your own ordinances, th deny this application and remove it from further consideration by the City bodies. Thank you. i Chas. Reed P.O.Box 585, Saratoga, Ca., 95071 (Received mailing notice) 3 To the Saratoga City Council © 2 1982 Re the emergency access road proposed by Clarence Neale connect his retirement home off Walnut Avenue and Alta Vista We, the undersigned residents of Walnut Avenue, Victor Place and Alta Vista, would goon record as understanding that the road proposed by Clarence Neale and approved of by the Saratoga Planning Commission is to be an emergency access only. As such, we underst .and thiat said road is to be gated at both ends and locked Lii"th lock box access` given only to the Saratoga emergency services; fire, police and ambulance; the Water District; Mr. Neale; and the "'adjacent property owners. Furthermore, we,�'do not approve bf said road under any other conditions, NAME ADDRESS G. zooms Q,r�c�. 4,A .`--- wt 1�0,- let 0 -14 V, 0 /yOg-q iql� V1s7,c, que 11-11q I 1 J . L. y i 3 LA Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sirs, RECEIVED AUG 3 1 August 27, 1981 In response to the City Councils decision of August 18 to approve the rezoning of the property located at 14239 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from R -1- 12,500 to R -M- 4,4000 I hereby document my objection to the petitioners stated intent of obtaining usage of the San Jose Water District own property as an ingress and egress to his property. My objections are as follows: - The water district own property is serviced via a dirt road of less than 20 feet in width. - The road has no drainage and the rains of the past several seasons have c9used the road to erode into my property. - The road comes with 5 feet of my home and at one point illegally crosses my property. - The city own street of Walnut is at it's widest point only 20 feet and is with out the benefit of curbs, side - walks'and gutters. - The pavement on Walnut is in poor condition and has not been serviced by the city of Saratoga in 5 plus years. - In recent months, a proposed motion for a bike lane on Walnut Ave. was tabled by the City Council as the bike lane would further decrease the usable width of the street and force the much needed repair of the street. It is for these reasons I must object to any conderation of the granting of a building permit for structures to be erectEi3 at 14239 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road which proposes to use Walnut Ave and the entrance to the San Jose Water District property as it's entrance and exit. Regards, Grover B. Steele 20410 Walnut Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 f h April 12, 1982 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Mr, and Mrs. Grover Steele 20410 Walnut Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Steele: The City Council, at their meeting on April 7; 1982, continued your appeal of Building Site Approval SDR -1511 to a de novo hearing on May 19, 1982. The City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation during this hearing. The Council has also scheduled an on -site visit for May 11, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. If yop have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. ncerely, obert S Shook Director of-Community Development RSSId c c Deputy City Clerk M o� SAR<9 f ARA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 4-13-82 COUNCIL MEETING: 4-21-82 SUBJECT: SDR -1511, C. Neale, Tentative Building Site Approval Appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Grover Steele On three different occasions Staff had to instruct the Steeles on the contents of the appeal letter. The attached letter spells out clearly that, while the public hearing would be opened on April 7, 1982, the matter would be continued to a de novo hearing at a later date. It should also be noted that Staff telephoned Mr. Steele on April 1, 1982, informing him of Mr. Neale's request for a 30 -day continuance. Staff went to great lengths to assist the Steeles to understand the process, and I feel that we did so. RSS:cd Attachment 0 4 Ro ert 00 Director of Community Development li 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 &ri 0. § k (408) 867 -3438 March 18, 1982 Mr. and Mrs. Grover B. Steele 20410 Walnut Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Steele: We have received your letters dated March 9, 1982 and March 17, 1982, regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Building Site Approval for SDR -1511, Clarence Neale, 2 lots, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The $30.0.0 appeal fee has been received by this office. The public hearing on this matter has been set for April 7, 1982. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. If the City Council agrees to your request for a de novo hearing, the public hearing will be opened and continued to a later date. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, L� obert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk TO: City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fri�itvale Ave Saratoga CA 95070 FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Grover B. Steele 20410 Walnut Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 REFERENCE: SDR -1 511 City Council: March 17, 1982 R ECOVED MAR 181982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I hereby document my continuing objection to the recent Saratoga Planning Commission action to approve 11 the site known as SDR -1511 for —of- -& YIRTIVG �ru�d� on Arbeleche Lane and the subsquent City Council onfirmation of this questionable act. I further A% demand that a de novo hearing be called to review the.se:'.decisions. My objections along with.. those. ..of othets -has been made.'public before. These objections have been stated in public appearances and in documented petitions. The demand for a hearing is predicated on the fact that the decisions are contrary to the expressed interest of your constituents and that they serve only the financial gain of a single individual. AS a minimum, the objections to these decisions are delineated as follows: PETITIONS; by the admission of the Git-y—Go it on February 24, petitions were' on file from the residents of Walnut Ave. and Victor Place opposing the action. Even though public record; these objections where not addressed. ENVIROMENTAL ASSESSMENT; as part of his public appearance, Clarence.Neal stated that two different enviromental groups had filed protests. The public admission by Mr. Neal on February 24 leaves -2- leaves unanswered questions concerning the enviromental assessment. DEPOSITION; a three page deposition was introduced in to public record by Mr. Reid of Saratoga Ave. during the Cit7;z��`1 meeting on February 24. In his address to the '`fit -Geunc�l, Mr. Reid stated that the de-spositi.oA``r "a s'ed several legal questions concerning the Planning Commissions general analysis of the site, grades, flood control measures and the legality as to how the'triplex obtained from Federated Church and was moved:,on'ta the site. On a,point by point bases, Mr. Reid-Is deposition demands study and resolutions. ACCESS ROAD TO WALNUT AVE; unaswered is Mr. Neal's right to use the water district land and the - financial responsibility for the on going maintenance of the proposed road. A legal and moral question exists as to the parties responsibile for the financial restitution for all damages to private and public properties resulting from either construction or use of the road. The financial questions have not been addressed from either a present or future view point. 1. As a minimum, these and other questions arising from the approval of site SDR '111-demand an answer. � O Grover B. e LZzL Maryann Steele TO: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 FROM: Mr. & Ivirs. Grover B. Steele 2`410 'dalnut Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 March 9, 1982 MAR 101982 REFERENCE: SDR -151 1 �24q CG�nci l Ci CCIMrv% t' r) In regard to Adecision of February 24th granting site approval for the construction of a triplex on Argeleche Lane by Clarence Neal, we hereby reconfirm our continuing objection to your tastless and careless action. Your approval of issue SDR -1511 is reflective of your blatant disregard for the interest of the residents of Walnut Ave., Alta Vista, Victor Place and Saratoga Ave., and by your own admission have willingfully and knowingly chosen to disregard their signed petitions and depositions. This travesty of justice for the singular financial gain of one individual over the documented objections of your co tituents raises both legal and moral questions w ch on furth r investigation could lead to an injunctio Grover B. Steele Mary L�all h.. Steele ?6 ?- 43 -/3 ��iFS �aO+aao f g; �si5s£ ugu'ff o2 0&M&UQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 March 1S. 1982 Mr. Clarence Neale 14320 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Neale: We have.received the letter dated March 99 1982, from Mr. Matteoni, and also your letter dated March 9, 1982, regarding an appeal of three of the conditions of the Staff Report for SDR -1511. The $30:00 appeal fee has also been received by this office. The public hearing on this matter has been set for April 7, 1982. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. If you have any questions concerning.this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, obert S. S o0 Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: / Matteoni & Saxe, 1625 The Alameda., Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95126 ✓ Deputy City Clerk /V1 Matteoni & Saxe / Lawyers 1625 The Alameda • Suite 400 San Jose, California 95126 4081286 -4800 Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED MAR 0 91982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -7- �, 94,d, cw ��& Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Saxe Lynn C. Belanger March 9, 1982 Re: Appeal of Conditions of Development for SDR -1511, Clarence Neale, Two Lots Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council: Clarence Neale has consulted me for the purpose of reviewing the Planning Commission's resolution approving the tentative map of a two lot subdivision for 1.16 acres, with certain conditions of approval, in order to locate a triplex on the property and divide the land between Mr. Neale and his son. The comments made below are intended to supplement Mr. Neale's appeal of three particular conditions: 1. Condition II -C calling for the construction of an emergency access road across the land of the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Walnut Avenue. 2. Condition III -A concerning inspection of existing structures. 3. Condition VII -C requiring future dedication of an additional 15 feet from top of bank to the Santa Clara Valley Water District when certain structures are removed. Mr. Neale has two purposes in mind by the approvals that he seeks from the City. The first is to divide the land in question into two parcels of approximately 25,000 square feet each in order that he and his son, who jointly own the property, may divide their holdings. Further, Mr. Neale has secured a residential structure from the Federated Church which he desires to locate on his parcel as a triplex available for senior citizen housing. The three conditions mentioned above jeopardize the completion of this project because of the extra development costs that they impose, as well as threat to improvements at the lower elevation of the property but above a retaining wall adjacent to Saratoga Creek. It is important to recognize that the property is already improved with certain residential structures. Parcel A Honorable City Council March 9, 1982 Page Two has a duplex and a garage. Parcel B contains a residential structure. These residences have access from a cul -de -sac from State Route 85. In this general context, the concern for the above - mentioned conditions are discussed. First, staff has proposed emergency access over the lands of another, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which has verbally indicated to the City that it is willing to lease the area. Immediately to the west of the subject property are apartment houses and, as indicated above, subject property contains existing residential units. The bulb of the cul -de -sac is located adjacent to subject property which would allow emergency vehicles such as fire trucks complete access to any of the units on subject property. Mr. Neale has asked a contractor for the estimate of improving the emergency road across the Water District's land and has received an estimate of approximately $12,500. Neighbors on Walnut Avenue have filed an objection to access onto their street. According to Mr. Neale's judgment, the improvement of this emergency access road will only serve the Water District in facilitating access to the creek area for repair. Currently, the Water District comes through Neale's property. An emergency access corridor alreadyy exists from the Neale property to Highway 85 which does not involve the expense of a new route over the Water District land. Along the northerly side of the apartment house property, Neale has a 20 foot ingress and egress easement which contains the utilities to his property. He has not used that ingress and egress easement for general access, but PG &E and other service companies periodically use the corridor. This corridor enters the Highway 85 right -of -way at the top of the hill where the City's pathway is installed. Emergency access can be taken from the end of.the cul -de -sac through Parcel B and along this 20 foot ingress and egress easement exiting onto Highway 85. The cost of maintaining this route as emergency access is not expensive and does not involve the steeper grades that are on the Water District land. Mr. Neale invites each of the Councilmembers to view his property and would be willing to demonstrate how this emergency access could serve his property, if it is necessary at all. Honorable City Council March 9, 1982 Page Three The second concern is with the requirement of inspecting existing structures on the premises. All of those structures were built with City building permits. The duplex on the lower portion of Parcel A has been in existence since 1948. Mr. Neale would be pleased to show the Council these improvements. He does not feel it appropriate to go to the expense of inspecting the existing premises. They are pre- existing structures and in some cases actually existed on the property before incorporation of the City. These structures do not relate to the placement of a new structure on the property which obviously would be subject to present Code requirements. The third concern is with the requirement of dedicating not only the creek area below the existing retaining wall, but the requirement to commit to a future dedication above the retaining wall of land that is currently occupied by buildings. The existing duplex and adjacent garage are at an elevation of 429 feet which is just below the estimated 100 year flood line of 431 feet. One of the apartment structures on the adjacent land is also below the 431 foot elevation. But, the property is protected by an existing retaining wall along the creek. It has not suffered damages from flood waters in the years of its existence on this property. Thus, a condition to agree to future dedication when the structure is removed is not warranted at this time. Again, in order to understand the conditions complained of, it would be most helpful if the Council would call on Mr. Neale to visit the property and examine exactly how the proposed conditions would affect the property. f ro must will wit h and his The overall project has received favorable comment m the City. Mr. Neale desires to perform on the project but ask the Council's consideration on these conditions. You find numerous other conditions set forth in the approval which Mr. Neale will comply, to satisfy all City standards guarantee public safety and welfare in the development of property. �1 Verb tru NORMAN E. NEM:md cc: Clarence Neale • i i viii Liic uc 5tl Vl v. YY . IN ,d.L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �J 2A,� clitc t-j-� cle� CITY OF Initial: AG=A BILL NO. `7' 0 Dept. Hd . DATE: March 25, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services C. Mgr. ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- -------- SUBJECr: Award Contract-for Consulting Engineering Services - Paul Avenue ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Issue Summary Housing and Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $94,300.00 are currently available for the improvement of Paul Avenue. On February 12, the Community Development Department issued a Request for Proposal for project engineering and consultation services. Five proposals were received and reviewed by staff. The proposal of Mark Thomas & Co.. was determined, by the Community Development Director, the Housing and Community Development Coordinator, and the Engineering Technician, to be the most appropriate and complete for the work proposed. Reccmnendation Award contract for Consulting Engineering Services for the HCDA- funded Paul Avenue Improvement Project to Mark Thomas & Co., Inc. in the amount of $21,300, the contract to be completed on a task by task basis, i.e., a. Preliminary phase $5,700 b. Design phase 8,500 C. Construction staking phase 3,500 d. Construction review phase 3,600 Fiscal Impacts Project is entirely HCDA Block Grant funded. E=xhibits /Attach rents Contract attached. Council Action 4/7: Clevenger/Mallory moved to approve contract. Passed 5 -0. 0 ' CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES The following is an agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", and MARK THOMAS & CO. INC., San Jose, California, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT ". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Consultant is a duly registered and qualified engineer, experienced in municipal inprovement projects, preparing plans and specifications therefor, and estimating costs thereof, and is experienced in, other matters connected therewith, and has offered his services for the purposes specified in this agreement; and WHEREAS, in the judgement of the City Council of said City it is necessary and advisable to employ the services. of said Consultant for said purposes in connection with its proposed program.entitled "Paul Avenue Improvement Project, City of Saratoga, California" as shown on attached Exhibit "A "; and NOW, THEREFOR THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT: City agrees to employ Consultant, and Consultant agrees to perform engineering services for City in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained in this agreement. CI'T'Y OP SARA`I'OGA Initial: AYI;L- DATE: AGENDA BILL NO. of T Dept. Hd. March 25, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARq"T,U T: Administrative Services C. Mgr. &//I/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJBCr: Award Contract -for Consulting Engineering Services - Paul Avenue Issue Sumnary Housing and Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $94,300.00 are currently avatilable for the improvement of Paul Avenue. On February-12, the Communityevelopment Departm�ci 2. SCOPE OF WORK: The work and services to be performed by the Consultant in connection with this agreement shall be as set forth in "Scope of Work ", Exhibit "A" attached hereto and a part hereof. 3. CONDUCT OF WORK: Specific tasks for this project are catagorized into four phases as follows: a. Preliminary phase $ 5,700 b. Design phase $ 8,500 C. Construction staking phase $ 3,500 d. Construction review phase $ 3,600 Consultant agrees to proceed with each phase in an expeditious manner upon issuance of notice to proceed by City. It is understood and agreed that Consultant will perform only those tasks which have been authorized by the City in writing. City will furnish standard documents and answer any questions regarding design policy and procedures. All work and services performed by Consultant pursuant to this agreement shall be subject to review and approval by City. Consultant shall keep City fully informed regarding progress of work. In the event of unavoidable delay on any assigned project, Consultant shall notify City immediately. 4. COMPENSATION: The Consultant is employed herein to render a professional service only and any payments made to him are compensation solely for such services as he may render and recommendations he may make under the terms of this agreement. City shall pay Consultant for work and services rendered pursuant to this agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit Charge Rate Schedule. Total compensation shall be on a time and material basis not to exceed amount specified in each phase without prior authorization, as set forth on Exhibit "A ", Fee Schedule. Progress payments shall be made within 30 days after approval of work and receipt of monthly invoices. 5. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: City and Consultant shall designate certain employees to coordinate all matters relating to this agreement. The Director of Community Development or his authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to this agreement, and Richard K. Tanaka or his representative shall represent Consultant. 6. PERSONNEL OF CONSULTANT: Consultant represents that he has or will secure at his own expense all personnel required in performing the work and services under this agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of or•have any contractual relationship with City. All of the services performed hereunder shall be done by Consultant or under his authorization and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized under State and local law to perform such services. 7. INFORMATION AND MATERIALS TO BE FURNISHED BY CITY: City shall furnish to Consultant without charge such plans, maps, and other information as may be available in City offices and needed by Consultant for work under this contract. 8. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS: All maps, cost estimates, work data, and all other documents prepared shall become the property of City. Director of Community Development or his authorized + representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to this agreement, and Richard K. Tanaka or his representative shall represent Consultant. 6. PERSONNEL OF CONSULTANT: Consultant represents that he has or will secure at his own expense all personnel required in performing the work and services under this agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with City. All of the services performed hereunder shall be done by Consultant or under his authorization and all.personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized under State and local law to perform such. services. 7. INFORMATION AND MATERIALS TO BE FURNISHED BY CITY: City shall furnish to Consultant without charge such plans, maps, and other information as may be available in City offices and needed by Consultant for work under this contract. B. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS: All maps, cost estimates, work data, and all other documents prepared shall become the property of City. c. CONSULTANT IS NOT EMPLOYEE OF CITY: It is understood that Consultant is not acting hereunder in any manner as an employee of City, but solely under this agreement as independent contract engineer, and City shall not under any circumstances be liable to said Consultant, or any person or persons acting for or under him, for any death or injuries received or claimed. 10. TIME OF COMPLETION: Consultant will make reasonable efforts to complete preliminary plans, contract plans and documents, within sixty (60) calendar days from date of notice to proceed. 11. INSURANCE: a. Consultant shall obtain and keep in force and effect during the term of this agreement personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage liability insurance, including contractual liability, with a combined liability, with a combined single limit in the minimum amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). b. Consultant shall also obtain and keep in force and effect during the term of this agreement professional. liability insurance covering any loss arising out of negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents, and /or independent contractors in the performance of professional services under this agreement in the minimum amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). c. Certificates of insurance, as required hereinabove, shall also be filed with City prior to the Consultant proceeding with this agreement. 12. INDEMNITY: Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and its officers, agents, and employees, from liabilities, claims, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by, or arising out of the negligent acts, omissions or errors of Consultant or his agents, officers or employees in the performance of the professional services described herein. 13. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT: City may terminate this agreement at any time without cause upon notice of discontinuance and termination of said agreement given in writing by City to said Consultant. If project is terminated by City, the Consultant shall be paid only for the resonable value of authorized services performed by Consultant up to the time of such termination of this contract. 14. WORKER'S COMPENSATION: Consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that Consultant is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 et seq. of the Labor Code of the State of California requiring every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that Consultant will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract. A certificate of insurance for said policy shall be deposited with the City following the Consultant's execution of this agreement. 15. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT: s This writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relative to the engineering services, and no modification hereof shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced in writing signed by both parties to this agreement. There are no understandings, agreements, conditions, representation, warranties, or promises, with respect to the subject matter of this contract, except those contained in writing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day of 1982. APPROVED: CITY OF SARATOGA By By BY MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. n o I rrL:.; - �OAA Vv Ti By Title a EXHIBIT "A" 11 SCOPE OF WORK and FEE SCHEDULE for PAUL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS Saratoga, California Based upon our review and understanding of the project's scope of work, our scope of work and fees for each phase is as follows: A. Preliminary Phase 1. Soils Investigation by Donald E. Banta & Associates a) Measure existing pavement section and take one R -value at the worst locations determined from five boring holes. b) Five bores throughout the length of the project, approximately three to five feet deep. c) Three bores in "wet" area, approximately five to ten feet deep. d) Install two observation wells in two of the three bored holes in Item "C ". e) Prepare reports with recommendations. Subtotal Item 1 $ 2,200 2. Design Development Plan a) Air photo, scale 1 " =50', will be used as a base map. (One sheet). b) Topo centerline at 100' intervals and set horizontal ground control for air photo. c) Plan to delineate proposed profile, storm outfall, subdrain, if required, and street geometrics (typical sections). d) Engineer's preliminary estimate of construction cost. f � e) Review project with City staff. f) Attendance of one neighborhood meeting. g) Investigate locations of P.G.& E. and San Jose Water Works facilities regardinq the proposed improvements. h) Furnish five sets of plans for informal neighborhood meeting. Subtotal Item 2 $ 3,500 A. Total Preliminary Phase $ 5,700 E. Design Phase 1. Perform additional topographic survey as needed to provide data for final design, such as locating edge of existinq pavement and garage conforms. 2. Complete the design of the project and prepare final plans for the construction of said project, utilizing airphoto used in design development. 3. Prepare special provisions for that portion of the project not covered by the City's standard specifi- cations. 4. Prepare construction quantities and cost estimates. 5. Assist City during bidding period in responding to bidder's inquiries. 6. Review result of bids and report to City regarding implementation of the construction within the allowable budget constraints. 7. Furnish 15 sets of each of final plans and specifications for bidding purposes. B. Total design phase $ 81500 C. Construction staking phase I. Provide one set of stakes for: a) rough grading b) finish grading c) storm sewer system 2. Interpret plans for clarification during construction. C. Total construction staking phase $ 3,500 4 D. Construction Review Phase 1. Review and advise City as to the progress of the work. 2. Review Contractor's submittal of monthly progress report and recommend approval of the payment to the Contractor. 3. Maintain project diaries to become the property of City upon completion and acceptance of the work. 4. Submit monthly progress reports with copies of daily project diaries. 5. Perform final review of the completed construction and prepare a punch list of items to be corrected, if any. 6. Prepare and submit for approval contract change orders, if required. Services for Construction review phase is based on maximum of 100 hours for an Engineer supporting staff for a total cost not to exceed: $ 3,600 mb•. Effective Through July 15, 1982 EXHIBIT "B" MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE HOURLY CHARGE RATES PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE Principal in Design Engineering Manager Senior Engineer Associate Engineer Assistant Engineer Junior Engineer Design Draftsperson Computer- Draftsperson Senior Draftsperson Draftsperson Stenographer Clerical Typist Messenger $ 60.00 per hour 50.00 per hour 45.00 per hour 42.00 per hour 36.00 per hour 27.00 per hour 39.00 per hour 34.00 per hour 32.00 per hour 30.00 per hour . 25.00 per hour 20.00 per hour 17.00 per hour 14.00 per hour Classifications above - after July 15, 1982 @ 2.6 times hourly wage Classifications not designated herein @ 2.6 times hourly wage FIELD 2 Person Field Party and Vehicle $ 84.40 per hour 3 Person Field Party and Vehicle $111.40 per hour* Field Parties - after December 15, 1981 @ 2.75 times hourly wage Classifications not designated herein @ 2.75 times hourly wage MISCELLANEOUS COST Printing & Materials - Cost plus 25% Computer Use @ $.30 per minute * *Mileage - $•26 per mile Outside Consultants at cost plus 10% *Assumes step #3 apprentice * *Mileage not separately charged for field crews Dated August 27, 1981 } CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 02 S� Dept. Hd . DATE: March 23, 1982 C. Att DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mg � S(J&TF�C'I': General Plan Amendment - GPA 82 -1 -D Saratoga Horticulture Society Issue Summary Saratoga Horticulture Society sent a letter to the City Council on November 11, 1981 noting the need to sell their property by January 1984, in order to solve some budgetary problems. The applicants filed a General Plan application with the City to amend the Land Use Element for their property on Verde Vista from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential. The property is currently zoned R- 12,500. The Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24 and recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council. (The area representative, Mr. Ian Webb, was contacted by the Horticultural Society before filing the application.) In discussion with Mr. Kohl, Executive Director of the Saratoga Horticultural Society, it appears that the Society is close to coming to terms with Cal Trans for use of a portion of the corridor for their nursery and research activities. It will be necessary to file a Use Permit application with the City before the operation can commence. Recommendation 1. Set May 5th for a public hearing and close the hearing. 2. Staff is not recommending that the Council take action on May 5, but continue the matter to the meeting at which the General Plan will be approved. By State law the General Plan can only be amended three times per year and the Council has already had one change with Congress Springs School. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Staff Report dated 2/18/82 - Exhibit A 2. Minutes dated 2/24/82 - Exhibit B 3. Planning Commission Resolution with Exhibit "A" and "B" and GPA 82 -1 -D - Exhibit C 4. Draft Negative Declaration - Exhibit D 5. Letter from Harry Kohl, 11/11/81 - Exhibit E 6. Staff Report dated 4/28/82 - Exhibit F Council Action 4/7: Consensus to set for public hearing May 5. 5/5: Clevenger/Watson moved to insturct staff to prepare a resolution indicating preliminary findings that the parcel should be changed from private open space to medium density residential. Passed 4 -0. 8/4: Moyles /Mallory moved approval of Resolution 2003. Passed 5 -0. Ekh 1 61� A 0= V Qq 0&%k9QX5& REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 2/18/82 Commission Meeting: 2/24/82 SUBJECT: GPA 82 -1 -D, Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, 20605 Verde Vista Lane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Request: Amend the subject property's General Plan Designation from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Public Noticing: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper and by mailing notices to 96 property owners in the vicinity. Zoning: R- 1- 12,500 Surrounding Land Uses: Single - family residential Site Size: 5.72 acres Site Slope: Gentle (less than 5%) Staff Analvsis: The Saratoga Horticultural Foundation desires to leave its present location to relocate to a site with more space. Proceeds from the sale of the property would be used to expand the operation as well as finance the sale or lease of a larger site. The Foundation hopes to remain in Saratoga and has been negotiating with Cal Trans regarding leasing a part of the West Valley Freeway right -of -way. The proposed change in the site's General Plan Designation would allow single- family residential development on the site and thus make it easier to sell. However, nursery use of the site could be continued since nurseries have been allowed in R -1 Districts as conditional uses. GPA 82 -1 -D, Sara a Horticultural Foundation February 18, 1982 Page 2 Probably the most significant issue associated with this proposal is the loss of open space that would follow new residential develop- ment. No active (recreational) open space, as in the case of the school sites would be lost but passive (visual) open space would be reduced. The remainder of this report will be devoted to the potential impacts of the applicant's request and the potential impacts of alternative proposals. The comments and desires of the representatives of Planning Area B in which the site is located are also incorpor- ated in the following section. Options: 1. Applicant's Request. Medium Density Residential This proposed designation is consistent with the General Plan Designation of adjacent developed properties. This proposal also conforms with Item 1 of the Area B Action Program which states that vacant sites shall be developed as single family detached residen- tial and conform to the density of the surrounding area. Approximately 15 -16 detached single- family units could be built on the site after deducting 20% of the site area for streets. This number of units would probably generate more automobile traffic than the nursery but less truck traffic. No significant extension of urban services would be required since this would be an infill project. 2. No Change. Private Open Space It is possible but unlikely that•another nursery use or other open space use would purchase the site due to high land costs. Continuation of the use might also create nuisance factors in terms of truck noise or storage of materials if there is a significant change in the operation of the use. It is also unlikely that the City would purchase the site to maintain this open space since existing parks and higher priority acquisitions would absorb all City funds for parks and open space. 3. Multi - family Residential /P -D (Planned Development) Under this option, a maximum of 62 -83 dwelling units could be constructed on the site depending on the zoning given the site. This would create roughly double the traffic impact of a single - family subdivision on the same site. If the Commission decided a P -D Designation is appropriate, the number of units allowed could be reduced to about 31 units to have the same traffic impact. However, this would create an "island" GPA 82 -1 -D, Sara{ 3 Horticultural / Foundation February 18, 1982 Page 3 of multi - family residential which could be incompatible with surrounding single- family residential areas especially if there is insufficient buffering. It is unlikely that there would be much neighborhood support for this proposal. In short, this option would not be compatible with the existing pattern of develop- ment. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a resolution to the City Council recommending approval of the proposed change of the site's General Plan Designation from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential. Michael Flores, Assistant Planner 14F/mgr !T syay�v�v;+x.�:�'s� a,araF�:a,�waeieif1 • Planning Commission 'Meeting Minutes - 2/11482 • Ex h I 6it 13 General Plan (cont.) he would like that zoning to remain. Sanford Getreu Planning Consultant representing the Kosich Brothers, asked the Commission to consider a change in zoning for the property owned by them on Saratoga Avenue, which is now zoned R- 1- 10,000. He described the site and the area and stated that he would submit a letter to Staff, providing further information. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, spoke for Margaret Russell, the repre- sentative for the area in which the Kosich site is located. She stated that the majority of the GPCAC agreed that this site should remain R -1 -- 10,000. She added that she could see many possibilities for R- 1- 10,000 zoning, and the only thing suitable for the property is single family detached residential. She indicated that high density would not be appropriate because of the traffic problem. Staff stated that the draft of the specific elements and maps will be available for the Commission's next regular meeting. It was directed that this item be continued to the regular meeting of March 10, 1982, at which time a schedule for study sessions will be set up. 1 2. GPA 82 -1 -D Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Consideration of chang- ing the General Plan Designation from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential (Equivalent to R -1- 12,500 zoning or a maximum of 3.48 dwelling units (net acre) on the 5.72 acre parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 503 -20 -091, located at 20605 Verde Vista Lane Staff gave a report on this item, describing the request. The various options for the property were discussed. Commissioner Crowther asked why the option of low density residential had not been considered. He stated that he felt that low density residential would be just as consistent for the site as multiple family residential; in fact even more so. He noted that there is some R -1- 20,000 and R -1- 40,000 zonin: in the area, and it would seem that possibly a lower density might be appropriate because of the layout of the site. Staff clarified that at this time the Parks and Recreation Commission has made no recommendation to purchase this site. The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Fran Mills, 20552 Verde Court, requested that this parcel be designated as R- 1- 12,500, as single family detached so it is consistent with the existing neighborhood. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of a group of residents in that immediate area. She indicated that they would not be opposed to a lower density. Jim Smythe, 20624 Sevilla Lane, stated that he was speaking for his neighbors, and they would support the request with the clear stipulation that the zoning could not be changed to any higher density than what they have requested. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden commented that the neighbors most affected seem to be in favor of the request, and to be consistent it would seem appropri- ate to agree with the applicant's request. Commissioner Crowther inquired about the four lots directly adjacent. Staff explained that those are on minimum access roads; therefore they' need to be one -half acre. Commissioner Crowther commented that R- 1- 21,000 would therefore be consistent with those lots. The statement in the report regarding open space or in lieu of fees was discussed. It was determined that this would be deleted from the report. Commissioner Zambetti moved to adopt Resolution GP.4 82 -1 -D, making the findings, and recommend to the City Council that the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element be amended to medium density designation, R- 1- 12,500. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The motion was then amended to state minimum lot size 12,500. The vote was taken on the motion, Planning Commission � ® Page 3 Meeting Minutes - 2 /2v% 82 General Plan (coat.) which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting, stating that he believes it is too dense for this particular site and it is inconsistent with the directly adjacent lots. He added that he feels ..this site should be R -1- 20,000: 3. GF -330 - Consideration of an ordinance of the City of Saratoga repealing Section 3.3(g) of Article.3 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Saratoga, and amending Section 3.2(g) of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Saratoga for the purpose of establishing Animal Control Regula- tions continued from January'27, 1.982 :.Staff explained that this ordinance will clarify some of the concerns and problems that were occurring in the Sobey- Quito*Road area. Changes in the ordinance were discussed and made. Commissioner Crowther strongly recommended that items 1 through 6 be deleted from the ordinance and replaced with the generic statement which cover what they are trying to achieve. The public hearing was opened at 8:21 p.m. Thom Upson, the City's Code Enforcement Officer, discussed the complaints that had been received. He stated that this ordinance would get rid of all of the ambiguities in the existing ordinance, and it would be easier to enforce. The Deputy City Attorney commented that what is being done in this ordi- nance is to,translate the present language of reasonable numbers into specific numbers and to specify setback requirements and minimum lot sizes for certain types of animals. Clarification of the language of the ordinance followed and changes were made. Commissioner Crowther stated that he has no problem with the sections of the ordinance that deal with the larger animals, but would prefer to see some generic statements for the others. Commissioner Monia moved to adopt Resolution No. GF -330 as amended and recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he would vote against it, since he feels it is too specific. The vote was taken, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Zambetti dissent- ing. It was directed that this item will be reagendized for the meeting of March 10, 1982, when a full Commission will be present. 4. Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area; con- tinued from February 10, 1982 5. GF -333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC -RD District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line Formula; continued from February 10. 1982 Staff gave a report on these items, stating that they have submitted a revised draft ordinance on the Specific Plan, which includes the most recent comments. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Since no one appeared to address the Commission, it was directed that the public hearing will be continued to March 10, 1982. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had traced the ridgeli.nes that cup the City and asked Staff to review them. fie indicated that he had reviewed the Specific Plan, specifically looking for areas where the draft ordinance might not be complying with it. He suggested additions or changes regarding clustering, agricultural uses, definition of dwelling units, density, grading, geologic maps, terracing steps, indivi- dual lot pools, storm drains, street improvements and special assessment districts, offers of dedication and standards for site maintenance, and fees for storm drainage and erosion control outside the site. Commissioner Monia indicated that the number of times per year that &661C RESOLUTION NO. GPA 82 -1 -D RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR A 5.72 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SARATOGA HORTICULTURAL FOUNDATION (APN 503- 20 -91) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application from the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation to amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element Designation of this parcel from "Private Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential" and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on February 24, 1982, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration and the Findings; attached as Exhibit "A "; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the 1974 Land Use Element from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential for a 5.72 acre parcel, commonly known as the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation and as shown on Exhibit "B "; based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit "A ". The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 24th day of February, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden, Monia and Zambetti NOES: Commissioner Crowther ABSENT:Commissioner Schaefer ABSTAINED: Chai man, Planning ommissi n ATTEST: EXHIBIT "A" Findings: ( :A 82 -1 -D 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will maintain the residen- tial character of the neighborhood and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies recommended by the GPCAC to place a residential designation, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, on vacant property. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements.- File loo: GPA 82 -1 -D Sar. atoga DECLARATIOU THAT ENVIROIZIENTAL I1,1PT,CT REPORT NOT REOUIRED (Negative'Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 EA, Lit D The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF S111'J T03A, a !Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmcntal. Quality net of 1970, Sections 15030 through 15083 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 General Plan Amendment to change the.designation of a acre site, ocated at 20605 Verde Vista Lane (Saratoga Horticultural Foundation), from Private Open Space•to Medium Density Residential. Approximately 15 -16 single family detached dwelling units could be con- structed on the site which would eliminate the passive open space provided by 'the site. VAME ANni ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Inc. 20605 Verde Vista Lane Saratoga, California 95070 RTJ, iSON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed. project will not have .a significant effect on the environment because of the mitigation measures that will be applied to new residential development during tentative sub- division approval and by enforcement of existing codes and ordinances. New development would be considered an infill project which would not require any significant extension of urban services. The open space/ recreation value provided by the site can be maintained by preserving a portion of it in open space /recreation use or by requiring an in lieu fee to improve other existing open space resources.: Any proposal for tenta- tive map will be evaluated at the time of submission for any possible environmental impacts. Executed at Saratoga, California this 17th day of February , 19� R. S. --Robinson,, Jr. Director of Planning & Policy'Analysis DIRECTOI:' S Al'T110RI ZED STUFF 1.10,113ER 40 SAJ2ATOGA HORTICULTURAL FOUNDATION, INC. 20005 VERDE VISTA LANE POST OFFICE 13OX 309 SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (409) 907 -3214 November 11, To: Saratoga City Council From: Harry C. Kohl, Executive Director EA16A E Re: Rezoning and sale of the Foundation property which is located at 20605 Verde Vista Lane. 1. After hectic, year after year budgetary problems, it is evident that we need some endowment funds to allow better continuity for our research and public service programs. (At present, our funds for these functions come almost entirely from our nursery sales.) 2. Our only present potential for realizing this goal is to sell the property on Verde Vista Lane. 3. I have contacted Mr. R. S. Robinson of your Planning and Policy Analysis Department, and he informs me that your General Plan Advisory Committee recommendation for vacant land within planning area "B" is for development consistent with the surrounding zoning which in our case is R -1 (12,500). This zoning is consistent with our desires, and we request that the property be so rezoned. 4. We are planning to be moved by January 1984. Since it costs to move and the money to do so would come from the sale of the property, and since moving a nursery requires long -range planning, it will be most helpful to know your wishes in this matter as soon as convenient. 5. We hope to stay in Saratoga providing you want us to and provided we can make some mutually suitable arrangements for use of public or private land. 6. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. 1 / April 23, 1982 Dear Saratoga Property Owner: According to our records, you own property within 500 feet of the site referred to in the notice below. You may be interested in the public hearing on this matter. Agendas for this meeting will be available at the Saratoga City Hall by Friday, April 30. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk y NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Counci NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,, that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set the hour of 8:00 p.m., on Wednes- day, the 5th day of May, 1982, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Sara- toga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: the Gen n Designation (;errt rivate Open Space to Medium Density Residential (equivalent to R -1- 12,500 ,—zoning) on a 5.72 acre parcel I APN 503 -20 -091) located at 20605 Verde Vista Lane. A copy of which material is on file at the office of the Sara- toga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. - All interested persons may j appear and be heard at said time and place. Written communications should be filed on or before April 29. CITY OF SARATOGA I! CITY COI_INCII. /s/ Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk ot CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: March 26, 1982 _ C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Planning & Po1 ; cy Analysis C. Mgr. SUBJE T. GF - 331, Appeals Ordinance Issue Summate The issue of appeals within the City has been a concern of the Council over the years. The attached Ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney and after several revisions, the Planning Commission approved Resolution GF -331 which recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance. Major changes in the proposed Ordinance include: (1) Clarifi- cation of Council procedures regarding appeals, and (2) A consistent time period (15 days) for all appeals. Recommendation 1. Set May 5th for a public hearing and introduce the Ordinance at that time. 2. Conduct the second reading on May 19 - the Ordinance will go into effect on June 18,1982. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Annotated Ordinance with comments - Exhibit A 2. Planning Commission minutes and Resolution - Exhibit B 3. Negative Declaration - Exhibit C 4. Original Report Re: First Draft Ordinance - Exhibit D 5. Appeals Ordinance Update - Exhibit E Council Action 4/7: Consensus to consider at study session 4/13. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 24 TO ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING A14D AMENDING VARIOUS SUPERSEDED OR INCONSISTENT SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE NS -3 2/23/82 COMMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Article 24 is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance, to read as follows: Article 24 is new, and Article 24. Appeals. describes the procedure for Sec. 24.1. Appeals from administrative decision. all appeals within the City. An appeal may be made to the City Planning Commission by the applicant or any other interested party from any administrative decision or interpretation made by the Director of Community Development or any City official under this Ordinance. Section 24.2. Appeals from decision of Planning Commission. NO change An appeal may be made to the City Council by the applicant or any other interested party from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance. Section 24.3. Filing an appeal. Appeal from administrative (a) Appeals from any decision of the Director decision re: Zoning, Sub- of Community Development or any City official who renders a decision or interpretation under division Ordinance appeal- the provisions of this Ordinance shall be made able to Planning Commission. to the City Planning Commission through the Director of Community Development. (b) Appeals from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance shall be made to the City Council through the City Clerk. Section 24.4. Requirements for appeals. Appeals received by either City Clerk or Community All appeals shall be made by filing a written notice thereof, signed by the appellant, clearly identifying the Development within 15 decision or interpretation from which the appeal has been days (Old ordinance taken and the grounds for the appeal. The notice of appeal re Ulred 10 days except q y p shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the administra- tive cost of handling the appeal, in such amount as shall be Subdivision Ordinance) . established from time to time by resolution of the Saratoga City Council. The notice of appeal, together with the required filing fee, must be received by the Director of Community Development or the City Clerk pursuant to Secticn 24.3 not later than fifteen (15) calendar days followina the date of the action from which the appeal has been taken. 1. Exh,b,. W COMMENTS Section 24.5. Review by Planning Commission_. ' New Appeals to Planning Commission shall be De Novo but no public hearing unless the administration decision or interpretation was rendered in connection with a proceeding requiring a public hearing, i.e. an interpretation on a variance would require a public hearing. (a) An appeal to the Planning Commission from an administrative decision or interpretation pursuant to Section 24.1 shall be scheduled for hearing at the earliest regular meeting of the Planning Com- mission consistent with agenda preparation require- ments and meeting schedules. The appeal shall be heard by the Planning Commission on a de novo basis, but no public hearing shall be required unless the administrative decision or interpretation was rendere_ in connection with a proceeding which required a public hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the Planning Commission, in i �s discretion, from receiving testimony or other evidence from any person pertaining to the subject matter of the appeal. Planning ommission shall make (b) The Planning Commission may affirm, reverse or g a ma modify the administrative decision or interpretation, findings to support decision(s). and may refer the matter back to the Director of Community Development or other City official for such further action as may be directed by the Planning Commission. The Commission shall make such findings as may be required to support its decision. Section 24.6. Review by City Council. No change No automatic De Novo hearing - City Council shall review Planning Commission decision to determine if there was sufficient evidence. Establishes basis for review of appeal hearing. Basis for establishing De Novo, majority vote. De °Novo at same meeting or rescheduled meeting. No significant change. (a) An appeal to the City Council from a decision by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 24.2 shall be scheduled for hearing at the earliest - regular meeting of the City Council consistent with agenda preparation requirements and meeting schedules. (b) Except as set forth in sub - section 24.6(c), the hearing on the appeal shall not be a de novo hearing. The City Council shall review the decisi .Dn of the Planning Commission to determine only if there was sufficient evidence presented to the Commission to substantiate its decision. The Council shall not consider any evidence that was not presented to the Commission and no ground for appeal not specifically set forth in the Notice of Appeal may be raised or considered at the time of the hearing on the appeal. (c) If the City Council should, at the time of the hearing on the appeal, determine by a majority vote of its members present that it wishes to :old a hearing de novo on the appeal, then it shall pro- ceed to hold a complete rehearing de novo on the Planning Commission's decision either at that same Council meeting or at a designated future Council meeting. (d) All hearings on an appeal may, at the Council's discretion, be continued for one or more further hearings without giving notice, save for an oral announcement during the hearing or at any cont_nue•-4 hearing. 2. 3. (e) The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the COMMENTS. decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for such NO significant change in procedure. further action as may be directed by the City Council. The City Council shall make such findings as may be required to support its decisiorL The City Council shall report its findings and action to the applicant and the Planning Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days following conclusion of the hearing on the appeal. Section 24.7. Effective date of decisions. Clarifies when a permit All administrative decisions or interpretations by the becomes effective. Director of Community Development or other City officials under DeC1SlOriS this Ordinance, and all decisions by the Planning Commission on appeals effective under this Ordinance, shall become effective and final imme- on date of Council decision. diately upon expiration of the appeal period set forth in Section 24.4 if no notice of appeal has been filed within such time. All decisions reviewed by the City Council and affirmed or modified on appeal, shall become effective and final on the date the City Council renders its decision. SECTION 2: Section 4.6-3 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby- amended to read as follows: "Sec. 4.6 -3. Same -- Disapproval. No significant change. If the Commission disapproves a conditional use permit based on failure of the precise plan to substantially conform with the housing element, the applicant shall have the choice of: 1. Revising the precise plan and resubmitting it to the Commission, or 2. Applying for an amendment to the housing element, or 3. Appealing the decision of the Commission to the City Council in accordance with Article 24 of .this Ordinance." SECTION 3: Sections 13.5 and 13.6 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision Eliminates current a ppeal procedures and establishes substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 13.5: new sections of Ordinance. "Section 13.5. Appeal to City Council. (Article 24). Upon the granting or denial by the Planning Commis- sion of a design review application, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal suc decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 4: The last sentence of Section 16.6 of Ordinance Change appeal time .for U.P. NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: from 10 to 15 days. "The use permit shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days,following the date on which the use permit was granted unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." 3. COMMENTS No significant change - consistent with new appeals procedures in Article 24. No significant change. No significant changes. From 10 days to 15 days. SECTION 5: Sections 16.7 and 16.8 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 16.7: "Section 16.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning Commission of a use permit, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set SECTION 6: Section 16.9 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 16.9. Lapse of use permit. A use permit shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the use permit application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which was the subject of the use permit application. A use permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date the use permit originally became effective, an application for renewal of the use permit is filed with the City Planning Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a use permit. The decision by the Planning Commission may SECTION 7: Section 16.11 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 16.11. Revocation. Upon violation of any applicable provision of this Ordinance, or if granted subject to a condition or conditions, upon failure to comply with the condition or conditions, a use permit shall be suspended automatically. The City Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing within sixty (60) days, in accord with the procedure prescribed in Section 16.4, and if not satisfied that the regulation, general provision or condition is being complied with, may revoke the use permit or take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the regulation, general provision or condition. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 8: The last sentence of Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "A variance shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen 15) days following the date on which the variance was grantee ,.unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." 4. Consistent procedures Article 24. COMMENTS with the appeals established in No significant changes. No significant change. Requires a De Novo hearing on appeals from temporary. use permit No major change. SECTION 9: Sections 17.7 and 17.8 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 17.7: "Section 17.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning Commission of a variance, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 10: Section 17.9 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 17.9. Lapse of variance. A variance shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the variance became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the variance application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which was the subject of the variance application. A variance may-be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the variance originally became effective, an application for renewal of the variance is made to the Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for-renewal-of a variance. The 1. i SECTION 11: Section 17.10 of Ordinance NS -3 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 17.10. Revocation. A variance granted subject to a condition or conditions shall be revoked by the Planning Commission if the condition or conditions are not complied with." SECTION 12: Section 23.7 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 23.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting or denial of any suchempnra -_�GP permit, either the applicant or any inter_e 5Jted p_er.o.n mav_ appeal such decision directly to the City Council, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of thi Ordinance, except that the City Council shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Director of Community Development, and the decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. 5. Once a temporary use permit has been issued and the applicant has expended substantial sums in reliance thereon, and the time for appeal has expired, the same shall be permanent and irrevocable." SECTION 13: 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, 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 14: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 1982, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 6. MAYOR �` r RESOLUTION NO. GF 331 LADING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION A RESOLUTION RECOIN CE RE GARDING APPEAL PROCEDURES TO THE ZONING ORDINAN WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the City Council on their authority directed the City Attorney thin the City to prepare an ordinance which a mo and the Curren of appeal procedures wi public hearing on WHEREAS, the planning Commission held a as held at the which public hearing m, on the said proposed amendments, at the hour of 7:30 p' 13777 following time and place to wit: City Council Chambers, Of February, 1952 and 24th day Saratoga, California, Fruitvale Avenue, ro osed amend-plan consideration the p p General WHEREAS, after careful Zoning Regulations in the the staff ment as it would affect and after consideration f the Commi- e aft Declaration uP of the City of Saratoga. s and is of the opinion that the report and the attached in NS 3. shall be ssion has made certain finding Council. proposed amendment attached Ce e tO and marked formally recommended to planning Commission NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the; of the City of Saratoga as follows: and nt attached hereto b t the ro osed amendme recommended o That the P p affirmatively a for adoption as the same as hereby of Saratog City Council of the City of the City- part of the Zoning Ordinance a That the Report of Findings of thmarked is Commission, w a hich report is attached hereto an,oved, and Copy of be and the same as hereby PP Exhibit B. is directed to IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary BE of hearings send -a copy of this resolution °fFindingsnand1summary attache ort of for further action proposed amendment and Rep e City Council held by this C' StatetLaw- in accordance with Planning COMM's- this ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga 1952 PASSED AND 24th day of February Sion, State of California, by the follwoing vote: AYES: commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia and Zambetti NOES: INIU11. ABSENT: Commissioner Schaefer ATTEST: e re tary �. l� n Chairman, Planning Commis S Findings: 1. The proposed Ordinance NS 3. will.-mot be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. 2. The amendment would not be injurious to property and improvements. 3. The proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will in fact allow greater participation by the citizens of Saratoga and review by the City Council. i Findings: 1. The proposed Ordinance NS 3. will.-mot be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. 2. The amendment would not be injurious to property and improvements. 3. The proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will in fact allow greater participation by the citizens of Saratoga and review by the City Council. he also would be vots against it. He explaine� hat he had not been in favor of the proposed house, since it was too Targe for the lot and is also too close to this road, which has a great deal of &_X affic. -33/ The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on March 10, 1982, when there will be a full Commission. 11. fGF-:331' Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga adding Article 24 (appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repealing and amending various inconsistent and superseded sections of the Zoning Ordinance The Deputy City Attorney discussed the revised ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 11:45 p.m. Since no one appeared to address the Commission, Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to adopt Resolution GF -331, recommending approval to the City Council. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 12. V -541 R. Maddalena, 90 -day Review of Variance Doug Adams, attorney for the applicant, gave the history of the project and discussed the process they have gone through to find the required parking. He indicated that there have been no recent objections to the variance, and he would ask the Commission to grant it on a permanent basis. Commissioner Laden commented that she feels it is being realistic to realize that the parking is not going to be available. She stated that everyone has enjoyed Upstairs- Downstairs, and would not want them to go out of business. She suggested that it might be appropriate, if the Commission wishes to grant the variance, since it goes with the land, that a stipulation be tied into the variance that no modification of any of the buildings on the land can be done without reappearing before the Commission, in order to not intensify any of the uses that are on that property to create a worse parking problem. Discussion followed on the parking district and possible leasing of park- ing spaces. Ross Maddalena, the applicant, read a letter from the Saratoga Village Association, in favor of the project, He also read the letter he had submitted, proposing seven new parking spaces to be designated for Upstairs -- Downstairs. He explained that he had received his business license in good faith and thought that Staff had checked out the parking requirements. There was a consensus that the matter will be dealt with at the end of the one year period. It was directed that it be renoticed for a public hearing for the May 12, 1982 meeting, to allow the Village property owners to express their thoughts at that time. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Commissioner Monia reported that the City Council had requested the Commission to formally make a motion for reconsideration of the Manufactured !*: f�i.`ce6'.4'�l+•�w�irylur+..4/,.+ Y'.l�l��'=�:;'Firv°.� ,�.:, 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1/13/82 A -305 (cont.) Page 2 Court, with the condition that the applicant sign a hold harmless clause in regards to the construction of this deck over the swale. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HLkRJNGS 6 GF-331 - Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga adding Article 24 (Appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repealing and amending various inconsistent and superseded sections of the Zoning Ordinance; continued from December 9, 19.81 Staff reported that this item had been reviewed at a study session, and the City Council has requested that the Commission review it again. The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission, and it was directed that this item will be continued to a future study session. 7. GF -333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC -RD District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line Formula; continued from December 9, 1981 Staff suggested that this item be continued to January 27, 1982, in order to hear it concurrently with the Specific Plan Implementation Ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this be continued to a study session on January 19, 1982 and the regular meeting. of January 27, 1932. 8. GF -334 - Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Authorizing Manufactured Homes in all Residential Districts Within the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance Required under SB1960, State of California; continued from December 9, 1981 Staff reported that the City Council has indicated their feeling to allow the manufactured homes in all residential zones. The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis stated that he has revised the ordinance per the Commission's direction at the last study session, to specify only allowance in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Commissioner Crowther questioned whether there was a consensus at the City Council meeting to allow manufactured homes in all residential zones. He stated that he strongly believes that it should be restricted to R -1- 10,000. He added that otherwise people may make applications that are impractical and probably would not be approved. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the ordinance, specifically the definition of manufactured homes and temporary use. The Deputv City Attorney commented that the City has every right to impose the same restrictions and requirements as they would on any other type of housing, but can not put excessive or additional restrictions on manufactured housing per se. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve Resolution GF -334, recommending to the Citv Council that this ordinance be approved, allowing manu- factured homes in R- 1- 10,000 zoning districts only. Commissioner Monia seconded. the motion. Commissioner Laden stated that she disagreed with liPliti_ng it to R -1- 10,000 zoning districts only, since she feels that all citizens should have the rights and privilege of having a manufactured home and should be governed by the same laws and under the same ordinances. Commissioner Monia indicated that he would like to see this as a slower process under direct control of the Commission and Council in this community, rather than just opening it up in every area. He added that the City does control the size of houses and lots, depending upon - 2 - Planning Commissi� Meeting Minutes 9/81 V -564, SDR -1510 and A -801 (cont.) Page 6 and the Staff Report dated November 30, 1981 as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -801, per Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated November 30, 1981 as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. 5a. Negative Declaration SDR -1511 - C. Neale 5b. SDR -1511 - C. Neale, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots in the R -M -4,000 Zoning District at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnvvale Road It was noted that this item would be continued in order to have an on -site visit. The public hearing was opened at 11:04 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this matter be continued to an on -site visit on February 16, 1982 and the regular meeting of February 24, 1982. The applicant was asked to submit a letter of extension. 6a. Negative Declaration - V -566 - M. Chan 6b. V -566 - M. Chang, Request for a Variance to construct a tennis court on a slope greater than 10% in the HC -RD Zoning District at 21200 Chiouita Wav Staff described the proposal. It was noted that a letter had been received in opposition to this tennis court. The public hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m. Melvin Hill, civil engineer, described the lot and discussed the trees on the site. Mr. Wong, representing the applicant, discussed the findings. He stated that he feels this proposal would improve tpe view of the area and there would be no aesthetic impact. He noted that none of the other properties in the area have room for a tennis court. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the findings could not be made to grant this variance. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny V -566, on the basis that the findings cannot be made, per the Staff Report. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstain- -: Lng 7. GF -331 - Consideration of an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga adding Article 24 (Appeals) to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance, and repealing and amending various inconsistent and superseded sections of the Zoning Ordinance Discussion followed on the ordinance. It was the consensus that this item should be continued to a study session. The public hearing was opened at 11:21 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on January 5, 1982 and the regular meeting of January 13, 1982. 8. GF -334 Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance Authorizing Manufactured Homes in all Residential Districts Within the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance Required Under SB1960 Discussion followed on the ordinance. It was the consensus that this item should be continued to a study session. Restriction of the ordinance to R -1- 10,000 zoning districts only was discussed. 6 - ;.r7A -n rile No: GF -331 Sar. atoga ( \ DECLARATION THAT EHVTTZON11;i,NTAL IMPliCT REPORT NOT R17.QgIRI:D (Negativc'Dcclaration) yy Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The undcrsigned, Director of Planning and Environmcntal Control of the CITY OF SAIUATO�A, a Municipal Corporation, after °study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environrr.ental.Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030 th roucilz 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no sign 4ficant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT I]ESCRIPTIOiJ The project includes. amendment'to the Zoning Ordinance which clarifies the appeal's procedures to be used for all administrative and Commission'action' taken from the City of Saratoga. The Ordinance being proposed furthermore, clarifies the conduct of hearing bn appeals by the City Council and deals specifically with.Section 16 (Use .Permits, Methods of Revocation of Said Permits) and Section 17 . (variance, Methods of Revocation of Said Permits). NAME AND ADDRESS OF A ?PLICANT City of Saratoga, 13777 F.ruitvale Avenue Saratoga, 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the city of Saratoga. There are currently different appeal.times for appealing within the City of Saratoga and the proposed Ordinance will. clarify and make consistent all of.the procedures. Executed at Saratoga, California this 4th day of -November . 1981: Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development 1 - DIREC 10R' S AUT:IOI"I ZED STAFF MEMBER. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/2/81 Commission Meeting: 12/9/81 SUBJECT* GF -331, Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Regarding Appeals Background of Report: During the first six months of the current Council's administra- tion, there were some concerns about the existing appeal procedures within the City of Saratoga. Some of the Council members expressed concerns over any inconsistencies of the appeal time between the Subdivision Ordinance (15 days) and that of the Use Permit and Variance (10 days) as well as various other factors within the appeal procedures. The Council also requested that the Appeal Ordinance be written so that they could have an opportunity upon their resolution to review projects that have been approved or denied by the Planning Commission. The Council then directed the City Attorney to draft the appropriate ordinance. The Ordinance which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development staff, is an addition to the current Zoning Ordinance and will be repealing the various inconsistent sections within the Zoning Ordinance. With the new Ordinance, there will be a fifteen day appeal period for both the subdivisions and the items within the Zoning Ordinance. The most significant change)is the procedure where the City Council by their own resolution can review any action of the Planning Commission within a fifteen day period of time. Council has the authority to affirm, reverse or modify any decision of the Planning Commission. There are other communities within the Bay Area that exercise the same authority over the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission during the public hearings on any of the Ordinances, has the authority to modify the Ordinance as submitted and to forward that amended Ordinance to the City Council for their action, GF -331 - Appeals December 2, 1981 Page 2 M Attached for the Planning Commission's approval is a Resolution which is recommending that the City Council approve the attached Ordinance. Should the actions of the Planning Commission be different, it would be necessary to amend this Resolution and forward the appropriate Resolution to the City Council. It is not necessary that the Planning Commission approve the attached Negative Declaration since the final action on this project is by the City Council and they are the responsible - agency to approve the attached Negative Declaration. Recommendations: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission take public input regarding the contents of this Ordinance, and if the Ordinance is satisfactory in all areas, then forward the Resolution and Ordinance to the City Council for approval. S. 'Robinson, Jr. Planning and Policy Analysis RSR /mgr Attachments REPORT TO MAYOR AND CIrT'Y COUNCIL DATE: 3/30/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/ 7/82 SUBJECT* Appeals Ordinance Update ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The original draft of the Appeals Ordinance which was presented to the Planning Commission had a provision to allow the Council to review any decision of the Commission within 15 days. The Commission directed the City Attorney to eliminate this procedure. Other factors which are not addressed in the most recent Ordinance are the length of time for appeals for Design Review and the fact that all appeals under Design Review require a de novo hearing. The draft ordinance before the Council does not amend the new Design Review Ordinance. If the appeals procedures with the City are to be consistent, Section 10(c) of NS.3.47 (Design Review) should be amended to have a fifteen (15) day appeal period vs. ten (10) and no automatic de novo hearing. . S. tobinson, Jr. Director of Planning & Policy Analysis RSR /mgr 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 24 TO ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING AND AMENDING VARIOUS SUPERSEDED OR INCONSISTENT SECTIONS 01' ORDINANCE NS -3 The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Article 24 is.hereby added to Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance, to read as follows: Article 24. Appeals. Sec. 24.1. Appeals from administrative decision. An appeal may be made to the City Planning Commission by the applicant or any other interested party from any administrative decision or interpretation made by the Director of Community Development or any City official under this Ordinance. Section 24.2. Appeals,from decision of Planning Commission. An appeal may be made to the City Council by the applicant or any other interested party from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance. Section 24.3.. Filing an appeal. (a) Appeals from any decision of the Director of Community Development or any City official who renders a decision or interpretation under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be made to the City Planning Commission through the Director of Community Development. (b) Appeals from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance shall be made to the Citv Council through the City Clerk. Section 24.4. Requirements for appeals. All appeals shall be made by filing a written notice thereof, signed by the appellant, clearly identifying the decision or interpretation from which the appeal has been taken and the grounds for the appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a filing fete to cover the administra- tive cost of handling the appeal, in such amount as shall be established from time to time by resolution of the Saratoga City Council. The notice of appeal, together with the required filing fee, must be received by the Di.r.ector. of Community Development or the City Clerk pursuant to Section 24.3 not later than fifteen (15) calendar days following the date of the action from v hick the appeal has been taken. 1. i I M Section 24.5. Review by Planninq Commission. (a) An appeal to the Planning Commission from an administrativerdecision or interpretation pursuant to Section 24.1 ha11 be scheduled for hearing at the earliest rejlar' meeting of the Planning Com- mission consistent with agenda preparation require- ments and meeting schedules. The appeal shall be heard by the Planning Commission on a de novo basis, but no public hearing shall be required unless the administrative decision or interpretation was rendered in connection with a proceeding which required a public hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the Planning Commission, in its discretion, from receiving testimony or other evidence from any person pertaining to the subject matter of the appeal. (b) The Planning Commission may affirm, reverse or modify the administrative decision or interpretation, and may refer the matter back to the Director of Community Development or other City official for such further action as may be directed by the Planning Commission. The Commission shall make such findings as may be required to support its decision. Section 24.5. Review by City Council. (a) An appeal to the City Council from a decision by the Planning:Commission pursuant to Section 24.2 shall be scheduled for hearing at the earliest regular meeting of the City. Council consistent with agenda preparation requirements and meeting schedules. (b) Except as set forth in sub - section 24.6(c), the hearing on the appeal shall not be a de novo' hearing. The City Council shall review the decision of the Planning Commission to determine only if there was sufficient evidence presented to the Commission to substantiate its decision. The Council shall not consider any evidence that was not presented to the Commission and no ground for appeal not specifically set forth in the Notice of Appeal may be raised or considered at the tine of the hearing on the appeal. (c) If the City Council should, at the time of the hearing on the appeal, determine by a majority vote of its members present that it wishes to hold a hearing de novo on the appeal, then it shall pro- ceed to hold a complete rehearing de novo on the Planning Commission's decision either at that same Council meeting or at a designated future Council meeting. (d) All hearings on an appeal may, at the Council's discretion, be continued for one or more further hearings without giving notice, save for an oral announcement during the hearing or at any continued hearing. 2. �r'y"�.".M�'•SK��iY v,.'L,.�,i� .f+ . i�:.T VAN M1. Y.�•� "��:� :. . 7. t - . 4. MAN 12 (e) The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for such further action as may be directed by the City Council. The City Council shall make such findings as may be required to support its decision. The City Council shall report its findings and action to the applicant and the Planning Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days following conclusion of the hearing on the appeal. Section 24.7. Effective date of decisions. All administrative decisions or interpretations by the Director of Community Development or other City officials under this Ordinance, and all decisions by the Planning Commission. under this Ordinance, shall become effective and final imme- diately upon expiration of the appeal period set forth in Section 24.4 if no notice of appeal has been filed within such time. All decisions reviewed by the City Council and affirmed or modified on appeal, shall become effective and final on the date the City Council renders its decision. SECTION 2: Section 4.6 -3 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 4.6 -3. Same -- Disapproval. If the Commission disapproves a conditional use permit based on failure of the precise plan to substantially conform with the housing element, the applicant shall have the choice of: 1. Revising the precise plan and resubmitting it to the Commission, or 2. Applying for an amendment to the housing element, or 3. Appealing the decision of the Commission to the City Council in accordance with Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 3: Sections 13.5 and 13.6 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision substituted in.place thereof, to be designated as Section 13.5: "Section 13.5. Apj2eal to City Council. Upon the granting or denial by the Planning Commis- sion of a design review application, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedure . set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 4: The last sentenc,_ of Section 16.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as fol.l.ows: "The use permit shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the use permit was granted unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." 3. :i:cS, "yyr{ jw5= Via; k niS; S;:S SECTION 5: Sections 16..7 aiid 16.8 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 16.7: "Section 16.7. Appeal to City Council.. Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning Commission of a use permit, either the applicant or any other . interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 6: Section 16.9 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 16.9. Lapse of use permit. A use permit shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the use permit application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which was the subject of'the use permit.application. A use permit may be. renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date the use permit originally became effective, an application for renewal of the use permit is filed with the City Planning Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a use permit. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 7: Section 16.11 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 16.11. Revocation. Upon violation of any applicable provision of this Ordinance, or if granted subject to a condition or conditions, upon failure to comply with the condition or conditions, a use permit shall be suspended automatically. The City Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing within sixty (60) days, in accord with the procedure prescribed in Section 16.4, and if not satisfied that the regulation, general provision or condition is being complied with, may revoke the use permit or take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the regulation, general provision or condition. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 8: The last sentence of Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "A variance shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the variance was granted, unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." GM SECTION 9: Sections 17.7 and 17.8 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision 'vy substituted in place thereof, to be. designated as Section 17.7: "Section 17.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning . Commission of a variance, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision ' to the City Council in accordance with the procedures set ti forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 10: Section 17.9 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 17.9. Lapse of variance. A variance shall lapse and shall become void one year x following the date on which the variance became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the variance application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which was the subject of the variance application. A variance may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the variance - - originally became effective, an application for renewal of the variance is made to the Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a variance. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 11: Section 17.10 of Ordinance NS -3 is amended to A read as follows: "Sec. 17.10. Revocation. A variance granted subject to a condition or conditions shall be revolved by the Planning Commission if the condition or conditions are not complied with." SECTION 12: Section 23.7 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 23.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting or denial of any such temporary use „ permit, either the applicant or any interested person may appeal such decision directly to the City Council, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance, except that the City Council shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Director of Community Development, and the decision of the Council shall be final . and conclusive upon all parties. f." :r - 5. Once a temporary use permit has been issued and the applicant has expended substantial. sums in reliance thereon, and the time for appeal has expired, the same shall be permanent and irrevocable." SECTION 13: 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, 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 14: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 lair, was thereafter passed and adopted this day of following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK , 1982, by the MAYOR _� 't � NO A. ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 24 TO APPENDIX B, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE, AND REPEALING AND AMENDING VARIOUS INCONSISTENT AND SUPERSEDED SECTIONS OF APPENDIX B, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Article 24 is hereby added to Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, to read as follows: Article 24. Appeals. Sec. 24.1. Appeals from administrative decision. An appeal may be made to the City Planning Commission by the applicant or any other interested party from any administra- tive determination or interpretation made by the Planning Director or any City officer under this Ordinance. Sec. 24.2. Appeals from decision of Planning Commission. An appeal may be made to the City Council by the applicant or any other interested party from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance, except that any decision made pursuant to Article 13 of this Ordinance shall be appealable under the provisions of that Article only. Sec. 24.3. Filing an appeal. (a) Appeals from the decision of the Planning Director or any City officer or official who renders a decision or interpretation under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be made to the City Planning Commission through the Planning Director. (b) Appeals from the decisions of the City Planning Commission in taking any of the actions authorized by this Ordinance shall be made to the City Council through the City Clerk. All applications for Appeals shall be accompanied by the required fee. Sec. 24.4. Procedure for appeals. (a) All appeals shall be made in writing and shall state the nature of the application and the basis upon which the decision of the official or body is considered to be in error. (b) All applications for appeals must be received by the Planning Director or City Clerk pursuant to Section 24.3 not later than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the action from which such appeal is being taken. -1- If the Commission disapproves a conditional use permit ., based on failure of the precise plan to substantiallly Sec. 24.5. Review by City Council. with the housing element, the Within twenty-one ys of the date of an action b y y -one (21) days Y the City Planning Commission under the provisions of this of: Ordinance, the City Council may initiate proceedings for ? review of such action, except that the City Council may, by Revising the precise plan resolution, review any or all actions taken by the Planning Commission under the provisions of this Ordinance. The w. Planning Director shall transmit to the City Clerk all documents constituting the record upon which the action to be Applying for an amendment reviewed was taken. The City Clerk shall give notice to all interested parties of the date on which the action will be or reviewed by the City Council. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall Appealing the decision of report its action to the Planning Commission and interested parties. City Council in accordance Sec. 24.6. Hearings and action by City Council. Appeals for consideration by the City Council shall be y _ heard at a public hearing and shall be scheduled for the ^�'�r- „'` -t `” _ x'',.,3a }y x4�d earliest, next regular meeting of the City Council consistent _.b z with agenda preparation requirements and meeting schedules. _s,�rp•r•' Such appeals shall be heard by the City Council on a de novo basis. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the •s•°t"..Yr,''je^`^T � rte_ .. .:z"rt"'e�rSs +'-°^< i���Lr rt-�'i decision of the Planning Commission provided that the City Council shall, on the basis of the submitted record, request . _ for appeal, and public testimony, make the findings prerequisite - to the granting of the original application pursuant to applicable sections of this Ordinance. If, in the opinion of the City Council, significant new evidence or testimony -. - occurs subsequent to the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council may refer the matter back to the Planning commission for a report limited to the effect of the new evidence or testimony on the original decision by the Planning Commission. The City Council shall report its findings and action to the applicant and Planning Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days of the conclusion of the public hearing. SECTION 2: Section 4.6 -3 of Article 4 of Appendix B, the j Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to - .. , ..... read as follows.: Sec. 4.6 -3. Same -- Disapproval. If the Commission disapproves a conditional use permit ., based on failure of the precise plan to substantiallly conform with the housing element, the applicant shall have the choice of: : 1. Revising the precise plan and resubmitting it to the Commission, or 2. Applying for an amendment to the housing element, or 3. Appealing the decision of the Commission to the City Council in accordance with Article 24 hereof. ^�'�r- „'` -t `” _ x'',.,3a }y x4�d —2— _s,�rp•r•' . •s•°t"..Yr,''je^`^T � rte_ .. .:z"rt"'e�rSs +'-°^< i���Lr rt-�'i �Mt+se .YK'C.^aw�� ���✓r'Y��i�F ���+tiC *cS�s.{"'."� :. 4_. ��., .X lL4 Y�!!�+`!ui'.rT+?. '. TYa+l1 dr+li�Yn >. 1.+K,:•... ..-. �:.-.: K.. INt• r, ��•rt�wF.'1avr1Fr06.►�,!�F.r.R' '+urr'fn^�MY..a+r. X , SECTION 3: Sections 16.7 and 16.8 of Article 16 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, are hereby repealed. SECTION 4: Section 16.9 of Article 16 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 16.9. Lapse of use permit. A use permit shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the use permit application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or the structure which was the subject of the use permit application. A use permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date the use permit originally became effective, an application for renewal of the use permit is filed with the City Planning Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a use permit. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Commission. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Council shall review the decision of the Commission in accord with the procedure prescribed in Article 24 hereof. SECTION 5: Section 16.11 of Article 16 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 16.11. Revocation. I-VA y"4; .:' Y '. ,L ��'first?'SL ,+'1i 9 yG7 'r` yt..Y7 -3- Upon violation of any applicable provision of this ' ordinance, or if granted subject to a conditoin or conditions, upon failure to comply with the condition or conditions, a use permit shall be suspended automatically. The City Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing within sixty days, in accord with the procedure prescribed in Section 16.4, and if not satisfied that the regulation, general - - -- _- provision or condition is being complied with, may revoke the ,';':, ?;.„ ;'~,,, : ,.... : =• use permit or take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the regulation, general provision or condition. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Commission. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Council shall review the decision of the Commission in accord with the procedure prescribed in Article 24 hereof. I-VA y"4; .:' Y '. ,L ��'first?'SL ,+'1i 9 yG7 'r` yt..Y7 -3- . ^.»:'+. - -: c. :y -� -,<- - �, -:. .. '� .•.. �,: -_.:: - .:: - -:: % N ... -. : r ti..; i� ,.x " `'- +...�`�xK4 iY!�;!, wk yy�.yt^ }^S4 '�ti^3CwayT •tE :, _ SECTION 6: Section 16.15 of Article 16 of Appendix B, the ,���yz�, h;; L Aux Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 16.15. Permits to convert single -story residential to multiple- story. A special type of use permit is hereby established, entitled a "conversion permit," which may be issued by the Planning Director for the purpose of permitting the owner of any residential structure to increase the height thereof by adding a second or other multiple -story to the same, upon the Planning Director making the findings otherwise required for a use permit under Section 16.6 of this Ordinance. The Planning Director shall be guided by, but have the discretion to set aside any of, the standards and criteria hereinbefore set forth in this Ordinance in Section 3.7 -2 hereof for new construction, in those cases where architectural design and/or / geologic, topographic or physical conditions on the - _ site or in the immediate vicinity give substantial evidence that the issuance of a conversion permit will comply with the purpose of this ordinance: that is, to protect neighboring properties from invasion of privacy, unreasonable inter - ference with views, adverse impact on aesthetic character and reduction in quantity and quality of light and air. Application for such conversion permit to the Planning Director shall be substantially in accord with the provisions of Section 16.3 hereof, with a noticed public hearing held - thereon by the Planning Director in accord with the procedure otherwise applicable to Planning Commission hearings per _ Section 16.4 hereof. Upon the granting or denial of any such permit by the Planning Director, all parties shall have the right to appeal such decision directly to the City Council of this City, which appeal shall be a hearing de novo, and which appeal shall again be substantially in accord with the public hearing notice and procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Director, and the decision of the Council shall be final and conclusion upon all parties. Once a conversion permit has been issued and the applicant " has expended substantial sums in reliance thereon, and the time for appeal has expired, the same shall be permanent and irrevocable. SECTION 7: Sections 17.7 and 17.8 of Article 17 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code are hereby - repealed. SECTION 8: Section 17.9 of Article 17 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to " read as follows: ZF AW Mu" 4'r •{� %�NiS. • M •,� i Sec. 17.9. Lapse of variance. A variance shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the variance became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the variance application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which was the subject of the variance application. A variance may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the variance originally became effective, an application for renewal of the variance is made to the Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a variance. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Commission. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Council shall review the decision of the Commission in accord with the procedure prescribed in Article 24 hereof. SECTION 9: Section 17.10 of Article 17 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17.10. Revocation. A variance granted subject to a condition or conditions shall be revoked by the City Planning Commission if the condition or conditions are not complied with. An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Commission. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Council shall review the decision of the Commission in accord with the procedure prescribed in Article 24 hereof. SECTION 10: Section 23.7 of Article 23 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting or denial of any such permit by the Planning Director, all parties shall have the right to appeal such decision directly to the City Council of this City, which appeal shall be a hearing de novo, and which appeal shall again be substantially in accord with the public hearing notice and procedure set forth in Article 24 of this ordinance. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Director, and the decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. Once a temporary use permit has been issued and the applicant has expended substantial sums in reliance thereon, and the time for appeal has expired, the same shall be permanent and irrevocable. -5- I SECTION 11: 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, 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 12: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 , 1981, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -6- MAYOR �'(�"`.� �vtd 3N�1'S".L- E''�"� -� ,. \.��+ -t y. ^, 4 '1..•l�• [, ., .:-' ., _ '� t x' ,�'1 .�', I SECTION 11: 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, 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 12: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 , 1981, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -6- MAYOR ?� +�`ti 7�':���}r'�1,. M r,: �d'�.�.'+�k ,�r.���Y,' Ra".t±�97v;,�bd' . "+, .:M.0 n.�• Ftf::?.s ,� l:ti�x't,�+..xar . ry ^,Y' ...✓�. f; : y �` tT+,�,;r } ,.. A�,•� r� � �r* � r � y � � '.. �4 Lam.'— esit'�i ttxi� 2/23/82 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 24 TO ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING AND AMENDING VARIOUS SUPERSEDED OR INCONSISTENT SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE NS- The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Article 24 is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance, to read as follows: Article 24. Appeals. Sec. 24.1. Appeals from administrative decision. An appeal may be made to the City Planning Commission by the applicant or any other interested party from any administrative decision or interpretation made by the Director of Community Development or any City official under this Ordinance. Section 24.2. Appeals from decision of Planning Commission. An appeal may be made to the City Council by the applicant or any other interested party from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance. Section 24.3. Filing an appeal. (a) Appeals from any decision of the Director of Community Development or any City official who renders a decision or interpretation under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be made to the City Planning Commission through the Director of Community Development. (b) Appeals from any decision of the City Planning Commission under this Ordinance shall be made to the City Council through the City Clerk. Section 24.4. Requirements for appeals. All appeals shall be made by filing a written notice thereof, signed by the appellant, clearly identifying the decision or interpretation from which the appeal has been taken and the grounds for the appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the administra- tive cost of handling the appeal, in such amount as shall be established from time to time by resolution of the Saratoga City Council. The notice of appeal, together with the required filing fee, must be received by the Director of Community Development or the City Clerk pursuant to Section 24.3 not later than fifteen (15) calendar days following the date of the action from which the appeal has been taken. 1. O6 -�fi"� ei4+.';rS.�s'vy:.�'_;.!. ♦ K . 'M if Yj- fl tQ.J III ✓ 1 ME - - t 1 X Section 24.5. Review by Planning Commission. (a) An appeal to the Planning Commission from an administrative decision or interpretation pursuant to Section 24.1 shall be scheduled for hearing at the earliest regular meeting of the Planning Com- mission consistent with agenda preparation require- ments and meeting schedules. The appeal shall be heard by the Planning Commission on a de novo basis, but no public hearing shall be required unless the administrative decision or interpretation was rendered in connection with a proceeding which required a public hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the Planning Commission, in its discretion, from receiving testimony or other evidence from any person pertaining to the subject matter of the appeal. (b) The Planning Commission may affirm, reverse or modify the administrative decision or interpretation, and may refer the matter back to the Director of Community Development or other City official for such further action as may be directed by the Planning Commission. The Commission shall make such findings as may be required to support its decision. Section 24.6. Review by City Council. (a) An appeal to the City Council from a decision by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 24.2 shall be scheduled for hearing at the earliest regular meeting of the City Council consistent with agenda preparation requirements and meeting schedules. (b) Except as set forth in sub - section 24.6(c), the hearing on the appeal shall not be a de novo hearing. The City Council shall review the decision of the-Planning Commission to determine only if there was sufficient evidence presented to the Commission to substantiate its decision. The Council shall not consider any evidence that was not presented to the Commission and no ground for appeal not specifically set forth in the Notice of Appeal may be raised or considered at the time of the hearing on the appeal. (c) If the City Council should, at the time of the hearing on the appeal, determine by a majority vote of its members present that it wishes to hold a hearing de novo on the appeal, then it shall pro- ceed to hold a complete rehearing de novo on the Planning Commission's decision either at that same Council meeting or at a designated future Council meeting. (d) All hearings on an appeal may, at the Council's discretion, be continued for one or more further hearings without giving notice, save for an oral announcement during the hearing or at any continued hearing. 2. "The use permit shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the use permit was granted unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." r ? �+. t4± rqe,; :4 -.rrwr �•�yi. z,,�,''r..tgr -><t7 :,.:ti - .. 3. ^mss;_:, ;..;; (e) The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the _, .'.,;•,_ decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for such further action as may be directed by the City Council. The City Council shall make such findings as may be required to support its decision, The City Council shall report its findings and action to the applicant and the Planning Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days following conclusion of the hearing on the appeal. Section 24.7. Effective date of decisions. All administrative decisions or interpretations by the Director of Community Development or other City officials under this Ordinance, and all decisions by the Planning Commission under this Ordinance, shall become effective and final imme- diately upon expiration of the appeal period set forth in Section 24.4 if no notice of appeal has been filed within such time. All decisions reviewed by the City Council and ^, affirmed or modified on appeal, shall become effective and _., final on the date the City Council renders its decision. SECTION 2: Section 4.6 <3 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended bL1; 1La iF•a`Uj�!C�...�JIfi�Y.!}a to read as follows: "Sec. 4.6 -3. Same -- Disapproval. " If the Commission disapproves a conditional use permit based on failure of the precise plan to substantially conform with the housing element, the applicant shall have the choice of: 1. Revising the precise plan and resubmitting it to :- ..•..,; ..•. ,.... , ,...._....: � the Commissio n or 2. Applying for an amendment to the housing element, or 3. Appealing the decision of the Commission to the City Council in accordance with Article 24 of this Ordinance." ;;. SECTION 3: Sections 13.5 and 13.6 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 13.5: .,.. ....,_.::,.,,,.,..•._,.•.... ,�...- •;.',i�'�:: "::?- :;_�..r. "Section 13.5. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting or denial by the Planning Commis- sion of a design review application, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 4: The last sentence of Section 16.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The use permit shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the use permit was granted unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." r ? �+. t4± rqe,; :4 -.rrwr �•�yi. z,,�,''r..tgr -><t7 :,.:ti - .. 3. - 1 - i vs.. -,•-,' �v+,. -- �r;1�5'.vyrx+`�" " � '--G t :. r ,ry 5'1_� t�y '7' . �r t�i�'- "!'�(� z`- r� �'' l ,. r* ;:v _ s' ,.. - - • "..- ... ..�._.. u.n,;:`., w.. w- rr+ r. Fwvaw�M .•:e....y�.u....fxo,cc.... -- n SECTION 5: Sections 16.7 and 16.8 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision �:. substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 16.7: "Section 16.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning Commission of a use permit, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision = to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set r - forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 6: Section 16.9 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: r - "Sec. 16.9. Lapse of use permit. A use permit shall lapse and shall become void one year =" following the date on which the use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit x2�arr„ x is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the use permit application or a certificate of occupancy ` '� `" '"� ' "^ is issued for the site or structure which was the subject - .. of the use permit application. A use permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date the use permit originally became effective, an application for renewal of " the use permit is filed with the City Planning Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a use permit. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 7: Section 16.11 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: .. "Sec. 16.11. Revocation. Upon violation of any applicable provision of this Ordinance, or if granted subject to a condition or conditions, upon failure to comply with the condition or conditions, a use permit shall be suspended automatically. The City - - Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing within sixty F - (60) days, in accord with the procedure prescribed in Section 16.4, and if not satisfied that the regulation, general provision or condition is being complied with, may revoke the - use permit or take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the regulation, general provision or condition. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." _ SECTION 8: The last sentence of Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "A variance shall become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the variance was granted, unless an appeal has been taken to the City Council." 4. SECTION 9: Sections 17.7 and 17.8 of Ordinance NS -3 are hereby repealed in their entirety and the following provision t z` +;i ;i .• s;ys. +�•' ^,M° vr�M° substituted in place thereof, to be designated as Section 17.7: ' "section 17.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning Commission of a variance, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision 1. to the City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 10: Section 17.9 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 17.9. Lapse of variance. A variance shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the variance became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is :issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the variance application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which was the subject of the variance application. A variance may be renewed for an additional.period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the variance originally became effective, an application for renewal of the variance is made to the Commission. The Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a variance. The decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in . Article 24 of this Ordinance." SECTION 11: Section 17.10 of Ordinance NS -3 is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 17.10. Revocation. ' A variance granted subject to a condition or conditions shall be revoked by the Planning Commission if the condition or conditions are not complied with." SECTION 12: Section 23.7 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Se ction 23.7. Appeal to City Council. Upon the granting or denial of any such temporary use permit, either the applicant or any interested person may appeal such decision directly to the City Council, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance, except that the City Council shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal.. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Director of Community Development, and the decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. 5. Once a temporary use permit has been issued and the applicant has expended substantial sums in reliance thereon, and the time for appeal has expired, the same shall be permanent and irrevocable." SECTION 13: 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, 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 14: This.Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) 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 1982, by the following vote: AYES: ` NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 6. MAYOR