Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA Qn Initial: , ,Z�I ,-34i3ILL NO. q 0q Dept. Fid. DATE: 8/8/83 (8/17/83) C. Atty. DEPARYrN=: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: V -609 - Ralph R. Renna, 15041 Sobey Rd., Request to Construct a Fence Over 6 Ft. in Height and to install Solar Panels in Side Yard, Appeal of Planning Commission -------------------------------------- Issue Sumaiy - Applicant requested a variance to allow the continuance of a newly con - constructed masonry fence over 6 ft. in height and to install solar panels in the side yard with a 4.6 ft. setback where 20 ft. is required. The Planning Commission approved the var- iance subject to the applicant submitting a lighting plan for their review and approval and writing a letter to the neighbor (Hexim) offering to do the grading and associated drainage improvements to reduce the exterior height of the fence to 6 ft. Recommendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve. 3. Staff recommended denial of the variance for the fence and approval of the solar panels. Fiscal Imoacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter of Appeal 2. Staff Report dated 5/17/83 3. Minutes dated 7/13/83, 6/22/83 and 6/8/83 4. Resolution V- 6 °09' -1 S. Correspondence Received on project Council Action 8/17: Public hearing closed; consensus to direct staff to clarify conditions and continue issue to 9/7. 9/7: Consensus to continue to 9/21. 9/21: Appeal withdrawn (see attached letter). 1 PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL PATRIC J. KELLY ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS TWO NORTH SECOND STREET SUITE 1340 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 (408) 297 -6605 September 20, 1983 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Re. Ralph R. Renna, 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga Appeal of Variance Application V -609 Dismissal and Withdrawal of Appeal JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH SEP 2 01983 Appellant and Applicant, Ralph R. Renna hereby withdraws and dismisses his appeal from the decision of the City Planning Commission in the above - referenced matter. alph T Renna Randy Hess Attor y for Applicant ]w 1 ' RECEIVED t JUL 221983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: RALPH R. RENNA Date Received: Hearing Date: � Fee CITY USE ONLY Address: 3613 Countrywood Court, San Jose, California Telephone: (408) 267 -5300 Name of Applicant: RALPH R. RENNA Project File No.: V609 Project Address: 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California Project Description: Masonry wall Decision Being Appealed: Conditions requiring applicant to submit a lighting plan for Planning Commission review; conditions limiting lighting around fence conditions requiring improvements and /or grading on Hexem property (all such conditions which were subject to the granting of the above- referenced variance. Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): See attached. 0 * Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. Goa �/ PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL PATRIC J. KELLY ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS TWO NORTH SECOND STREET JOHN S. PERKINS SUITE 1340 EVE M. AGIEWICH SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 RECEIVED (408) 297 -6605 July 22, 1983 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Re: Appeal of Conditions on.Variance V609 Dear Council Members: JUL 2 2 1,983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This law office represents Mr. Ralph R. Renna with regard to the variance which was granted regarding the construction of a masonry wall over six feet in height at 15041 Sobey Road. This is an appeal from the condition upon which the variance was granted. This is not an appeal on the granting of the solar panels which were approved by the Planning Commission. The grounds for appeal are as follows: 1) There is insufficient evidence to support the conditions which the Planning Commission has required the Applicant to comply with as part of the granting of the variance. 2) The issuance of said conditions. was an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission. 3) The City of Saratoga ordinances pertaining to the height. of walls and structures in residential. areas are vague.., ambiguous.,, and unconstitutional under the California and United States Constitutions. I would appreciate it if any notices concerning this appeal would be sent to my office which are noted above. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Very truly yd'ur;�; , ADLESON, jIHES'S., CHRISTENSEN & PER NS B y . 5., Randy M. Hqs RMH:jw c.c. client REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 5/17/83 Commission Meeting: 6/8/83 SUBJECT: V -609, Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road ------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Variance approval to construct a masonry fence over 6' in height and install solar panels in the side yard with a minimum setback of 4.6' where 20' is required. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None PLANNI14G DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 42,776 square feet GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Single Family NOTICE: Notice of this project has been posted on site advertised �nT the Saratoga News and mailed to surrounding property owners. CTrPF nmmA . SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: Single family residential HISTORY: This site contains a two -story single family dwelling which is presently under construction. The subject masonry wall was built during construction of the dwelling and borders the northern, western and southern property lines. SETBACKS: Solar panels: Left side 4'6" HEIGHT: Fence: ranges from 6 -9 feet Solar Panels: 5 feet SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Solar Panels: 162 square feet am�c_z_ __#� Report to the Planning Commission Page 2 V -609, Ralph Renna 5/17/83 COLORS & MATERIALS: Fence: slumpstone with 24 square inch wrought.. iron inserts at 10 foot intervals. RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The subject site is situated below Sobey Road and is also at a lower elevation than the adjoining properties to the south. The greatest height of the wall occurs along the southern property line. The wall is being constructed so that there will be backfill placed up against the wall on the subject site causing the height to appear between 6 -7' on the - applicants site and 8 -9' on parcel adjoining to the south (see elevation, Exhibit VIC11) The solar panels as proposed will not extend above the fence height. FINDINGS: 1. Physical Hardship Fence: The area where the fence exceeds the allowable fence height, appears to be a low point in terms of elevation between the subject property and the adjoining property. It appears that the cause for building the wall to its current height was to increase privacy to the subject lot. However, it appears to Staff that this could have been accomplished with landscaping as well. Also, Staff noted that the most used rear yard area of the adjacent property to the south is far enough above the subject property that the fence does not significantly serve to increase privacy. Therefore, Staff cannot make this finding regarding a practical difficulty in terms of site topography which could warrant -the construction of a fence in excess of 6'. Solar Panels: There does appear to be a practical difficulty regarding the siting of the solar panels on the site. The other area available, which could maintain the proper setbacks is on a slope which rises up in the rear of the site . If the panels were sited here they would become more visible to the - surrounding area. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Fence; The fact that the subject property is not uncommon for this zoning district. perty is located at a lower elevation than which tends to make it difficult to screen privacy. However, it does not appear that significant improvement, and that landscap eventually help to screen the rear yard. contains sloped.topography Staff noted that the pro - the surrounding area the rear yard for a 8 -9' fence makes a Ong of the site will Solar Panels: There is an exceptional circumstance associated with the siting of the solar panels in that the proposed location is the least visible site on the property. Also, since the height is less than 6', staff does not feel the solar panels create an impact to the surrounding area. Report to the Planning Commission Page 3 V -609, Ralph Renna 5/17/83 3. Strict or Literal Interpretation Fence: In this case staff does not feel that strict or literal interpretation of the fence height requirements deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the district. Solar Panels: Strict interpretation of zoning regulations could deprive the applicant the use of solar panels in area on the site which creates the least impact to the area. 4. Grant of Special Privilege Fence Staff noted no exceptional circumstances or physical hardships associated with the property, and so cannot make this finding. Solar Panels: Staff does not feel that granting.of the variance for the solar panels would be a grant of a special.privil.ege as there are exceptional circumstances associated with them. 5. Public Health, Safety & Welfare Fence & Solar Panels: Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the solar panels and denial of the variance for the fence in excess of 6' in height. APPROVED Sharon Lester Planner SL /bjc P.C. Agenda 5/25/83 • �;rn 7 . . n0 ooh . • .. d - -N �c}'N+A'R,Nti:� hU.1f�P�TONE P�1w 1 MOM (Olwic# GYGLONfi VVJiCtib. ON MW. L-4 NP- '(D 9s} "G.h1.� N, �blv•�' -I .;. 1 •- -.. i)tJ 39o., :- o. Poo ffs.l. . OF W/1.L•� '1.19' - -� t' \2V Ht6t}?1rr�iF ile, HEX5M Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/8/83 A -87S (cont.) u -�o7 Page 2 homes on all of the 13 lots in this tract. fie commented that, in order to retain the country feeling of the neighborhood, he would urge that any home in the sub- division larger than 4,000 sq. ft. be built on the 8 lots in the back of the sub- division. lie added that he felt the applicant had compromised and appreciates the planning being done in this area, but feels that the Montalvo Road area should be uncongested. Mrs. Claire Marino, owner of the adjoining property, commented that this house would be on a blind curve out of Montalvo Villa and noted the present traffic hazards. She stated that she felt that the privacy impacts have been mitigated in the plan, except for the magnitude of the structure. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the concerns being cited by the neighbors are not pertinent to this application, but are pertinent more to the General Plan. He noted that there will be a barrier to the cul -de -sac itself. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger disagreed with the Staff Report regarding Finding No. 3, Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk. He explained that he is very familiar with the area, and with the exception of the Shortino home, most of'the other homes are between SO% and 3S% smaller than this proposed home. lie added that this is a lovely home, but it is too large for this particular site, and he can - not make that finding. Commissioner Crowther asked what the required land area would be according to the present ordinance with a 17% slope. Staff reported that it would be 1.27 acres. Commissioner Crowther stated that, although this home meets the ordi- nance with regard to floor area, the lot is undersized. Staff explained that this is a lot of record and the entire subdivision was done with the slope that was allowed at that point. Commissioner Siegfried commented that this is a large home; however, it is within the ordinance. He stated that he feels that the developer has tried to make it fit in terms of stepping the house into the slope, and he does not feel the impact would be significantly different if the home were S,000 sq. ft. He added that he did vote against the previous Butler home in this subdivision, but cannot in conscience vote against this one. Commissioner Hlava agreed, stating that as you drive on Montalvo Road the overall impression is an area of large houses. She added that, although this house is a little bit larger than some of the houses there, it is also smaller than some of them. She indicated that it is difficult to say that this home would have too much of an excessive bulk when the front setback is 85 feet from the road. She commented that she can make the findings and feels that the architect has tried to make it not only compatible with the neighborhood,but also has con- sidered the privacy of surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Crowther noted that one of the things that adds to the bulk of this structure is a very high straight up and down wall and a flat roof. Commissioner Nellis stated that he had also voted against the Butler home, and he totally concurs with Commissioners Siegfried and Hlava's comments and there- fore would support the application. Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that she appreciates the efforts of the devel- oper. However, she cannot make the finding on bulk, primarily not necessarily the size of this structure but because of the elevation that it was on. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -87S, per the Staff Report dated May 18, 1983 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner I {lava seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -3, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and McGoldrick dissenting. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. V -609 - Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Vari- ance Approval to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the 'required side yard Staff described the application. They noted that they are not able to make the findings relative to the fence variance and feel that screening and landscaping would be more effective. They indicated that they were able to make the find- a-.& , Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/3/83 V =609 (cont.) ings for the solar variance and recommend approval of it. Page 3 Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. He noted that the fence was fully constructed at this time and the Staff Report speaks to the problems with it. He stated that the site is somewhat unique and sits down in a swale area, and there did not appear to be any real impacts with the solar panels. Commissioner Nellis added that the fence is very visible from the street. A letter received in support of the application was noted. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. The applicant was not present. Rosemary Haxim, who lives adjacent to Mr. Renna, spoke against the application. She stated that she feels that the fence looks like a prison wall and the pro- perty is now totally built up. Jean Francis, Sobey Road, indicated that she feels that the fence is too high and she would prefer landscaping instead. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried agreed with the comment that the fence looks like a prison wall and stated that it is unfortunate that it is already built. He commented that it gives him difficulty to say that it must be undone, particularly when a lot of money has been spent doing it. He added that the fence is an unsightly nuisance and has significant impact. He indicated that he did not have any particular problem with the solar panels and did not feel that they are going to impact anyone. Commissioner Crowther asked if it had been determined whether the impervious coverage added by the solar Panels would exceed the allowable coverage. Staff reported that they did not know how they would be placed but would look into the matter. It was determined to continue the application and notify the applicant that there is consensus that the Commission has serious problems with both requests. It was directed that this item be continued to June 22, 1983. 6. V -610 - Hiroyuki Hiraoka, 18635 Montewood Drive, Request for Variance Appro- val to construct a tennis court with a side yard setback of 15' where 25' is required in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district Staff explained that the plans which had been approved for the tennis court were approved for a 20 ft. setback, which was in error in itself, since a 2S ft. setback is required. However, the tennis court was built with only a 15 ft. setback and there was no final inspection requested. They added that, notwith- standing those irregularities in construction, Staff can make the findings rela- tive to the variance and recommends that you approve it with the condition that the opaque screening be removed from the fencing. They indicated that there will be a clarified building permit with doube fees if the Commission approves the variance. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. Commissioner Siegfried noted that there is essentially one corner of the tennis court that encroaches. Commissioner Hlava added that it does not abut another neighbor and there is no privacy impact. The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Robert Elaine asked what the specific objection was to the opaque screening. It was explained that it is prohibited by ordinance and the general Problem is that it does have impact. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V -610 per the Staff Report dated 6 -1 -83 and Exhifi.it B. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7 -0. 7a. A -880 - George Magnett, 15200 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review 7b. UP -534 Approval to construct a second story expansion to an existing tiro -story dwelling and Use Permit Approval to construct a cabana in the required rear yard Staff described the application. They stated that due to the excessive-floor 0 -Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 6/22/83 Rutherford (cont.) Page 2 U , G d and he had not indicated to Staff that there was going to be a recommendation other than for approval. They commented that the City Geologist's report suggests that it not be approved until geotechnical investigations have been completed. They noted that the Commission has two options: (1) continue the matter until geotechnical reports have been received and approved, or (2) approve it on the condition that these investigations be satisfactorily completed. Commissioner Hlava clarified that this project is at the foot of Michaels Drive as opposed to where the landslides were this winter. There was a consensus to approve the item and condition it. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve Item No. 6, Rutherford, Site Modification Approval, with the condition that the geotechnical investigations recommended inity Geologist's letter dated June 16, 1983 be satisfactorily completed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. GPA- 83 -1 -A - Consideration of Draft Housing Element of the City of Saratoga and Environmental Impact Staff reported that the corrections made at the last study session have been submitted to the Commission, along with the resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Minor corrections were noted on pages 41 and 70. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Com- missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Nellis stated that he feels comfortable with the revised Housing Element. He noted that, due to the Sunland Park survey and the annexation of Sunland Park, the City was able to provide for the very low and low income households as agreed to by the City Council, and he feels it is important that the public recognizes that. He added that the Commission has tried very hard to listen to the public's wishes and draft a Housing Element that reflects the wishes and desires of this City, and he feels that they have done that. He moved to approve Resolution GPA- 83 -1 -A, recommending the revised Housing Ele- ment to the City Council. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining since he was not present at the last tudy session.., 8. V -609 - Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Vari- ance Approval to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district _ Staff explained the project. They commented that they could not make the findings regarding the variance for the fence and recommend denial; however, they are able to make the findings for the solar setbacks. They stated that they have found that, while the amount of impervious coverage on the site is not in excess, it is at the borderline of the 100 sq. ft. that is allowed. They added that the applicant has stated that the panels can be placed without exceeding that 100 sq. ft. coverage. The new correspondence from neighbors in support of the application was noted. The public hearing was opened at 7:S1 p.m. Randy Hess, the attorney for the applicant, addressed the fence. He commented that Mr. Renna had been told by City inspectors to backfill his property so that it was raised 2 -3 feet, and because of that backfilling the fence is now 6 ft. on his side and a little higher on the other side. He indicated that it had cost $45,000 - 50,000 to construct the fence and it would be an extreme hard- ship for the applicant to reduce it. Mr. Hess discussed the findings, indicat- ing that they could be made to grant the variance. Discussion followed on the undeveloped corner lot between the fence and Sperry Lane. It was clarified that this was not owned by Mr. Renna; however, he has an agreement with the owner who had asked him to backfill that up to 8 feet, and the fence will be 6 ft. high when finished. It was noted that there is no letter on file verifying that the fence is the height to which the neighbor _ agreed, but Mr. Renna indicated that lie would get one. Commissioner Siegfried inquired about the lights on the wall and Mr. Renna indicated that they will be -Planning Commission / Page 3 Meeting Minutes 6/22/831 V -609 (cont.) wall height only. Commissioner Nellis asked about the proposed landscaping for the wall. The applicant described the proposed plantings on his side of the wall. Commissioner Nellis noted that when driving down Sobey Road the masonry wall will still be quite visible. Rosemary Haxim, owner of the property adjacent to the applicant, spoke in opposition to the fence. She expressed the fact that no consideration had been given of her, and by the time the pool and driveway are completed it will be greatly over the allowable limit. Commissioner Nellis commented that if the wall were lowered to 6 feet it would still be visible to Ms. Haxim. Additional landscaping on her side was discussed. Additional impervious surface was discussed. Commissioner Hlava asked if the curved driveway was included in the calculations, and Staff indicated that they would review the calculations. Staff reported that the fence had been red - tagged when it was observed and the applicant's representative was told they would have to come in for a site modification; however, the work then proceeded to its completion. Eugene Francis, 15091 Sobey Road, stated that he felt the fence is dominating the house because it is so large, especially on the side by Sperry Lane. He indicated that he felt Mr. Renna should abide by the zoning laws as others do. Mr. Renna stated that he had abided by every law and the fence is 6 ft. high. He added that he was told to backfill the property and was told after the wall was completed that there was a problem. Staff noted that the applicant had indicated that the fence is 8 ft. on one side and it is higher than that on the south side. They added that the applicant had chosen to fill the swale,after which it was negotiated to install a storm drain line so that he could utilize the area. Mr. Renna disagreed, stating that it had nothing to do with the swale. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on regulations regarding the lights on the wall. Commis- sioner Crowther commented that if the wall is not over 6 ft. in height he would be inclined to deny any variance related to it being over 6 ft.; anv part over 6 ft. would have to come down. Staff stated that the applicant has indicated that it is 8 ft. on the north side and there has been no grading permit issued to allow filling of 2 ft. on that side, nor on the south side. Discussion followed on approving the solar panels separately. Commissioner Nellis commented that he would like to ensure that the concerns re the visi- bility of the fence be addressed and landscaping to some fashion done to soften its effect as the fence exists. He explained that he felt if the Commission denies the variance and the applicant simply reduces the size of the fence, there will not be any landscaping. Commissioner Bolger suggested a study ses- sion with the applicant, since there seems to be a number of issues that need to be resolved. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to allow the applicant to come in with options and suggestions in terms of screening to mitigate the im- pact. lie added that the fence exists and maybe something could be worked out with the neighbors. He moved to deny without prejudice V -609 as it relates to the height of the fence. It was clarified that this would allow him to come in with a new plan. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion. Commissioner Hlava stated that she agrees about the fence but feels that a study session is needed. She explained that she does not think it is reasonable to expect the applicant to tear down the fence and come in with a new applica- tion for a new fence and proposed landscaping. She commented that the alterna- tives of either lowering the fence or landscaping need to be discussed. Staff noted that if it is denied with or without prejudi.co there will be new fees to the applicant. Commissioner Siegfried withdrew his motion and Commis- sioner Nellis withdrew his second. Mr. Renna indicated that he would like to work with the Commission, since he does not feel that the wall can be shortened. It was directed that this application be continued to a study session on July S, 1983 and the regular meeting of .July 13, 1983. The applicant was requested to bring back suggestions to mitigate the effect the wall on both sides and to submit some indication from the owner of the vacant lot that he has an agree- L_ - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 6/22/83 C V -609 (cont.) ment that it is going to be filled on one side. Commissioner Hlava asked Staff to determine what was included in the impervious coverage calculations, since the applicant is reaching the allowable limit. 9. A -884 - Wilson Development, Lot 13, Saratoga Heights, Tract #6665, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a single story single family dwelline in the NHR zoning district Staff described the proposal and recommended approval. They reported that the applicant has requested a modification to the structure; for consistency they are requesting that there also be a gabled roof on the center portion of the design. Staff suggested that a condition be added to allow this with Staff review and approval. Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee Report. He stated that the property is considerably above the.street level; however behind the property it slopes up rather dramatically, which mitigates the appearance of the height. The public hearing was opened at 8:29 p.m. Dave Wilson, the applicant, appeared to answer questions. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that the plans were not in his packet so he had not had a chance to review them. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -884, per the Staff Report, including the condition that the proposed modification be allowed with Staff review and approval. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. 10.A -88S - Vern Heath, Lot #2, Via Tesoro, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a single story single family structure in the R -1- 40,000 zonine district Staff described the project and gave the history of the site. Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee Report. He noted that there is a proposal to construct a 415 ft. crawl space below the finished grade which adds to the appearance of the house. He stated that the adjacent house on the left sits on a lot that is higher than this and is a rather imposing structure. He added that if this design were lowered much in size the adjacent house will quite quite a bit above it in height. The public hearing was opened at 8:3S p.m. Vern Heath, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He described the adjacent home, stating that if the proposed design were lowered it would ruin the neighborhood. Ron Mancusso stated that he would like to see a compromise regarding reduction of the roof angle to reduce the bulk and a condition of landscaping and water evacuation. He added that if the Commission approves this as is he would like to see the landscaping and the masonry wall worked out. Mr. Heath described the proposed wall and landscaping. He added that they are putting a drain in which is on the plan. There was a consensus that the appli- cant could bring the landscaping and fence back for review. Mr. Berman, the applicant, stated that he had discussed his plans with Mr. Mancusso and intends to work with him. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -885, subject to the Staff Report dated ` June 13, 1983 and Exhibits B and C, and adding the condition that plans be sub- mitted for the fence and landscaping along the fence for Commission review. After discussion Commissioner Siegfried amended his motion to read that the plans could be approved by Staff. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. it was noted that if Staff has any problem with the plans they can bring it back to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously S -0. - 4 - Planning Commission r Page 3 Meeting Minutes 7/13/83 l BUILDING SITES 6. SDR -1541 - Carson Heil, 14781 Farwell, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 lot, and Site Modification Approval for addition on over 10% slope Staff explained the proposal and noted that the applicant does own the adjacent small parcel, and the elimination of the property line between the two would create a solution to the setback problem. They stated that they recommend approval, with the condition that the property be reverted to acreage, thereby eliminating the lot line problem, and the condition that either a garage be provided or a variance be obtained for lack of a garage on the site. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the site. Commissioner Nellis added that one of the major concerns brought out by Mr. Heil was that the site is presently on a septic tank and putting it on a sewer could create all sorts of environmental problems. A letter from Mr. Heil was noted. Mr. Heil clarified that he would not consider splitting the property at this time since it would ruin it. He discussed possibly moving the property line back to the creek and described his proposal. The requirement for the sewer system was discussed. There was a consensus that this matter should be scheduled for a study session to consider the possible options. It was directed that this item be continued to a Committee -of- the -Whole on August 2, 1983 and the regular meeting of August 10, 1983. PUB IC HE INGS 7. V -609 - alph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Variance Approval to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from June 22. 1983 Staff explained the application and noted that it had been discussed at a study session. They indicated that they had reviewed the matter of impervious coverage and it has been determined that there is actually 37% coverage. Dis- cussion followed on this issue. The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m. Mr. Renna described the solar panels and the drainage system. He clarified that it was not his plan to put a slab underneath the solar panels at this time. He added that he had not been able to obtain a sample of the lighting but des- cribed it. Randy Hess, attorney for Mr. Renna, addressed the wall and noted the neighbors in support of it. Mr. Renna explained the attempts he had made to work with Mrs. Hexim, the adjacent neighbor. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava reported that she had measured the fence and the major problem appears to be the L- shaped area where the culvert has been constructed and which is the border of the Hexim property. She explained that there is no water supply there so it would not be feasible to do any landscaping along the fence. She proposed that a condition be added that the applicant shall get permission from Mrs. Hexim to do some grading on her side to reduce the height of the fence to 6 ft. The lighting on the fence was discussed. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he would be inclined to deny any variance on the fence, since the applicant says it does not exceed 6 ft. Commissioner Nellis agreed that he would like to see the applicant work with the neighbor to bring the grading up to 6 ft. However, he would also like to see him work with the neighbor to landscape the fence to soften the effect. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was having a difficult time making the - 3 - Tft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7/13/83 V -609 (cont.) findings but feels it is a tremendous immense structure. She added that she it out, perhaps with a Staff member. Page 4 waste to ask someone to tear down that would like to see the neighbors work Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not have a particular problem with the solar panels, as long as there is no slab under them so it doesn't increase the impervious coverage. He added that it appears the only area where the variance is needed is in the corner where the Swale was. He stated that he feels he could make the findings on the basis of the fact that it is an unusual situation in the sense that the property was filled and essentially a retaining wall was built to retain that fill, and then the fence was built 6 ft. in height above the retaining wall. The lighting was further discussed. The City Attorney commented that the Commission has the authority to condition a variance regarding the lighting. He added that, relative to Commissioner Crowther's comment, the applicant may feel the fence does not exceed 6 ft., but as the ordinance has been interpreted by Staff we believe it does, which is why the applicant is here. As far as the neighbor is concerned, if the Commission imposes the condition that the applicant must grade the outside of the fence or landscape it, lie is being required to perform work on someone else's property who may not con- sent. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -609 for the solar panels and wall as presently constructed, per Exhibit "B ", with the conditions that there be nothing on top of the wall and the applicant shall write a letter offering, at his expense, to do the grading on the Hexim property to reduce the measure- ments of the fence to 6 feet. She made the findings based on Commissioner Siegfried's thoughts that it is a retaining wall with a 6 ft. fence on top and it is an unusual situation because of grading and the filling-of the swale, which is what causes the fence to be over 6 ft. in that particular area. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Mr. Renna discussed the condition to work with the neighbor, citing his pre- vious attempts and explaining the location of the culvert. Commissioner Nellis asked to amend the motion to state that the offer be extended to landscaping as well, and commented that he would like the same offer extended to the neighbor on the other side as well. There was a consensus that there would be a major problem with landscaping because of the irrigation. Discussion followed on the condition relative to the lighting. It was deter- mined that the condition would read that the applicant shall submit a light- ing plan for Planning Commission review, with the intent that it would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections of the fence and would not be allowed on any portion of the fence 6 ft. or higher as measured from either side. Staff asked for clarification.regarding the offer to the Hexims for the grad- ing. They commented that they assumed it would require the extension of the pipe. It was clarified that the Commission would like a culvert that would allow some fairly level grading in that one small section of the L of the fence. Mr. Renna discussed the cost of the culvert, stating that it would be prohibitive to put the culvert on the Hexim property. He added that the culvert runs parallel to the fence, so he would have to do the whole fence in excess of 100 ft. long. Discussion followed on the condition, and it was determined that the condition should read that the offer be made to the Hexims to do the grading and associated drainage improvements to reduce the measurement of the fence to 6 ft., as approved by the City Engineer. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he would not vote for the variance because no landscaping is being required. He noted that the Commission routinely conditions to have landscaping and he is disappointed that that offer cannot be in the letter. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Nellis and Crowther dissenting. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. 8. A -887 - Bill O'Meara, Lot 10, Farr Ranch Road, Parker Ranch, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Crowther abstained from the discussion and votin; on this item because of pending litigation. Staff explained the proposal. They clarified that there is an erroneous comment in the Staff Report that indicates that - 4 - ow M VARIANCE FILE NO.: V -609 RESOLUTION NO. V -609 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of RALPH RENNA for a Variance to construct a masonry wall over 6 ft. in height at 15041 Sobey Road an solar panels in the required side yard' and WHEREAS, the appli,cant (has) k1XX&xixgck) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for-the Variance be, and the same is hereby (granted) (dffxicffdX subject to the following conditions: Per Exhibit "B" and (1) Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for Planning Commission review. (Intent is that lighting would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections.), and (2) Applicant shall write letter, offering, at his expense, to do the grading and associated drainage improvements on the Hexim property to reduce the measurement of the fence to 6 feet, as approved by City Engineer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted) (kkaxRkataxi xgxEammixxxoxxxoffi:idxxmk and the Secretary be,. and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of July , 19 83 , by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Crowther and Nellis ABSENT:Commissioners Bolger and Schaefer ATTEST: /,ti`)t nn ng ommission Chairman, Planning C sion /f�5 U, c RECEIVED JUN 2 01983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT vV _.e. 71�,--ems •�'t -fJ D =2G��c c7.�v��. � .�e_- 6tZ7 /3 77 RECEIVED JUN 2 01983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 7 0 /moo �o A7 U. Co - to aa�. 5 L7 3 �7o7oa � City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development Re: V -609 - Ralph Renna Dear Mr. Shook: RECEIVED JUN 0 7 198:3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Please cause this communication to be read into the record at the public hearing of the above referenced matter on June 8, 1983. In responce to your notice of hearing in this matter, I have examined the "fence" which is a simulated adobe wall, and is in keeping with the neighborhood in style and appearance. It appears that the wall will not be over six feet in most places above the finish grade but in some places it is reasonable that it be higher. Most particularly at the southeastern side of the Renna property, near Sobey Road, where a wall is needed to give isolation form a stable which has been rented commercially for years. The requested variance should be approved. The location of the solar panels will make them only slightly visi- ble to a residence several hundred feet to the southwest. The panels will be part of the wall in appearance and should create no problem at all to anyone. The variance requested for the setback should be approved. Very truly yo rs, Hoover R. Harvey 15050 Sobey Road P. O. Box 3590 Saratoga, CA 95070 cc: R. R. Renna August 14, 1983 To: Robert Shook - Saratoga Planning Commission/ City Council Members Subject: Ralph Renna Wall and Drainage Problems From: Rosemary (Hexem) Francis Eugene C. Francis 15091 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 I discussed the wall and drainage problems with Mr. Randy Hess on August 11, 1983. The following recommendations were made for Mr. Renna. a) Provide some drain tube and grating for children's safety protection from the existing storm drain up to four feet to the six foot level on the fence. This grating would have to meet the city codes so that potential law suits are avoided if a local child was to be injured playing near the storm drain installed by R. Renna. b) Raise the entire dirt area between the corral and the Renna walled area so that the wall is no higher than six feet above the lowest area of the Hexem property. c) Many neighbors have complained that the wall is unsightly when viewed from their back yards. This problem can be minimized if R. Renna will plant large monterey pines (or other fast growing trees) even ten feet on the outside perimeter of the wall. This may also provide Mr. Renna additional privacy which he may desire. We give permission for R. Renna to have access to the Hexem property to: a) Install city approved drain grating. b) Bring in fill dirt for the rear of Hexem property and level out and pack down. c) Install large trees every ten feet on the outside perimeter of fence adjoining the Hexem property four feet from the fence. Mr. Randy Hess said he would review these recommendations with Mr. Renna and get back with us. Rosemarie (Hexem) Francis Euge e C. Francis PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL PATRIC J. KELLY Af_)LFSON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERRINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS TWO NORTH SECOND STREET SUITE 1340 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 (408) 297 -6605 August 5, 1983 Mrs. R. M. Hexem 15091 Sobey Road Saratoga, California Re: Ralph R. Renna Dear Mrs. Hexem: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH 'Fhis law office represents MY. Renna with regard to the recent difficulties concerning construction of his wall. My client would like to reach some mutually agreeable solution to the difficulties you have found with the construction of the wall. If you will contact me at the number listed above, I will be happy to discuss with you what can be done to help alleviate your concerns with the wall. I look forward to talking with you soon. Very truly yours, ADLESON, HES•S,,-CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS 13Y Randy M. I-Ie RMH :jw C.C. Rober 'ook, Saratoga Planning Commission c.c. client 1-016727A223 08/11/83 ICS IPMPTUK PTL 1%34UG 05531 08-11 0148P PDT PTUJ ICS IPMPTUZ NO. 1-157207G223 08/11/83 ICS IPMIIHA IISS tr To B IISS F M WUI 11 1527 PMS SARATOGA CA UWB4745 HWH493 CMTD302 UWNA CO MWMU VJU T=GUW WUI HONOLULU HI 38/36 11 852A HST TF-408-8673438 CITY COUNCIL 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON 15041 SOBEY ROAD MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT VIEW AND ESTATIC APPEAL ON MY LOT I TRACT 5995 ROLIZ INC WAYNE LEPOSAVIC COLL TF-408-8673438 13777 15041 1 5995 NNN 1545 EST � 1601 EST -i Uu 16 1983 1] To: Saratoga City Council Members From: Rosemarie (Hexem) Francis 15091 Sobey Rd. Re: Relph Renna property As a 28 -year member of the Saratoga community and the Sobey Rd. area, I feel I can make some objections to the unsightly, unsafe, and environmentally damaging wall and drain that was built adjoining my property. As a result of the drain pipe installed by Mr. Renna, my property on the lower end was flooded over three feet during the winter storms. The water sat there all winter. This problem never occurred before the Renna drain pipe and wall were installed. Another problem is the potential unsafe condition this large drain pipe, has caused (the drain opening is on my property). If a child or children were playing near the opening, tlier,e rcou'ld :-be a,,disaster,. I am hoping the City engineers could look at this situation. Sincerely, Rosemarie (Hexem) Francis 1 August 10, 1983 To: Saratoga City Council Members Re: Ralph Renna Variance From: Eugene C. Francis I object to the massive wall and the lights planned for on top of the wall because they destroy the natural open country environment that Sobey Road is noted for. The City Council has committed itself to protecting our environment and should not permit one individual to damage the neighborhood for everyone. The wall height varies between 6 -10 feet now with lights planned for all around the perimeter above the wall if Mr. Renna can get away with it. The city should have Mr. Renna reduce the wall to the legal limit of 6 feet in all areas and on all sides and restrict the lights to a few near the entry way on Sobey Road. The fence height is now 10 feet near the underground drain on the side of the Hexem property. If the city had Mr. Renna fill the area and grade the drainage area, there would be a 4 feet drop - off. This would be a hazardous situation for the local children who play along the creek bed. One safe way is to reduce the back wall height 4 feet to the six foot legal level in this area and not require any fill. Another alternative is to have Mr. Renna provide an approximately 100 foot extension of the 2 -foot diameter drain line to the Hexem property. If this is sloped correctly to arrive at the end of the Renna wall at natural ground level, the drain tube could be covered at the 6 ft. fence level to allow Mr. Renna to meet the building code requirements. Because children play in this creek bed, some protective grating which meets the city requirements should be placed over the drain inlet to avoid possible hazards, and subsequent law suits if some child is killed or injured. Mr. Renna should not object to making the area safe for local children since he has altered the neighborhood and created this safety hazard. Mr. Renna says he is building a two million dollar house so the minor expense to meet the building code and insure that his changes are safe for the local children, will definitely not be a financial hardship. Mr. Renna's wall is unsightly and alters the entire neighborhood even if reduced to the 6 foot legal limit. To minimize the environ- mental damage, Mr. Renna should have the outside walls landscaped with large shrubs and trees completely around the perimeter of the property. Sincerely yours, r, Ic to • E. C. Francis 15091 SD)bey Rd. Saratoga (354 -7345) August 10, 1983 To: Saratoga Planning Commission /City Council Members From: John D. Armstrong 12121 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Ralph Renna property Dear Sirs: I am a homeowner on Sobey Road and therefore have a particular interest in the activities in this area as well as a general interest in the development of Saratoga as a city. I have lived in Saratoga for the past 14 years because of the unique "non city" atmosphere offered here. Certain developments have occurred concerning the Renna property (near Sperry Lane) which have bothered me both as a neighbor and a member of this community. The first concern is the size of the buildings. Due to.the grades on the two sides of the property, the property appears to be overbuilt. Unfortunately, the adobe wall surrounding the property only serves to emphasize the overbuilt appearance. It..would be a service to the neighborhood if the wall could be removed. If Mr. Renna wants the isolation a wall provides, perhaps he could plant large trees instead. I realize however, that the city has agreed to allow the wall to remain with the restrictions limiting wall light to the driveway entrance and grading the neighbor's property. I am certainly in favor of these restrictions. The wall is already over the legal height limit in some places and the addition of lights on top of the wall would give an even taller appearance. The wall lights at night are objectionable. I don't believe it is proper for Mr. Renna to impose this dazzling display on his neighbors. I object to the.Renna property because the architectural aspects are out of context with the Sobey Road area. Sincerely yours, ohn D. Armstrong To: Saratoga City Council Members From: Mrs. F. C. Greaves Date: August 10, 1983 Re: Ralph Renna Building Code Violation The Planning Commission is negligent in allowing R. Renna or anyone else to violate the city building codes. I object to the unsightly massive wall and the lights that are planned for on top of the wall. This wall and lighting destroy the visual tranquility of the entire neighborhood. Sincerely, Mrs. F. C. Greaves 15161 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 4, , s City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Members of the City. Council: Subject: Appeal of Conditions of Variance concerning lighting plan for fence at 15041 Sobey Rd. and improvements and /or grading on adjacent Hexim property (V -609) The undersigned formally object to any changes to the existing variance granted by the Council concerning the fence (wall) surrounding the Renna residence. As it now stands, the height of the wall already exceeds code. Lighting the'top of this wall would be completely out of character with the rural setting of the.neighborhood. The lack of street lighting in the area would make the lighting on the wall especially obvious, thereby constituting a neighborhood nuisance. We urge the Council to maintain the conditions under which the previous variance to build the wall in excess of code height was granted. WWit) WE 1.7- L> �2- s s `Y_� 5F,AM was �us�`�,�1. 15 V AN� bft 7 -9 <-- f-�N Ci-- i(v �xP f �Et�cAJ ICJ 6 L JAt G let FWA PkoAcitq el� o� S�i1i2,,9 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 9/1/83 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/7/83 V -609 SUBJECT : Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road, fence over 6 feet high and polar panels in side yard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- At your last meeting you requested clarification of the condition of the subject variance relative to grading on the adjacent property. There was concern expressed that because staff had recommended denial and, therefore, hadn't suggested conditions of approval the Commission may not have considered all possibilities. In reviewing this with staff the only additional condition staff might have suggested would be landscaping to screen the fence and provisions.for ongoing maintenance of that landscaping. The Commission discussed the matter of landscaping at length and in their final decision did not require any. Therefore, I believe the matter of conditions of approval were thoroughly reviewed by the Commission during their deliberations. My understanding of the condition that was placed on the approval is simply that a reasonable plan be devised to mitigate the appear- ance of the high fence from the adjoining property be worked out between the applicant and City Staff. The applicant was then to offer to do this work in writing to the adjacent property owner. If the owner agreed to allow the applicant on site to perform the work and he did it the condition would be satisfied. If the adjacent owner did not so agree, thereby thwarting the applicants capability to perform, then the condition would also be satisfied and no further effort would be required. I felt that I was well on the way to resolving this matter and even had hopes that the solution would be implemented prior to your September 7 meeting, In that I had: 1. Made a field review and determined that the matter could be resolved with very little effort by; a. Backfilling fence footing on east -west portion of fence east of drainage swale sSs ;ESN REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 9/l/83 COUNCIL MEETING: 9/7/83 V -609 SUBJECT Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey .Road, .fence over 6 feet high and RAlar Panels in side _yard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- At your_ last meeting you requested clarification of t'le condition of the subject variance relative to grading on the adjacent property. There was concern expressed Utat because staff had recommended denial and, there66re, hadn't suggested conditions of approval the commission may not have considered all possibilities. In reviewing this with staff, the only additional condition staff m miaht have suggested would be 1hn, -IscJ aping to .scrdcni'4 the'. fe nce ' zd provisions for oangoing maintenance of that 1ancfseap no. Tire Commission discussed the mat6er of landscaping at length and in their final decision did not require any. Thee @6ve9,Ilbb &1(hvwetlhhe matter of conditions of approval went thougaghly reviewed by the Commission during their deliberations. My understanding of the condition that was placed on the approval is simply that a reasonable plan be devised to mitigate the appear- ance of the high fence from the adjoining property be worked out between the applicant and City Staff. The applicant was then to offer to do this work in writing to the adjacent property owner. If the owner agreed to allow the applicant on site to perform the work and he did it the condition would be satisfied. If the adjacent owner did not so agree, thereby thwarting the applicants capability to perform, then the condition would also be satisfied and no further effort would be required. Iifelt that i was well on the way to resolving this matter and even had hopes that the solution would be implemented prior to your September 7 meeting, In that I had: 1. Made a field review and determined that the matter could be resolves' with very little effort by; a. Back filling fence :Footing on east -west portion of fence east of dr.rai.nage swale b. Backfilling and sloping toward swale the east -west portion of fence west of swale and the north -south fence. 2. Met with applicant in field who I interpreted as saying that was reasonable and that he would do it and would even knock down some old orchard trees if the owner wished it. 3. Met with the adjacent owner and informed her of the pro- posed work. She-.left it'�.that.she would have to discuss it with her husband before before making a decision. I have not as of yet received their input. Subsequently the applicant has informed me that yes, he will do this work but only if he is forced to do so by an adverse court decision in a case that he intends to file for a determination on the interpretation of our ordinance as to measurement of fence height. Robe S. Shook Director of Community Development RS S /b j c C.C. Agenda 9/7/83 ADLESON, HESS, CHIRISTENSEN 8c PEI?KINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL PATRIC J. KELLY September 2, 1983 ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS TWO NORTH SECOND STREET SUITE 1340 SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95113 (408) 297 -6605 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Members of the Council: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH n 2X F � S E P 0 61983 This office represents Mr. Ralph R. Renna with regard to his property located at 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California. As you know, Mr. Renna has built a six foot fence on his property which has been the subject of dispute before the Saratoga Planning Commission and now before the Saratoga City Council. The fence is the subject of this letter. First of all, we would like to point out that we appreciate what the members of the council have done and the considerations they have show us and would like to express that we feel that all parties, including the Planning Commission, are acting in. good faith in this matter. However, we feel that the ordinance in question, at least with respect to Mr. Renna's circumstances, is somewhat vague and may be subject to varying interpretations. It is, of course, our position, that Mr. Renna has fully complied with all heighth ordinances regarding his fence. The fence is, in fact, six feet, and is within his property line by six inches. We are by this letter making a formal request that the Saratoga City Attorney draft and forward an interpretive opinion regarding the ordinance to this office. We would, then, have a solid position base from which to proceed in an effort to amicably resolve the matter, or, in the event the matter is required to be taken further. Could you please provide us with your response to this request at your earliest convenience. There are a few points which Mr. Renna would like the Council to consider in this matter. First of all, it is our belief that your suggestion that Mr. Renna backfill the adjoining neighbor's property in a "2 -1 fall" would improve the adjoining neighbor's property. Accordingly, we feel that there is authority to support the view that the neghbors would be open to litigation in an effort to require them to pay for half of the value of and maintain the fence. We feel that this is an important Saratoga City Council September 2, 1983 Page Two consideration which the Council should keep in mind. Further, Mr. Renna's fence is completely on his property by several inches. The fence sits on top of a retaining wall which is built of completely different material than is the fence. I think it is without question that Mr. Renna could simply knock down the existing fence, move it inches inside the retaining wall, and be in full compliance with the City's ordinance. The retaining wall would remain in place. This would certainly be a sad waste of time and money, but simply points up how vague and ambiguous the ordinance is in relation to Mr. Renna's particular circumstances. Mr. Renna is not seeking to change or violate any ordinance, but simply feels that the ordinance does not apply to this situation. Again, we feel that what we have is a retaining wall on top of which sits a six foot fence which is perfectly level with the ground on Mr. Renna's side of the property. We are submitting this letter for your consideration and in request of your counsel's interpretation of the ordinance. We look forward to your continued courtesy and cooperation. Respectfully, AD , HESS, TENSEN & PERKINS atric J. Kelly Attorneys for Ralph R. Renna PJK:jw c.c. clien PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL STEVEN G. BAIRD JACK L. BRIDGE GREGORY A. MANCHUK ATKINSON - FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: September 15, 1983 J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915-1979) In connection with the appeal to the City Council by Ralph Renna on Variance Application V -609, you have requested our opinion concerning the measure - merit of fence height under the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Renna was required to apply for a variance based upon Section 3.4 which states, in pertinent part: "Fences, walls and hedges not exceeding 6 feet in height shall be permitted in the R -1- 40,000 District." This section does not, on its face, specify any particular method for the measurement of height. In the case of Mr. Renna, a 6 foot decorative fence was constructed directly above a concrete retaining wall. As a result of site grading and backfill, the retaining wall is not visible on Mr. Renna's side and the fence therefore measures 6 feet in height from finish grade. However, on the exterior side of the fence facing the adjacent property, the retaining wall is visible at certain locations and the total height was measured from the bottom of the retaining wall (at finish grade) to the top of the fence. Utilizing this method, a portion of the fence on the exterior side would be in excess of 6 feet. It is apparently the contention of Mr. Renna that the retaining wall should be excluded from the measurement of height. Since the remaining portion of the fence would not exceed 6 feet, Mr. Renna argues that he has complied with Section 3.4. Based upon our review of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, our research of California law and our consultations with the City staff, the City Attorney is of the opinion that the fence in question does exceed the height limitation prescribed in Section 3.4 and a variance therefore is required. Because Section 3.4 does not specify any particular method for the measurement of fence height, the interpretation of this section must necessarily be derived from a review of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance as a whole and consideration of the legislative intent behind enactment of Section 3.4, as shown by the objectives to be achieved through the height restriction, the evils to be avoided and the public policy being implemented. Consideration must also be given to the established and Saratoga City Council September 15, 1983 Page 2 customary manner in which the Ordinance has been applied by City officials responsible for enforcement. Finally, there is the general rule of statutory interpreta- tion that words must be given their plain and ordinary meanings, unless the statute specifically states otherwise, and if a word is susceptible to different interpretations, the interpretation which best achieves the legislative purpose should be utilized. It seems clear that the basic purpose of height limitation on fences is to control the visual impact of the fence upon occupants of adjacent property or upon the neighborhood as a whole. The protection of neighboring property owners certainly would not be achieved if the height of a fence is measured strictly on the interior side. As illustrated by Mr. Renna's application, a developer could reduce the height of a fence to 6 feet on his own property through grading or backfilling whereas the height of the fence, as viewed by a neighbor, would still be in excess of 6 feet. The visual impact is even more severe in the case of a fence which also serves as a retaining wall. For example, the developer of an uphill lot could install a 6 foot retaining wall which is at ground level as viewed from his own property. If a 6 foot fence is then erected on top of this wall, the interior height would measure only 6 feet from finish grade but the exterior height as viewed by a downslope neighbor would be 12 feet. Such visual impact of retaining walls constructed on hillside lots is specifically recognized in Sections 313.5(b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to the NHR District, which impose a maximum height on retaining walls and a minimum horizontal distance between parallel vertical walls. There is no apparent reason to make any distinction between a "retaining wall" and a wall above finish grade where both "walls" are part of the same structure. Mr. Renna may argue that the "retaining wall" was constructed out of different materials and serves a different function than the "decorative wall" built upon it, but the neighbor still sees a wall in excess of 6 feet. The fact that a portion of the wall is retaining earth on Mr. Renna's side in no way mitigates or changes the visual impact upon the neighbor. Mr. Renna claims that under our present Ordinance, he could demolish the existing "decorative wall" and reconstruct the same one foot away from the retaining wall without the need for a variance. He thus concludes that staff's interpretation of the Ordinance as applied to his property produces an absurd result. Yet this argument is based upon the false premise that the City would have allowed such wall to be constructed in the manner suggested by Mr. Renna if his intention to do so had been disclosed at the time his project was approved. The fact of the matter is that the wall in question was not shown on Mr. Renna's site plan. If the wall had been shown with a physical separation from the retaining wall, such that no variance would be required, the City still could have imposed appropriate mitigation measures as a condition for design review approval. These measures could have included the requirement for a minimum horizontal distance between the retaining wall and the decorative wall and Saratoga City Council September 15, 1983 Page 3 installation of landscaping on the exterior side of the decorative wall to mitigate the visual impact upon the neighbors. There is rather clear evidence in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance of a public policy to measure height in a manner least favorable to a developer. Prior to enactment of the Design Review Ordinance, the height of a structure was determined according to Section 14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance which provided that height "shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade of that portion of the site covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure, or to the wall coping of a flat roof, or to the mean height between the plate and ridges of a hip, gable or gambrel roof." A separate method for the measurement of structure height in the HC -RD District was provided in Section 3A.26(c), based upon a warped plane parallel to natural grade. Sections 14.8 and 3A.26(c) were both expressly superseded by Section 13A.3(g) of the Design Review Ordinance which states that height of a structure "shall be measured by a vertical line from the highest point of the roof to either the natural grade or finish grade (excluding basements), whichever distance is greater.. " Although this regulation does not apply directly to fences, which are excluded from the definition of "structure" as contained in Section 1.5yy of the Zoning Ordinance, it is indicative of the City's policy of measuring height in terms of maximum visual impact. As applied to a fence, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "height ", in the absence of a statutory provision to suggest otherwise, is that vertical distance from the bottom of the wall at finish grade to the top. There is nothing whatsoever in the Zoning Ordinance which either permits or requires the measurement of fence height to be made exclusively on the interior side facing the developer's property. We are advised that the City staff has followed a long established practice of measuring fence height by considering both sides of the fence and taking the measurement at the point of maximum vertical distance at any portion of the fence. The staff's interpretation of the Ordinance is also supported by precedent. On July 23, 1975, the Planning Commission granted Variance Application V -427 for the construction of a fence on property being developed by Osterlund Enterprises located adjacent to the Lawrence Expressway. As a result of grading on the site, the interior height of the fence facing the subdivision was 6 feet and the exterior height facing Lawrence Expressway was 8 feet. As in the case of Mr. Renna, the bottom 2 feet of the fence was intended to serve as a retaining wall. A review of the staff report on the Osterlund application and the minutes of the Planning Commission proceedings thereon do not show any question ever having been raised over the necessity for a variance. Based upon the foregoing, we consider the method utilized by staff for measuring the height of Mr. Renna's fence as being consistent with the objectives and Saratoga City Council September 15, 1983 Page 4 policies reflected in the Zoning Ordinance, consistent with the common and ordinary meaning of the word "height ", and consistent with established practices consistently followed by the City staff. It should be remembered that Mr. Renna constructed his fence without first applying for a building permit. If the application for a permit had been made, Mr. Renna would have been advised of the necessity for a variance before he commenced any work on the fence. Consequently, we do not perceive any reason to change our interpretation of Section 3.4 or to consider an exception to the height limitation contained therein based upon eQuitablg or any other grounds. Harold S. Toppel City Attorney HST /cd ed, REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 9 -16 -83 COUNCIL MEETING: 9-21-83 SUBJECT: Ralph Renna Property on Sobey Road At your last meeting you requested information concerning the construction at the Renna property on Sobey Road. Staff has reviewed the plans and finds that there are several discrepancies between the approved plans for which permits were issued and what has been constructed. Those that were noted are listed below: 1. Second story created in main structure which was not approved in design review nor shown on plans for which permits have been.issued. 2. Relative to Item 1 the following unapproved appur- tenances have been added: a. 3 dormer windows b. skylights c. windows at north and south end of structure d. balconies at north and south end of structure. 3. Chimney on rear side of structure is higher than t` approved and of a different design. 4. Second story created in greenhouse /workshop /cabana which was not approved either. S. Windows in east and west sides of structure to accommodate Item 4 above. In partial explanation of how these several discrepancies have not been observed previously during the normal inspection process, Report to Mayor re Ralph Renna Property on Sobey Road September 16, 1983 Page 2 let me describe that process. At the time of the frame inspec- tion the inspector goes over the frame thoroughly to determine that the structure is in conformity with the plans. Subsequent inspections are performed without such detailed review of the plans on the assumption that no changes have been made. The next time a thorough review is made is during the final inspec- tion. It should be noted that the frame inspection of the greenhouse/ cabana was never completed and signed off because of a problem found with some of the large members. Appropriate action at this point is to red tag the project and stop further work until: (a) owner has removed all unpermitted work •W (b) owner has obtained new design review for both main two - story structure and two -story accessory structure and has obtained appropriate building permits. Staff is issuing a stop work order on this project September 16, 1983. Ro Director of Community Development RSS:cd clrz OF ,GLt'D�'1 BILL NO. �"�' "1 C Initial: ' Dept. fki. DATE; 8/10/83 (_8/17/83) C. Att, DEMUMMNM Community Development C. Mgr. SU,M -cr: Approval to Amend the Parker Ranch CC & R's to Allow a Pool on Parcel H of Tract Issue Su msry 1. The proposed pool is located on a site where two parcelswere reverted to acreage as required by the Parker Ranch negotiated settlement. The CC & R's for Parker Ranch prohibit pools on either of the combined lots. Because these lots have been merged, there is now more space to accomodate a pool on the site. 2. The applicant wishes to amend the CC & R's which requires the written consent of the Saratoga City Council. 3. The Planning Commission and the City Geologist have reviewed the proposed pool site and recommended approval for the site modification. Additionally, the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association has submitted a letter of approval for the pool on the subject site. RPrnmmnntla +;nn. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. amending the CC& R's for Parcel H, Tract 6528, Parker Ranch. Fiscal Imoacts None E:%hibits /Attach17c-nts 1. Resolution No. 2. Letter from Parker Ranch Homeowners Association dated 8/8/83. 3. Staff Report dated 8/11/83. Council Action 8/17: Callon /Fanelli moved to adopt Resolution 2085. Passed 5 -0. n A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONSENTING TO AMENDMENT OF THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRIC- TIONS FOR TRACT NO. 6528 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has previously approved the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Tract No. 6528 submitted by Blackwell Homes, as declarant, and recorded on May 3, 1982, in Book 499, Pages 35 -41 et seq., Official Records of Santa Clara County, California; and WHEREAS, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, as recorded, provides that no amendment shall be made thereto without the prior consent of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, 75% of the Lot Owners, desire to amend Article IX., "City Imposed Conditions, Section 3, Pools" of said Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Tract No. 6528, which amendment shall thereafter be recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, Calif.; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga finds the proposed amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be consistnet with the restrictions imposed by the City for development of Tract No. 6528 and the agreements entered into between the declarant and the City of Saratoga, including that certain settlement agreement dated June 1, 1981, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby consent to the amendment of the covenants, conditions and restrictions for Tract No. 6528 and the recording of the amendment to the declaration in the form of Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1983 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR It BLA.C;KWELL K0, ES O P. O. BOX 817 125 EAST SUNNYOAKS AVENUE O C A M P B E L L. C A I- I F. 95008 PH 37S -5340 August 8, 1983 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, California Re: Pool Approval and Revision of C.C.&Rs, Parcel H, Tract 6528, Parker Ranch Honorable Council Members: Please accept this letter as our formal approval to amend the Parker Ranch C.C. & Rs to allow a swimming pool on sub- ject site. The property owner, Mr. Myers, has placed the pool in the site plan so that it represents no adverse impact, neither visually or otherwise, to the other homeowners in the subdi- vision. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, RKER NC HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION yrus of n ice resident CJS:gv Ji L V. Yi REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8/11/83 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/17/83 SUBJECT: Approval to Amend the Parker Ranch CC & R's to Allow a Pool on Parcel H of Tract #6528, Parker Ranch. Background: The pool site is located on two lots which have been reverted.to a single lot as required by the negotiated settlement with Blackwell Homes. A pool is prohibited on both of the combined lots in the CC & R's for Parker Ranch. On August 10, 1983, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Site Modification Approval for a pool and residence on the subject site. As a Condition of Approval, the Commission required the applicant to submit evidence that the Saratoga City Council and the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association have approved an amendment to the CC & R's to allow a pool, prior to the issuance of building permits. Site Data: Zoning: NHR (subject to the HCRD Ordinance as per the negotiated settlement). Parcel Size: 2.985 Acres Average Site Slope: 31% Slope at Building Site: 23% Surrounding Land Uses: Vacant land subdivided for single family residential Natural Features: There is a scenic easement across the rear of the property with steep. downsloping topography. Project Considerations: Present prohibition of a pool on this site was based in part on the constraints of steep topography and the smaller lot size of the two former parcels. The combined lot now pro - vides more area to reasonably accomodate a pool. The City Geologist has reviewed the pool site and recommended approval. The proposed pool site is located between the house and the nose of a hill and will not be visible from lower elevations. All members of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association have been notified by mail of the proposed amendment to the CC & R's and the time and place of the City Council Meeting. Report to Mayor and City Council Amendment of CC& R's for Tr. 6528 Recommendation: 8/11/83 Page 2 Staff recommends approval to amend the CC & R's for Parker Ranch to. allow a pool on Parcel H of Tract 6528. Robert . Sh k Director of Community Development RSS /11 /dsc Recording Requested By: CITY OF SARATOGA When Recorded Return To: CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 yea AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 3(b) of Article IX of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for that certain tract of real property known as the Parker Ranch, designated as Document No. 6503842 and filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, in Book E805, at pages 326 -344, inclusive, is hereby amended to permit the construction and existence of a pool on Lot H recorded on that Parcel Map filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, on September 1, 1982, in Map Book 504, at page 6, said Lot H having been formerly designated as Lots 6 and 7 on that Subdivision Map filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, on.May 3, 1982, in Map Book 499, at pages 35 -41, inclusive. The undersigned represent not less than seventy -five percent (75 %) of the lot owners in each class of membership of the Parker Ranch Homeowners, Association as defined in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions designated as Document No. 6503842 and filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County in Book E805, at pages 326 -344, inclusive. Dated: Dated: Dated: -1- U -NIBIT A Dated: Dated: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On the day of , 1983, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared (_ ) personally known to me, (_) proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC 5A I C11 "Z OF Si +I:�YIC;Cu� AGE!�,'DA BILL NO._ Initial: Dept. fid.� P-S S DA'L'E:_ August 8, 1983 (August 17, 1983) C. Atty. DE-°t11C`,,TN'r: Community Development C. Mgr. SU&TECT: APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS FOR DIMANTO AND LAUER PROPERTIES Issue SL-- mary 1. LAFCO has forwarded two resolutions approving the annexation of the properties referenced above to the City of Saratoga. 2. Annexation was a condition of subdivision approval (SD -1454, Condi- tion VIII.C) for the DiManto property. 3. In the case of the Lauer property, annexation is required to preserve an existing structure per Condition VIII.F of SDR -1509. This property is subject to General Plan (EPA 83 -2 -A) and zoning amendments (C -203). Recce ndaticn City must also annex portion of Peach Hill Road. Approve the resolutions ordering the annexation of both properties. Fiscal Imoacts Small increase in property tax revenues may be somewhat offset by additional costs of maintaining that portion of Peach Hill Road to be annexed. Overall economic impacts will not be significant. No adverse impact anticipated on existing public services. E: -.h ibits /Attach:rrnts Exhibit "A" - Resolution ordering DiManto annexation Exhibit "B" - Resolution ordering Lauer annexation. Exhibit "C" - Staff report dated 8/8/83 CCLMCil Action 8/17: Fanelli /Callon moved to adopt resoltuion 2083. Passed 5 -0. Fanelli /Callon moved to adopt' resolution 2084. Passed 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDEREING ANNEXATION (UNINHABITED TERRITORY - ALL LANDOWNERS CONSENT) WHEREAS, on May 11, 1983, pursuant to petition and consent by all the owners of the land hereinafter described, which land is uninhabited within the terms and meaning of the Municipal Organi- zation Act of 1978, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County passed and adopted Resolution 83 -24 approving the hereinafter described annexation, a copy of which resolution being attached hereto as an exhibit and incorporated herein by reference, and which resolution designated this City as the conducting author- ity for said annexation proceedings, and authorizes the same to be held without notice and without hearing, and without an election, pursuant to Government Code Section 35221, and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and is uninhabited as determined by the, Commission in its resolution, and is designated as "Saratoga 1983 -1" and is described on Exhibit "A" attached to Resolution 83 -24 attached hereto, and the terms or conditions to which said annexation need be made subject by this City are: 1) The annexation proposal be amended to delete Peach Hill Road; and 2) A revised map and legal description be submitted to the County Surveyor for approval, and this Council is desirous of proceeding with approval of said annexation without the necessity of notice or hearing, and without any election. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby approve and order the annexation of the territory here- inafter described to the City of Saratoga, and does hereby declare that said territory be annexed to said City. The territory, the annexation of which is hereby approved, is all that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached to LAFCO Resolution 83 -24 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of meeting thereof held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK was regularly passed and Saratoga at a regular MAYOR t Cla -Z Or Initial: AG�:DA BILL NO. C! - Dept. Fid. �� �S S DATE: August 8, 1983 (August 17, 1983) C. Atty. DD°lum• =`+T= Community Development C. Mgr. SU•CT: APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS FOR DIMANTO AND LAUER PROPERTIES Issue SL-- mare 1. LAFCO has forwarded two resolutions approving the annexation of the properties referenced above to the City of Saratoga. 2. Annexation was a condition of subdivision approval (SD -1454, Condi- tion VIII.C) for the DiManto property. 3. In the case of the Lauer property, annexation is required to preserve an existing structure per Condition VIII.F of SDR -1509. This property is subject to General Plan (EPA 83 -2 -A) and zoning amendments (C -203). Recc:nr�adaticn City must also annex portion of Peach Hill Road. Approve the resolutions ordering the annexation of both properties. t Fiscal Imcacts Small increase in property tax revenues may be somewhat offset by additional costs of maintaining that portion of Peach Hill Road to be annexed. Overall economic impacts will not be significant. No adverse impact anticipated on existing public services. E:,h i bi is /A ttacrmen is Exhibit "A" - Resolution ordering DiManto annexation Exhibit - "B" - Resolution ordering Lauer annexation Exhibit "C" - Staff report dated 8/8/83 Ccuncil P.0 tion I l sari= M i RESOLUTION NO. 83 -24 31 193 ! RESOLUTION OF LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MAKING DETERMINATIONS -� AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY, DESIGNATED AS:_ gARA ^A 19al -1 RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, that WHEREAS, a petition/- eeol -&6fea for the proposed annexation to thn City of Saratoga in the County of Santa Clara was heretofore filed by landowners and accepted for filing on April 7, 1983 by the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to - TlEle- b-- �i�i�ion - �,- �ornceeut�iaR -with - Section- 5A000�Part 2 of Title 4 Division 2 commencing with Section 35000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 54794, has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report in- cluding his recommendations thereon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Commission that all owners of land included in said proposal consent to said proceeding; and WHEREAS, this Commission on May 11, 1983 ,heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the report of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the Com- mission to be relevant to this proposal, including, but not limited to, factors specified in Government Code Section 54796; and WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the - Envir-o-r- -me- rte- l74ff4> -E- RepeFt� negative declaration, NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Format {on Commission of the County of Santa Clara DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: 78 -10 Section 1. This Commission so certifies it has reviewed and considered the -r rv- i->< oAmental- -Impaet- Repor-t-/rregative declaration. I 1 Section 2. (Insert Environmental Findings) The Commission has determined that thr project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said proposal is approved. Section 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be a n n e x e d , as set forth in the proposal or as amended by condition, are hereby approved as described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said territory is found to be un inhabited, and said territory is assigned the following distinctive short form designation: SARATOGA 1 983 -1 Section 5. Any resolution ordering such ann- xation shall provide that such annexation shall be made subject to the following terms and con- ditions: (a) That the annexation proposal be amended to delete Peach Hill Road; and (b) That a revised mao and legal 3escription be submitted to the county Surveyor for approval. Section 6. The City of Saratoaa is designated as the conducting d -ist-rirt- /authority and the legislative body thereof is hereby directed to initiate annexation proceedings in com- pliance with this resolution. Section 7. Proceedings of the governing board of the conducting distr +ct4 author ity may be held without notice and hearing, without an election, or both, pursuant to Section 56- 3-22- /- 56439T3/352214.3 342 of the Government Code. Section 8. Any election called upon the question of confirming an order for(annexation /detachment) shall be called, -2- 78 -10 Milt-: - . ", I held and conducted upon such question only within the territory ordered to be annexed /detached. (Applies to special district annexations or detachments only.) Section 9. The Executive officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner and as provided in Section -Se"2/35159 of the Government Code. In addition, said Executive officer shall also mail to said conducting distri�� authority a copy of the petition or resolution accompanying said proposal. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission this May 11, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Lofgren, Pavlina, Podgorsek an'! Williams NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Wilson Zt Chairperson, Local Agency rmation Commission ATTEST: 0atal'no S. Cen'ana Deput Clerk of the Board of Supervisors EXHIBIT A ATTACHED CC: City District petitioner 78 -10 -3- "EXHIBIT A" Annexation to City of Saratoga Name of Annexation Saratoga 1983 -1 Date January 19-3 Revised April 1933 All that certain parcel of land situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at a 4" x 4" cost standino in the line between Sections 12 and 13, Township 8 Scjth, Range 2 I•lest, and being distant N 89`30' 1d 1,292.94 feet from the corner to Sections 12 and 13, Township 8 South, Range 2 West; thence from said no- -:t of beninning, along the line between said Sections 12 and 13 beinn on the Saratoga City Limit Line as establ` shed by it's original incorporation S 89 °30' E 602.58 feet to a 3" x 4" stake; thence leaving said Section lines and running S 0 °35' E 533.94 feet to a 2" x 3" stake star.r'.nq in the Northerly line of Lot 31 of Hae No.2 of the rlen Una Ranch, as shown on said rap recorded in Book "P" of Hans, Pages 53 and 54, in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California; thence Easterly along the boundary of said Lot 31, es shown on said map, S 89 °46' E 215.62 feet and S 61 °50' E 72.76 feet to a point in the westerly line of a certain 40 foot right -of -way, now known as Peach Hill Road as described in the deed from H.B. Finch Shav,, et vir, to Hgnh H. Beggs, et ux, dated January 13, 1926 and recorded January 27, 1926 in !look 213 of Official Records, Page 385, Santa Clara County Records; thence leaving said Saratoga City Limit Line as established by it's original incorporation and continuinn alono the lesterly line of said 40 foot right-of-way as described in the Deed from H.B. Finch Shawn, et vir, to Hugh t. Beggs, et ux, S 18 "46' E 58.59 feet and S 47"41' 30" E 43.50 feet: thence leaving said ',!ester'v lire S 42 °18' 30" Y 9.73 feet; thence N 61 '50' W 55.66 feet; thence tanner.t to the last described co-rse westerly along a curve to the left havinn a radius of 100.00 feet, a central angle of 70 "51'40" an arc distance of 123.68 feet; thence S 47 "18'20" 1•' 38.76 feet; thence S 29 °35' 30" E 12.09 feet; thence S 53 °15' 1-1 71.07 feet; thence S 40 '07' 41 82.64 feet; thence S 30 °34' W 130.68 feet. thence S 22 °24' W 87.70 feet; thence S 54 "42'50" 45.93 feet; thence S 8 °48'40" E 47.95 feet to a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 31, said point being S 81 °11'20" V1 191.09 feet from the centerline of said 40 foot right -of -way; thence along the southerly line of said Lot 31, S 81 °11' 20" W 86.98 feet; thence leaving said southerly line of Lot 31 S 63 °01'00" W 163.45 feet; thence N 8 °261n0" 41 52.00 feet to an angle noint on the southerly line of said Lot 31; thence along said Southerly line S 89 °33' b 335.94 feet to a 2" x 3" stake at the southwest corner of said Lot 31; thence along the westerly '.ine of said Lot 31, N 0 °08' W 559.68 feet tn'a 2" x 3" stake scribed 31 and 32 at the Northwest corner of said Lot 31, said point being also the southwest corner of Lot 32 as shown on said '.ac No.2 of the Glen Ilna Ranch; thence along the westerly line of Lot 32 N 0"35' W 539.79 feet more or less to the point of beginning. _..__. rV? n'v ilZlJiviEi ii IJ A OF TKE: Orl':;INAL OF SUPERViSOP,S BY fDe-puty y Clark DATE: /i C'yt RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING ANNEXATION (UNINHABITED TERRITORY - ALL LANDOWNERS CONSENT) WHEREAS, on July 13, 1983, pursuant to petition -.and consent by all the owners of the land hereinafter described, which land is uninhabited within the terms and meaning of the Municipal Organiza- tion Act of 1978, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County passed and adopted Resolution 83 -38 approving the hereinafter described annexation, a copy of which resolution being attached hereto as an exhibit and incorporated herein by reference, and which resolution designates this City as the conducting authority for said annexation proceedings, and authorizes the same to be held without notice and without hearing, and without an election, pursuant to Government Code Section 35221, and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and is uninhabited as determined by the Commission in its resolution, and is designated as "Peach Hill Project" and is described on Exhibit "A" attached to Resolution 83 -38 attached hereto, and there are no terms or conditions to which said annexation need be made subject by this City except that the annexation proposal shall be amended to include all of Peach Hill Road and a revised map and legal description is submitted, and this Council is desirous of proceeding with approval of said annexation without the necessity of notice or hearing, and without any election. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby approve and order the annexation of the territory hereinafter described to the City of Saratoga, and does hereby declare that said territory to be annexed to said City. The territory, the annexation of which is hereby approved, is all that certain real property sit- uated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, more parti- cularly described in Exhibit "A" attached to LAFCO Resolution 83 -38 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1983 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR MAD 100 JUL 211983. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -38 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY, DESIGNATED AS: PEACH RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, that WHEREAS, a petition XY44i{ for the proposed Annexation to the City of Saratoga. in the County of Santa Clara was heretofore filed by landowners and accepted for filing on May 26, 1983 by the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to;�i�+"^�'� )PZ4R;Xy>1S9Q?9`1•Part 2 of Title 4, Division 2, commencinq with Section 35000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 54794, has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including the Executive Officer's recommendations thereon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Commission that all owners of lend included in said proposal consent to said proceeding; and WHEREAS, this Commission on July 13, 1983 , heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the report of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the Commission to be relevant to this proposal, Including, but not limited to, factors specified in Government Code Section 54796; and WHEREAS, In accordance with Government Code Section 54774.3 this commission makes the following findings: 1. A portion of the County of Santa Clare's agricultural preserve)Wis not within the area which could be considered the sphere of influence of s public agency affected by this proposal. 78 -10a 2. This proposal (mark /complete appropriate box): ® will not result in conversion of prime agricultural land to non- •grlcultural usa; will result In conversion of prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use ' ! ing written findings to explain and the Commission therefore makes the follow the reasons for its determination herein: WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the)EbXakGI(?f*XW _ &'t, YX pVO` tVr*gative declaration, NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Santa Clara DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: Section 1. This Commission so certifies it has reviewed and considered the /negative declaration. Section 2. (Insert Environmental Findings. "The Commission has determined that the project will not have a signifi- cant effect on the environment ". Section 3. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said proposal Is approved. Section 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexes'._ as set forth in the proposal or as amended by condition, are hereby approved as described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said territory is found to be _inhabited, and said territory is assigned the following distinctive short form designation: PE`CH HILL PROJECT Section 5. Any resolution ordering such annexation shall provide that such annexation shall be made subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) Approved amending the proposal to include all of peach Hill Road and subject to submission of revised map and legal description. (b) Section 6. The City of sdratoga designated as the conducting 1fDtYMbI /authority and the legislative body thereof is hereby directed to Initiate annexation proceedings In compliance with this resolution. Section 7. Proceedings of the governing board of the conducting MUMWouthority may be held without notice and hearing, without an election, or both, pursuant to Section SH32Z(!5 35221 /35312 of the Government Code. Section B. Any election called upon the question of confirming an order for (annexation /detachment) shall be called, held and conducted upon such question only within the territory ordered to be annexed /detached. (Applies to special district annexations or detachments only). Section 9. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner and as provided In Section �M /35159 of the Government Code. In addition, said Executive Officer shall also mail to said conducting 49kR 4 /authority a copy of the petition or resolution accompanying said proposal. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission this July 13, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Wilson, Podgorsek, Williams, Pavlina, and Lofgren NOES: Commissioners NONE ABSENT: Commissioners NONE ATTEST: Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors EXHIBIT A ATTACHED cc: City District Petitioner an J Chairperson, Local Agency Formation Commission k C' 1'r � tiF�:ti�. INC, 1topJACK N. CHRISTENSON, CIVIL ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Of PARCEL TO BE ANNnXk;D TO THE CITY Of SARATOGA Beginning at a 4" : 4" post standing at the common corner for Sec- tion 12 and 13 in Township 8, South, Range 2 West M.D.B. and N., and Sections 7 and 18 in Township 8, South Range 1 West, M.D.B. and 1;., said point of beginning being also on the centerline of Sunset Drive (40 fetride) at its westerly terminus. being also on the southerly boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence alone the boundary line of the Lands of Peach dill Development, being also the .centerline of Sunset Drive Be 89° 38' E. 73.72 feet to the northeasterly corner of said Lands of Peach Hill Development; thence along; the easterjy line of said Lands of Peach, Hill Develop- ment the following courses: S-'080 30' E. 211.86 feet, S. 040 481 W. 95.70 feet, S. 650 35' We 297.40 feet. S- 88° 32' W. 155.17 foot and S- 340 48' W. 116.35 feet to a Point on the centerline of Peach Hill Road, being also the boundary line of the City of Sara- toga; thence along the centerline of Peach Hill Road, the City of Saratoga boundary and the boundary line of the Lands of Peach Hill Development the following courses: N. 080 13' `- 150.02 feet,. N- 150 32' E. 173.98 feet, H. 310 00' W- 93.00 foot, F. 340 53' We 66.00 feet and N. 090 28' we 79.60 feet to an angle point on the boundary line of the City of Saratoga; thence departing the center- line of Peach Hill Road and running along the boundary line of the City of Saratoga S. 89° 04' 40" E, 469.52 feet to the paint of be- ginning. ' Lying entirely within the Lands of Peach Hill Development and con- taining 4.88± acres. THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL A?TEST: DONALD M. RAINS CLERK, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BY eputy Clerk DATE: -7%/s/r-3 C. B. ENGINEERING, INC. 21 HARRISON AVENUE SUITE 210 CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 378 -4345 SARAT00--, c li 14 i4 / P. i 3 C r V ., 6 1 C4 70 z co 1 14 rd 6 �` -• it ,- ! Rot);r. Mor - --------- 4 A. PEACH HILL PROJECT ..... ... .. \` h .. .......... ....... ....... 011 ot SARATOGA �' 77 4 3 4 CD o • 4 aftk� 4 A 4 41, PEA HILLPROJEF. T--* ITEM, N o.. I % 416 memorandum TO FROM City Clerk of Saratoga LAFCO Secretary DATE SUBJECT Jul 19, 1983 PEACH HILL PROJECT y Resolution No. 83 -38 Please replace page 3 with the attached. Thank you: R,o Not a • 963074 © 26 R,r 11/69 Q�C���Mf�D J U L 2 5 1983 .I memorandum TO FROM City Clerk of Saratoga LAFCO Secretary DATE SUBJECT Jul 19, 1983 PEACH HILL PROJECT y Resolution No. 83 -38 Please replace page 3 with the attached. Thank you: R,o Not a • 963074 © 26 R,r 11/69 Q�C���Mf�D J U L 2 5 1983 1 shall be made subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) Approved amending the proposal to include all of Reach Hill Road and subject to submission of revised map and legal description. (b) Section 6. The City of Saratoga designated as the conducting 11%x[EQ /authority and the legislative body thereof is hereby directed to initiate annexation proceedings In compliance with this resolution. Section 7. Proceedings of the governing board of the conducting )BUUQWauthority may be held without notice and hearing, without an election, or both, pursuant to Section Sa3eZ06039)5(35221 /35312 of the Government Code. Section 8. Any election called upon the question of confirming an order for (annexation /detachment) shall be called, held and conducted upon such question only within the territory ordered to be annexed /detached. (Applies to special district annexations or detachments only). Section 9. The Executive Officer Is hereby authorized and directed to mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner and as provided In Section B2 /35159 of the Government Code. In addition, said Executive Officer shall also mail to said conducting epWrM /authority e copy of the petition or resolution accompanying said proposal. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission this July 13, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Wilson, Podgorsek, Williams, Pavlina, and Lofgren NOES: Commissioners NONE ABSENT: Commissioners NONE ATTEST: Deputy erk of the Board of Supervisors EXI QB1T A ATTACHED cc: City District Petitioner oft-. Chairperson, Local Agency Formation Commission of SAR�q U; ti4- � =�' " CITY of = � ' ATOGA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8/9/83 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/17/83 SUBJECT: Annexations of Di Manto and Lauer Properties Staff has received copies,,of Resolution No. 83 -24 (Di Manto - "Saratoga 1983 -1 ") and Resolution No. 83 -38 (Lauer - "Peach Hill Project ") from the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Santa Clara. Both resolutions approve the annexation of the properties listed above to the City of Saratoga as peti.tioned,(with some-modificat oIns) by the property owners. Both sites are contiguous with the City's southern boundary near, or adjacent to,._ Peach Hill Road. Di Manto The Di Manto annexation involves about 16 acres just west of three lots in Saratoga along Peach Hill Road. The annexation of this property was a condition (VIII.C.) of tentative subdivision approval SD -1454. The five lot subdivision approved by the Planning Commission under SD -1454 includes this County land as well as 7.47 acres of land in the City. The General Plan (GPA 83 -1 -B) and Zoning (C -200) designations of these properties have been amended to avoid split General Plan /Zoning on one of the proposed lots to allow the applicant to proceed with the processing of a final subdivison map. The annexation would not increase the number of building sites approved under the subdivision. As with the General Plan and Zoning amendments already granted to the applicant, the annexation is one more step to be accomplished - before the project can receive final map approval. Lauer The Lauer annexation involves about 4.88 acres adjacent to the eastern side of Peach Hill Road and contigious with the City's southern boundary. This annexation was also triggered by a tentative subdivision approval condition. Condition VIII. F. of the three lot subdivision approved under SDR -1509 required annexation of the subject property or the removal of an existing residence that straddles the City /County boundary. The applicant has also applied for General Plan (GPA 83 -2 -A) and zoning (C -203) changes to allow a lot line adjustment which would place the existing dwelling on one lot. " Report to the Mayor and City Council 8/9/83 Annexation of Di Manto and Lauer Properties Page 2 These steps in conjunction with the proposed annexation would allow the preservation of this dwelling unit but would not allow an increase in the number of building- sites beyond the three approved under SDR -1509. Any new development on the lands annexed will be under the jurisdiction of the City if this annexation is approved. Fiscal Impacts The proposed annexations are not expected to have an adverse effect on existing urban services or the City's ability to provide them. About 325' lineal feet of Peach Hill Road will be annexed to the City with the proposed Lauer Peach Hill Project. When the annexation is completed the City will be responsible for the maintenance of this portion of Peach Hill Road. It is not known to what extent the increased property taxes from the annexed property will pay for Peach Hill Road maintenance. RECOMMENDATION Adopti the resolutions ordering annexation of the subject properties. APPROVED 4W, Vtt- q 7 S MF /b j c C.C. Agenda 8/17/83 Michael Flor s Assistant Planner r1=D:1 BILL NO. 4t? Ll Initial: \ Dept fki DATE: Auaus t 17 1983 C. AttyC D�AP7I':1TwT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C. Mgr._ SU37iCr• FINAL MAP APPROVAL SDR 1514 - S. K. BROWN SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD (ONE LOT) Issue SL--m ry 1. The SDR 1514 is ready for final approval. 2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the city. 3. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. Rec=re.ndaticn Adopt Resolution No. 1514 -02 attached, approving the building site of subject SDR 1514. Authorize execution of Contract for Improvement agreement. _L i Fiscal Impacts None. S:chibits /rltt_,&=stz 1. Resolution No. 1514 -02 2. Copy of tentative map 3. Status report for building site approval 4. Location map - 5. Report to Planning Commission Ccu_ncil �,_ction 8/17: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. 1514-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF S. K. BROWN The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 1.25 acre parcel as shown Lot 1 on the Final Parcel Map, prepared by Kier and Wright, and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of August 1983 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 0 oc AGEIMA BILL NO. DATE: Auaus t 17 1 1983 DZ:2 `1'T' 12'7r: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SliaTrCT• FINAL MAP APPROVAL SDR 1514 -`S. K. BROWN ��------- SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD (ONE LOT) Initial: Dept. W _ C. Atty._ c C. Mgr. Issue SL- -rmary 1. The SDR 1514 is ready for final approval. 2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the city. 3. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. Recc-re^daticn Adopt Resolution No. 1514 -02 attached, approving the building site of subject SDR 1514. Authorize execution of Contract for Improvement agreement. _t Fiscal Im=acts None. E:ch i bi is /A ttach-tr n is 1. Resolution No. 1514 -02 2. Copy of tentative map 3. Status report for building site approval 4. Location map - 5. Report to Planning Commission Cc=..C.1 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1514., Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (have) (ANfP xxxNa C) been met as Listed below are the amounts, items: approved by the Planning Commission on 1 -27 -82 dates and City receipt numbers Offer of Dedication Yes Record of Survey or Parcel Map Yes Storm Drainage Fee' 3,600 Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds $4,000 All Required Inspection Fees $4,860 Building Site Approval Agreement Yes Park and Recreation Fee N/A fitted Date Date Date Date far all required Date Submitted Date Submitted 8 -5 -83 Receipt Submitted 8 -5 -83. Submitted 8 -5 -83 Signed 8 -5 -83 Submitted -- 8 -5 -83 8 -5 -83 # 2990 Receipt# 2990 Receipt# 2990 Receipt# 26,4.4 Receipt# -- It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that ( ) (Final) Building Site Approval for S. K. Brown , SDR- 1514 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for-Non-Compliance x015�drt S. Shook Director of Community Development LOCATION MAP SDR— 1514 n s -� 1 l CITY LIMITS 1 O �(j—j P oSPEGT t ?.D V IUU MENIDA DR VIM ►w] O O V lZ 1 � t H ~ O u e 4, o 1 D M`Aoo��Aa f0 I ' cnDE 4uCLL0 Y W W C z U J J _J Z V O�l FDA CT )RADA CT l T. JOwN Ci. KR 1] ER T Ogg Dfq u �II 1J i! i u DELL u DON 0 R f // \ \ i1—Ju aoGr/f o / A, fq�c 4c /F /c DATE: -7 ` o e o e o� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - *(amended 1/27/82) DATE: 1/20/82 Commission Meeting: 1/27/82 SUBJECT: SDR -1514, S. K. Brown, Saratoga - Sunnyvale, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Office Building) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the placement,of a 26,784 sq. ft. office building on a 1.2 acre site on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in the C -V zoning district. The site has previously received a Variance for height (to 24') and construction of an 8' soundwall and Design Review Approval of the building (reports attached). The site previously received site approval for a racquetball court in May, 1979. This site is being conditioned to conform to the frontage road concept developed earlier by the City for the C -V zoned areas on Saratoga - Sunnyvale near Prospect. 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. A Negative Declaration was approved relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: 10/4/81 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1514 (Exhibit "B" filed December 22, 1981)subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor // i Report to Planning Commfizsion 1/21/82 SDR -1514, S. K. Brown Page Two 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 A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977. �. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval (Currently $2,800 /gross acre). C. Submit "Parcel Map" to City of Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees).. (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide for a 50 ft. Half- Street on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. E. Improve Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section widened from exisitng edge of pavement to provide 42 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2. P. C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (V -24) 3. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. P.C.C.) 4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. F. Dedicate & Improve service road paralleling Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to provide minimum of 25' of unobstructed travel way with adjacent parking as shown on Tentative Map. G. Landscape between Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road..and..Service Road. H. Construct Standard Driveway Approach I. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Storm Sewer. K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. f - Renort to Planning Commiss( r 1/21/82 SDt -1514, S. K. Brown Page 3 0. Obtain encroachment permit from Cal Trans for any work done in the right -of -way. * P. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" and provide bond for payment of tiro rata (250) share of traffic signal at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Seagull. Agreement and bond to run 5 years after completion of all on site public improvements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - INSPECTION SERVICES DIVISION A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Soils 2. Foundation 1 B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities; include elevations of adjacent lots). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). (drainage shown on plan specifically not approved at this time.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher (including sound wall). 4. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. D. Drainage system to be approved by City prior to issuance of building permits. E. Finished pavement, floor, and building elevations subject to City Approval prior to issuance of building permits. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District per:letter dated 12/30/81. B. No improvements are to be constructed at the northerly property line that would block access to the Cupertino Sanitary District easement on the property line per Cupertino Sanitary District's letter dated 4/19/79. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. Existing water system to be extended to site. B. Developer to install one (1) hydrant to meet Central Fire Protection District's specifications at the north property line. C. All fire hydrants shall be installed & accepted prior to construction of any buildings. C f e Report to Planning CL.-;sion - 1/21/82 SDR -1514 Page Four D. The building(s) will require installation of an approved automatic fire extinguishing system. 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 Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, and 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. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A.. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any Existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. B. Dedicate 10' landscape easement (in addition to 8' landscape easement for walkway) along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to City (to be included in CC &R's amended only with City permission and enforceable by the City of Saratoga) '(This 18' is included in area labelled Future Right -of -way.) C. Enter into Landscape Maintenance Agreement with City for landscape easement and all public landscaped areas. D. Staff Design Review Approval required prior to Final Site Approval for the access roadways, walkway and landscaping. Agenda Date: 1/27/82 Approved: KK:It Kathy'Kerd Associate Planner *as amended at Planning Commission meeting 1/27/82. t' i=DA BILL NO. 4 c Initial: Dept. FJd. DATE: August 17, 1983 C. Att( D�Ai7PwT: Community Development <` __ C. Mgr. FINAL MAP APPROVAL SDR 15 SUa7`CI'. PASEO PRESADA (2 LOTS) 38, QUITO VILLAGE OFFICE Issue SL°msry 1. The SDR 1538 is ready for final approval. 2. All improvements were completed under SDR 1472. 3. Requirements of the City Departments and other agencies have been met. Re-c -, a daticn Adopt Resolution No. 1538 -02 attached, approving the building site of subject SDR 1538. i Fiscal Imzacts None. hibits /Att-ch: rsts 1. Resolution No. 1538 -02 2. Copy of tentative map 3. Status report for building site approval 4. Location map... 5. Report. to Planning Commission Ccuncil 8/17: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0. N J RESOLUTION NO. 1538 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF OUITO VILLAGE OFFICES The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 1.243 acre and 0.65 acre parcels as shown Parcel A and B on the Parcel Map; prepared by Jenning McDermott Heiss, Inc. and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of August 1983 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR rlG�D1 BILL NO. 4 Cj Initial: Dept. W_ DATE: August 17, 1983 C. At . D� ritZT:�T: Community Development C. Mgr. S FINAL MAP APPROVAL, SDR 1538, QUITO VILLAGE OFFICE lia7rCi : PASEO PRESADA (2 LOTS) Issue St_ary 1. The SDR 1538 is ready for final approval. 2. All improvements were completed under SDR 1472. 3. Requirements of the City Departments and other agencies have been met. Recc injandaticn Adopt Resolution No. 1538 -02 attached, approving the building site of subject SDR 1538. Fiscal Br=acts None. ^:<h i bi is /A ttcch=_n is 1. Resolution No. 1538 -02 2. Copy of tentative map 3. Status report for building site approval 4. Location map-.: 5 . Report to Planning Commission 0 MEMORANDUM If CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1538 , Paseo Pr.esada (have) (tax) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 5 -20 -83 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers fo-r all required items: Offer of Dedication N/A Record of Survey or Parcel Map Yes Storm Drainage Fee N /p, Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds $500.00 All Required Inspection Fees $100.00 Building Site Approval Agreement -- Park and Recreation Fee -_ Ltted Date Date Date Date Date Submitted Date Submitted N/A Receipt Submitted 8 -5 -83 Submitted 8 -5 -83 Signed -- Submitted -- _ N/A 8 -5 -83 Receipt# 2998 Receipt# 2998 Receipt# It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that ( cbdnnacic) (Final) Building Site Approval for Quito Saratoga' Center , SDR -1538 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for'Non- Compliance Robert 5. Shook Director of Community Development LOCA710N MAP SD R I r'38 OHO VIFM I I 11FE; M010.1 1 R. Nam REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT "A" * Revised: 5/25/83 DATE: 5/20/83 Commission Meeting: 5/25/83 SUBJECT: SDR -1538 - Quito Village Office Center, 12947 Paseo Presada Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 lots REQUEST: Applicant requests Tentative Building Site Approval in order to split an existing lot into two, to allow different ownership of the two buildings on the site - one already constructed and one proposed. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: Parcel A - + 1.25 Acres ZONING: C -N Parcel B - + .65 Acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Nursery School, Shopping Center, Residential, School SITE SLOPE: 1.7% PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: The site received tentative and final building site approval to construct two buildings on one lot (SDR- 1472). One office building has been built. The second building received design review approval on appeal from the City Council in January, 1983, for a 2- story, 13,270 sq. ft. office structure (A -840). Both buildings have now been designated as business - administrative office which require parking at 1 space /400 sq. ft. A total of 90 spaces is required or 57 for Parcel A and 33 for Parcel B. By this proposal, the applicant proposes 70 spaces on Parcel A and 33 spaces on Parcel B: Given the removal of the second access onto Cox Ave. by the City Council, with the Design Review appeal, the proposed Parcel B will have no access to Cox Ave. Staff is conditioning the site for a Joint Access and Parking Agreement for the two parcels to be created. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. 0*" C ­qt- Report to Planning Commissr C.. ion 5 /20/83 SDR -1538, Quito Village Office Center, Paseo Presada :.Page 2 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 Categorical Exemption (Class 15) was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: 4/22/83 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1538 (Exhibit "B -1 ") filed May 19, 1983 subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply.with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at.the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and require- ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site.approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit '.'Parcel Map ".to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). C. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. D. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway removal. E. Remove existing driveway approach at westerly end of Parcel B. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional. 1) Soils 2) Foundation B. 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) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, locations map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. Report to Planning Commission 5/20/83 SDR -1538, Quito Village Office Center, Paseo Presada Page 3 IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated May 5, 1983. V. 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 t -he 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. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Mutual access and parking agreement for Parcels A & B to be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney. B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commision Approval. C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and esta- blished within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements. * D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for maintenance of landscaping and signs for those areas within the public right- of- way.and in landscape easement. E. Dedicate irregular landscape easement along Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada. Extent of easement shall be approved by the Permit Review Division. F. Comply with Public Works memorandum dated 11/18/80 and Mitigation Measures for SDR -1472, Exhibit "C ". * G. All conditions as set forth in SDR -1472 remain in full force and effect. Approved: Kathy Kerd Planner KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 5/25/83 'G =Z 1 BILL NO. Initial: Dept. W. DATE: A 11 "U s t 17, 1921 2 C. Atty. D� �17I': 1Tu'vT: ------------------ - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- C. Mgr- - SUa7 --ar.- CONDITIONAL FINAL MAP APPROVAL, TRACT 7382 ` TEN ACRES (FIVE LOTS) Issue SL --rmary 1. The Tract 7382 is ready for conditional final approval. 2. Fees and agreement have been submitted to the City. 3. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies except Sanitation District IV.have been met. Recc:rmendaticn Adopt Resolution No. 1507 -02 attached, approving Conditional. Final Map of Tract 7382 and authorize execution for Improvement Agreement. 1 i Fiscal Im=acts None. Etch i bi is /A ttach:rr_n is 1. Resolution No. 1507 -02 2. Copy of tentative map 3. Locational map 4. Report to PI•anning Commission Ccunci l . " -cticn 8/17: Amended to final approval rather than conditional; approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. 157 -02 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 7382 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 7382 Ten Acres having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: s'ttt - ±mprovements-. _2r_Clear- ante - Better- fxom- S-andtation- DistriC_t IV. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the -1- oft: } estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60 as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate a.s shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of , 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: t t° CITY CLERK MAYOR W 2 W Q W J a 3 I'l MAI+C '4 N LOCATION MAP -"RAC T 7 3 8Z 70) Rb [=;r 11PI, I- uMW O 10m 7I I jel U (" C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Saratoga AFrPRC'%fED BY: DATE _2— ffGArl T. 5/12/82 DATE: 3/29/82 Commission Meeting: 4/14/82 SusJECTI SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth, Ten Acres Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots REQUEST: Grant of Tentative Subdivision Approval for 5 lots. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration PUBLIC NOTICING: Noticed in the Saratoga News, posted and mailings to property owners within 500 ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very low density ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential SITE SIZE: + 6.2 acres SITE SLOPE: 17.6% PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to split a 6.2 acre site into five 5 lots. The site, with an average slope of 17.6 %, is surrounded by existing residences and the lands of Kendall, which have received Final Map Approval for seven (7) lots. A swale runs through the site which will be conditioned for drainage improvements at road crossings with an approval of this application. Access for this site is proposed as follows: 1. Lots 1 and 2 taking direct access from Ten Acres Road. Staff is concerned about the length and grading for the driveway on Lot 2 and would prefer the alternate building site. * The building site & lot configuation have been revised to a lower site per the Planning Commission recommendation of April 17, 1982. Report to Planning Commission C 3/29/82 SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Page 2 2. Lots 3, 4 and 5 taking access from a minimum access road which is less 400 ft. in length from Ten Acres Road. Lot 5 would access from a mini- mum access road that will also service one of the Kendall lots. Lots 3 and 4 would access from a newly proposed minimum access street off of the new cul -de -sac. The allowance of these minimum access streets to connect to a private cul -de -sac does not require an exception from the Subdivision Ordinance since the cul -de -sac is a private street. Central Fire District has been active in reviewing the proposed access and is now recommending your approval of the project as shown. None of the other responsible agencies have expressed any major concerns -. The City Geologist's comments are attached. 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 will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: 3/17/82. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1507 (Exhibit "B -5', filed May 5, 1982) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS: Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvements plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay re- quired Checking & Recordation Fees). Report to Planning Commission 3/29/82 SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Page 3 C. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. D. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Ten Acres Rd. to cul -de -sac having 32 ft. radius. Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be surfaced using 22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted. Note: 0The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designated to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. E. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. F. Construct Driveway 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders and turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under drive- way as approved by the City Engineer. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at intersections. I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. .. u V6 JUL.11 Page 4 K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. L. Engineered Improvement Plans - required for: I. Storm Drain Construction 2. Access Road Construction M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. * N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval and a 2 year Maintenance Agreement or any resulting corrective work. 0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. * P. Repair of failed areas within street (Ten Acres) fronting property. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. 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 included titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. B. Other Requirements: I. Comply with recommendations of City Geologist's letter dated March 10, 1982. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION 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 March 9, 1982 V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. Construct turnarounds at the proposed dwelling sites having a 32 foot inside radius where any portion of the exterior walls of build- ing(s) are more than 150 ft. from the public road (Lots 1, 2 & 5). Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on the building plans. Report to Planning C( _ ssion 3/29/82 SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Page 5 B. Developer to install one (1) hydrant(s) that meet Central Fire District's specifications. 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 insalled 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. C. Existing abandoned swimming pool to be destroyed so as to prevent water retention capability. D. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards. A $400.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work. E. Seal well in accordance with County standards. A bond in the amount of $300.00 to be posted to insure completion of work. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. 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 opportuni- ties on /in the subdivision /building site. *ID. Lot 1 - Ridge of roof to be no more than 24' above natural grade. IX. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT * A. Provide 15 ft. wide pedestrian /equestrian easement on the southern side of Ten Acres Road (extending from the eastern boundary of the driveway adjacent to Lot 2 to the western boundary of Lot 1). Easement to be separate from road easement and pavement, unpaved, graded so as to be comparatively level from side to side, unob- structed except for existing trees, and may not contain any ex- posed drainage area. P.E.E. to be recorded on Final Map so as to be clear to buyers. Planning knission Report to la ng SDR -1507, Lawrence Groteguth Approved: KatMy Ke us Associate Planner KK /dsc P.C. Agenda: 4/14/82 3/29/82 Page 6 r CITY OF SARATOGA AC=A BILL NO. 'S 0 Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: Auqust 17, 1983 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr. (::�� SUBJECT: Weed Abatement Issue Sutrmary Under State and local laws, the County and the cities routinely "abate" seasonal fire-hazard of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and-nine of the cities including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Building Official. In many cases, property owners find it more convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through the procedure of a property tax lien. This past year, the County Building Official had weed abatement performed on 88 parcels in Saratoga at a total cost of $21,841.09. Tax liens and assessments upon the owners of these 88 parcels range from a high of $1,383.54 to a low of $8:02. The average assessment is $248.19. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a Resolution confirming the assessments and direct- ing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Recommendation 1) Conduct Public Hearing to consider any protests. 2) Close Public Hearing and adopt Resolution Fiscal Impacts None upon City if the assessments are levied. City may be liable for work per- formed by contractor for any assessments not levied. E- hibiis /Attachments 1) Resolution for adoption with attached list of 1983 assessments. 2) Report from City Manager. Council Action 8/17: CallonlMoyles moved to adopt resolution 2086. Passed 5 -0. I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on August 17, L'983, the Building Official of Santa Clara County submitted a report to this City Council consisting of all unpaid bills for weed dbatement. expenses and a proposed assessment list, and the parcels against which said expenses including applicable administrative and collection costs to be assessed, all pur- suant to Article II, Chapter 6 of the Saratoga City Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council having heard said report, and all objec- tions thereto, and the Council finding that no modifications need be made to any of said assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE JT RESOLVED'THAT: The 1983 Weed Abatement Assessments Report, City of Saratoga, pre- pared by the Building Official of Santa Clara County, which report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, be and hereby is confirmed. Each of said parcels as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to have a lien against it in the amount set opposite said parcel number in the last column thereof; and the Santa Clara County Auditor is hereby directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as general Municipal property taxes are collected. A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County Auditor. The above duced and passed Saratoga held on following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro - at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of the day of , 1983, by the MAYOR AP CITY OF SjVZNIC GA AC =.A BILL NO. 'S O Initial: , Dept. Hd. DATE: Auqust 17, 1983 C. Atty. DEP nlENT: City Manager C. M 9 r.(7 , SUBJECT: Weed Abatement Issue SL=ary Under State and local laws, the County and-the cities routinely "abate" seasonal fire-hazard of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and-nine of the cities including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Building Official. In many cases, property owners find it more convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through the procedure of a property tax lien. This past year, the County Building.Official had weed abatement performed on 88 parcels in Saratoga at a total cost of $21,841.09. Tax liens and assessments upon the owners of these 88 parcels range from a high of $1,383.54 to a low of $8.02. The average assessment is $248.19. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a Resolution confirming the assessments and direct- ing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Recommendation 1) Conduct Public Hearing to consider any protests. 2) Close Public Hearing and adopt Resolution Fiscal ImDacts None upon City if the assessments are levied. City may be liable for work per- formed by contractor for any assessments not levied. Exhibits /Attachments 1) Resolution for adoption with attached list of 1983 assessments. 2) Report from City Manager. Council Action CITY SARATOGA APN 366 -12 -031 366 -12 -068 366 -13 -007 366 -20 -032 366 -22 -022 386 -14 -003 386 -14 -024 386 -14 -025 386 -23 -039 386 -30 -034 391 -02 -032 391 -03 -277 391 -03 -282 391 -06 -143 391 -06 -144 391 -21 -016 391 -55 -016 391 -55 -017 391 -55 -019 391 -56 -049 -2,6 Exhibit "A" 1983 WEID ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS Resolution.No. — 1 P.I.CODE 8_45 AMOUNT 8 1002.38 1314.24 179.24 189.34 280.38 140.34 85.48 269.70 48.12 151.48 76.72 133.12 522.08 37.44 46.78 108.60 170.28 128.60 53.96 843.12 7b% ,_5 6 IL . I 1983 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS CITY SARATOGA APN 397 -01 -012 397-01 -019 397 -01 -053 397 -01 -054 397 -01 -055 397- o1 -o64 397 -02 -109 397 -04 -023 397- o4 -o82 397 -o4 -083 397 -05 -039 397- 05 -o68 397 -o6 -022 397- 07 -o86 397 -07 -092 397 -07 -094 397-07 -095 397- 07 -o96 397 -13 -050 397 -13 -053 AMOUNT- S 134.90 245.50 175.86 163.88 143.64 291.72 77.14 441.48 30.48 21.78 171.60 138.6o 566.66 99.30 318.50 367.58 226.82 211.72 3o.o8 8.02 P.I.CODE 845 2 1983 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS CITY SARATOGA APN 397 -13 -056 397- 15 -o14 397 -16 -117 397 -24 -022 397- 25 -o64 397 -25 -097 397 -37 -018 397 -37 -019 397 -37 -020 503 -09 -005 503 -09 -007 503 -14 -032 503 -15 -027 503 -15 -031 503 -15 -035 503 -16 -031 503- 17 -oo8 503 -17 -026 503- 18 -o7o 503 -19 -067 -7o s AMOUNT- 34.76 46.78 171.60 148.3o 183.78 138.34 25.14 160.02 285.76 106.44 70.96 156.74 638.56 81.20 1oo.84 201.96 286.12 319.28 302.94 232.04 P.I.CODE 845 1983 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMMTS CITY SARATOGA P.I.CODE 845 APN AMOUNT 503- 24 -oo4 $ 138.44 503 -24 -039 142.80 503- 24 -o42 176.56 503- 27 -o81 185.20 503 -28 -124 141.90 503 -29 -012 370.26 503 -29 -078 201.96 503 -30 -002 155.40 503 -30 -010 1o6.44 503 -30 -030 66.18 503 -31 -002 212.86 503 -31 -052 1383.54 503 -51 -003. 425.70 503 -55 -053' 165.12 503 -55 -063 101.26 503 -62 -014- 984.10 503 -62 -015 709.50 503 -62 -016 649.14 503 -62 -019 212.86 503 -62 -020 212.86 4 1983 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSM&TS CITY SARATOGA APN AMOUNT 510 -52 -005 8 248.74 517 -12 -032 244.30 517 -22 -037 83.54 517 -22 =101 153.46 517 -22 -103 153.46 366 -12 -069 494.16 366 -20-033 134.90 386 - 44-040 248.34 0 �C) J 5 P.I.CODE 845 �1E1'IOO R�NDt1�I TO: City Council FROM: City Manager 0977 oa 0&TM&'X00& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 SUBJECT: Weed Abatement Proceedings DATE: August 11, 1983 BACKGROUND In northern California, annual weed abatement is an important element of fire prevention and safety. During summer months, the grass and weed growth stimulated by winter rains provides huge quantities of fuel for grassland fires. If left unchecked, this condition presents a real threat to residential areas both in hillside and flat land areas. The weed abatement program consists of identifying properties in the spring upon which weed growth would present a fire hazard in the summer. The property owner is notified and given the opportunity to knock down or remove the weed growth in certain patterns so as to lessen the danger. If the property owner does not respond within a certain time, the local government declares the property to be a hazard and orders the work done by outside contractors. The cost of the work for each property is If the owner does not pay within a specif a tax lien upon the property, collectible bill. In this manner, over the past many northern California especially, have been grassland and hillside fires. then assessed.upon the owner. ied time, the assessment becomes as part of the property tax years residential areas, in kept relatively secure from AUTHORIZATION AND POWER OF CITY TO ABATE WEEDS The authority to perform this work by General Law cities comes from the Weed and Rubbish Abatement Act in the Government Code. This law, setting forth the powers and procedures to be exercised, has been on the books for nearly 100 years. The Saratoga Municipal Code declares all weed growth in the City that presents a fire hazard to be a public nuisance and allows for the abatement of this nuisance according to the State laws (Chapter 6, Article II, SMC). In 1975, the City's Weed Abatement Ordinance was amended (Section 6 -13, SMC) to provide a Summary Abatement LM Weed Abatement Proceedings August 11, 1983 Page two Procedure. In 1977 the Code was amended once again (Section 6 -14) to designate the County Fire Marshal as the City's weed abatement officer, and transfering all authority for enforcement to the County Fire Marshal. That authority now is exercised by the County Building Official. RECOMMENDATION 1. Confirm the 1983 Weed Abatement Report by the County Building Official and adopt the appropriate resolution. 2. If there are complaints or concerns regarding individual assessments for 1983 weed abatement, refer these to the Office of the County Building Official. J. Wayne D r etz ck COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NOTICE OF SEARING ON REPORT AND ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ABATEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 5, 1983, the Building official of the County filed with the City Clerk, City of Saratoga, a report and assessment on abatement of weeds within said City, copies of which are posted on the front door of the City Council Chambers and at the front desk of City Ball. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that on August 17, 1983 at 700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of said City Hall, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, a public hearing will be held on said report of weed abatement assessments for consideration and confirmation and all persons interested, having any objection to said report or list, or to any matter or thing contained therein, may appear at said time and place and be heard. THOMAS SHIN Building Official County of Santa Clara published 8/3 & 8/1Q/83 Saratoga News